Geophysical sensors, excavations and computers reveal millennia of prehistoric land use at Stonehenge
Researchers from the University of Birmingham and Ghent University (Belgium) have discovered hundreds of possible large prehistoric pits – and thousands of smaller ones – at the heart of the Stonehenge landscape, challenging our understanding of land use through time at the most intensively investigated prehistoric site in the world.
A large pit, over 4 metres wide and 2 metres deep dug into chalk bedrock, stands out as the most ancient trace of land use yet discovered at Stonehenge.
Over 10,000 years old, it bears witness to hunter-gatherers roaming the landscape during the early Mesolithic, when Britain was re-inhabited after last Ice Age. This is only one of many new sites and unexpected patterns of prehistoric activity detected at Stonehenge by the Ghent-Birmingham research team.
These results were achieved by combining – uniquely – the first extensive electromagnetic induction survey undertaken in the Stonehenge landscape with evidence from over 60 geoarchaeological boreholes, 20 targeted archaeological excavations, and computer-generated analyses of thousands of subsurface features, such as pits, revealed by the geophysical data.
Philippe De Smedt, Associate Professor at Ghent University said: “Geophysical survey allows us to visualize what’s buried below the surface of entire landscapes. The maps we create offer a high-resolution view of subsurface soil variation that can be targeted with unprecedented precision.
“Using this as a guide to sample the landscape, taking archaeological ‘biopsies’ of subsurface deposits, we were able to add archaeological meaning to the complex variations discovered in the landscape.”
The combination of novel geophysics and ‘traditional’ archaeology has revealed otherwise elusive archaeological evidence around Stonehenge. From 2017, the team carried out excavations to evaluate just how accurate the results of the geophysical survey mapping and interpretation had been.
These samples provided information for developing a model of types of archaeological evidence revealed in the geophysical data, resulting in computer-generated maps of traces of prehistoric activity.
“As archaeologists, we need information on aspects such as chronology and function as a basis for understanding past human behaviour. That puzzle contains pieces that can only be retrieved through excavation.”
A striking result of the project has been the identification of over 400 potential large pits (each over 2.5 metres in diameter), of which six were excavated in the course of the project, ranging in date from the Early Mesolithic (c.8000 BCE) to the Middle Bronze Age (c.1300 BCE).
While each of these sites adds to our knowledge of prehistoric activity in the Stonehenge landscape, the Mesolithic pit stands out as exceptional. The size and shape of the pit suggest it was probably dug as a hunting trap for large game such as aurochs, red deer and wild boar.
Dating to 8200-7800 BCE, it is not only one of the earliest of the very few Mesolithic sites near Stonehenge (predating, for instance, the Blick Mead occupation site 1.5 kms away), it is also the largest known Early Mesolithic pit feature in north-west Europe. 2/5 Mapping of the large pits also shows that they cluster in parts of the landscape that were repeatedly revisited over millennia, notably on the higher ground to the east and west of Stonehenge.
The social contexts of this activity changed radically over time, yet the spatial distribution of these pits suggest similar interests in locales that allowed extensive vistas overlooking the site of Stonehenge.
The implications of this research for rethinking the spatial extents, temporalities and sensory qualities of diverse kinds of prehistoric behaviour beyond the obvious ceremonial monuments, are highly significant for understanding Stonehenge and its landscape setting.
Paul Garwood, Senior Lecturer in Prehistory at the University of Birmingham: “What we’re seeing is not a snapshot of one moment in time. The traces we see in our data span millennia, as indicated by the seven-thousand-year timeframe between the oldest and most recent prehistoric pits we’ve excavated.
“From early Holocene hunter-gatherers to later Bronze Age inhabitants of farms and field systems, the archaeology we’re detecting is the result of complex and ever-changing occupation of the landscape.”
While the Stonehenge landscape is unique, the research methods used are relevant to all archaeological environments. Sensor technologies and computer-based analysis are increasingly important aspects of archaeological research, providing new ways to explore ancient landscapes.
At the same time, they must be integrated at every stage with evidence recovered by excavation to provide us with the rich cultural, environmental, and chronological information that we need to interpret our findings.
As this project shows, these methods can radically change our understanding of ancient landscapes even in a setting as intensively investigated as that at Stonehenge.
Much of the research and excavation for the project was carried out on land owned by the National Trust.
Dr Nick Snashall, Archaeologist for the Stonehenge & Avebury World Heritage Site, said: “By combining new geophysical survey techniques with coring, and pin point excavation, the team has revealed some of the earliest evidence of human activity yet unearthed in the Stonehenge landscape.
“The discovery of the largest known Early Mesolithic pit in north-west Europe shows that this was a special place for hunter-gatherer communities thousands of years before the first stones were erected.”
“We know this rise will be extremely worrying for many people, especially those who are struggling to make ends meet”
Record increase in global gas prices sees energy price cap rise of 54%
Ofgem knows this rise will be extremely worrying for many people
Customers struggling to pay their energy bill should contact their supplier to access the help available
The energy price cap will increase from 1 April for approximately 22 million customers. Those on default tariffs paying by direct debit will see an increase of £693 from £1,277 to £1,971 per year (difference due to rounding). Prepayment customers will see an increase of £708 from £1,309 to £2,017.
The increase is driven by a record rise in global gas prices over the last 6 months, with wholesale prices quadrupling in the last year.
It will affect default tariff customers who haven’t switched to a fixed deal and those who remain with their new supplier after their previous supplier exited the market.
The price cap is updated twice a year and tracks wholesale energy and other costs.
It stops energy companies from making excessive profits, ensuring customers pay no more than a fair price for their energy.
The price cap allows energy companies to pass on all reasonable costs to customers, including increases in the cost of buying gas.
Since the price cap was last updated in August, the current level does not reflect the unprecedented record rise in gas prices which has since taken place.
Under the price cap mechanism, energy companies will be allowed to pass on these higher costs from April when the new level takes effect.
This is because energy companies cannot afford to supply electricity and gas to their customers for less than they have paid for it.
Over the last year, 29 energy companies have exited the market or been put in special administration in the wake of soaring global gas prices, affecting around 4.3 million domestic customers.
Jonathan Brearley, chief executive of Ofgem, said:“We know this rise will be extremely worrying for many people, especially those who are struggling to make ends meet, and Ofgem will ensure energy companies support their customers in any way they can.
“The energy market has faced a huge challenge due to the unprecedented increase in global gas prices, a once in a 30-year event, and Ofgem’s role as energy regulator is to ensure that, under the price cap, energy companies can only charge a fair price based on the true cost of supplying electricity and gas.
“Ofgem is working to stabilise the market and over the longer term to diversify our sources of energy which will help protect customers from similar price shocks in the future.”
Ofgem will tomorrow announce further measures to help the energy market weather future volatility by increasing financial resilience and have the flexibility to respond so that risks are not inappropriately passed on to consumers.
The further measures include enabling Ofgem to update the price cap more frequently than once every 6 months in exceptional circumstances to ensure that it still reflects the true cost of supplying energy.
Help available for customers:
If customers are struggling to pay for energy bills, they should contact their energy supplier as soon as possible. Depending on their circumstances, customers may be eligible for extra help with their energy bills or services, such as debt repayment plans, payment breaks, emergency credit for prepayment metered customers, priority support and schemes like the Winter Fuel Payment or Warm Home Discount rebate.
Breathing Space Scheme: This is a scheme to give households time to receive debt advice and find a solution to sort out their debt problems. Breathing space will last for 60 days as long as applicants remain eligible during which time all creditors who have been included will be informed and must stop any collection or enforcement activity. Once the breathing space ends, creditors will be able to collect the debt in the usual way. Call the National Debtline on Freephone 0808 808 4000 or visit www.nationaldebtline.org
The Citizens Advice consumer service can provide advice on how customers can resolve problems with their energy provider. You can contact Citizens Advice via webchat, or by calling 0808 223 1133. For complex or urgent cases, or if a person is in a vulnerable situation, they may then be referred onto the Extra Help Unit.
2. Ofgem will announce further measures tomorrow including:
Introducing an uplift in the wholesale cost allowance in the price cap: after reviewing the evidence, Ofgem has decided that the existing price cap methodology did not appropriately account for the additional wholesale energy costs energy companies have incurred during the current price cap period following the unprecedented scale of wholesale energy prices and volatility. This adjustment represents less than 10% of the overall price cap increase.
Changing licence conditions to give Ofgem the more flexibility to change the price cap level if needed in between the regular six-monthly cap updates: Ofgem has set ourselves five tests which mean we will only expect to use the power in exceptional circumstances.
Further reforms to the price cap from October: In December we set out three options to make the price cap more robust to high and volatile wholesale energy costs while preserving as far as possible the benefits of the price cap for consumers. The consultation published tomorrow will include all three options, with quarterly updates as our preferred option
Breakdown of costs in the energy price cap
Dual fuel customer paying by direct debit, typical energy use (GB £)
*Network costs: The main driver of this increase is the recovery of Supplier of Last Resort (SoLR) levy costs (£68). A supplier acting as a SoLR can make a claim for any reasonable additional, otherwise unrecoverable, costs they incur. These levy claims are paid to energy companies by the distribution network companies and recovered from consumers via their charges.
5. The charts below show the wholesale prices that are used to determine the wholesale cost allowance within the price cap from spring 2018 ahead of the introduction of the price cap in January 2019.
Wholesale costs make up the majority of a customer’s bill. An efficient supplier will purchase energy for their customers on the wholesale market in advance of when they need to supply that energy.
This purchasing strategy is reflected in how the wholesale allowance is calculated within the price cap. We observe the forward-looking energy contracts that energy companies typically purchase over time and combine these to determine the wholesale cost allowance within the price cap.
We do this twice a year when we update the price cap in August for the winter period (October – March) and in February for the summer period (April – September) based on the price of these forward-looking energy contracts over the previous six months.
The fixed horizontal line shows the average wholesale cost allowance for each 6 month price cap period based on the price of the relevant forward looking energy contracts (the jagged line).
The recent spike in the prices of relevant forward looking energy contracts over the last 6 months can be clearly seen. The scale and pace of wholesale price increases has resulted in a big increase in the wholesale cost allowance for the price cap level for summer 2022.
Wholesale gas price costs in the energy price cap
Pence per therm
Wholesale electricity price costs in the energy price cap
Pounds per megawatt hour
Data sets behind these graphs are proprietary and can be sourced from ICIS.
Chancellor’s statement – Energy Price Cap
Statement, as delivered by Chancellor Rishi Sunak, on 3 February 2022:
Mr Speaker,
The UK’s economic recovery has been quicker and stronger than forecast.
In the depths of the pandemic, our economy was expected to return to its pre-crisis level at the end of 2022.
Instead, it got there in November 2021 – a full year earlier.
Unemployment was expected to peak at nearly 12%.
Instead, it peaked at 5.2% and has now fallen to just over 4% – saving more than 2 million jobs.
And with the fastest growing economy in the G7 this year…
Over 400,000 more people on payrolls than before the pandemic…
And business investment rising…it’s no wonder Mr Speaker, that borrowing is set to fall from £320bn last year …
… the highest ever peacetime level …
… to £46bn by the end of this Parliament.
As we emerge from the depths of the worst recession in 300 years, we should be proud of our economic record.
The economy is stronger because of the plan we put in place; because of the actions we took to protect families and businesses.
And that plan is working.
But for all the progress we are making – the job is not yet done.
Right now, I know the number one issue on people’s minds is the rising cost of living.
It is the independent Bank of England’s role to deliver low and stable inflation – and the Governor will set out their latest judgements at midday today.
And just as the government stood behind the British people through the pandemic…
… so we will help people deal with one of the biggest costs they now face – energy.
The energy regulator, OFGEM, announced this morning that the energy price cap will rise in April to £1,971 – an increase of £693 for the average household. Without government action, this would be incredibly tough for millions of hardworking families. So the government is going to step in to directly help people manage those extra costs.
Mr Speaker,
Before I set out the steps we are taking, let me explain what’s happening to energy prices, and why.
People’s energy bills are rising because it is more expensive for the companies who supply our energy to buy oil, coal, and gas.
Of the £693 increase in the April price cap, around 80% comes from wholesale energy prices.
Over the last year, the price of gas alone has quadrupled.
And because over 85% of homes in Britain are heated with a gas boiler, and around 40% of our electricity comes from gas, this is hitting households hard.
The reasons gas prices are soaring are global.
Across Europe and Asia, a long, cold winter last year depleted gas stores.
Disruption to other energy sources like nuclear and wind left us relying more than usual on gas during the summer months.
Surging demand in the world’s manufacturing centres in Asia…
… at the same time as countries like China are moving away from coal…
… is further increasing demand for gas.
And concerns about a possible Russian incursion into Ukraine are putting further pressure on wholesale gas markets.
And so prices are rising.
Mr Speaker,
The price cap has meant that the impact of soaring gas prices has so far fallen mainly on energy companies.
So much so, that some suppliers who couldn’t afford to meet those extra costs have gone out of business as a result.
It is not sustainable to keep holding the price of energy artificially low.
For me to stand here and pretend we don’t have to adjust to paying higher prices would be wrong and dishonest. But what we can do is take the sting out of a significant price shock for millions of families … by making sure the increase in prices is smaller initially and spread over a longer period.
Mr Speaker,
Without government intervention, the increase in the price cap would leave the average household having to find an extra £693.
The actions I’m announcing today will provide, to the vast majority of households, just over half that amount – £350.
In total, the government is going to help around 28 million households this year.
Taken together, this is a plan to help with the cost of living worth around £9bn.
We’re delivering that support in three different ways.
First, we will spread the worst of the extra costs of this year’s energy price shock over time.
This year, all domestic electricity customers will receive an upfront discount on their bills worth £200.
Energy suppliers will apply the discount on people’s bills from October.
With the government meeting the cost in full.
That discount will be automatically repaid from people’s bills in equal £40 instalments over the next five years.
This is the right way to support people while staying on track with our plans to repair the public finances.
And because we are taking a fiscally responsible approach, we can also provide more help, faster, to those who need it most – the second part of our plan.
We’re going to give people a £150 Council Tax rebate to help with the cost of energy, in April – and this discount won’t need to be repaid.
And I do want to be clear with the House that we are deliberately not just giving support to people on benefits.
Lots of people on middle incomes are struggling right now, too – so I’ve decided to provide the council tax rebate to households in Bands A to D.
This means around 80% of all homes in England will benefit.
And the third part of our plan will provide local authorities with a discretionary fund of nearly £150m…
… to help those lower income households who happen to live in higher Council Tax properties…
… and households in bands A-D who are exempt from Council Tax.
We’re also confirming today that we’ll go ahead with existing plans to expand eligibility for the Warm Home Discount by almost a third…
… so that 3m vulnerable households will now benefit from that scheme.
And that’s not all we’re doing to help vulnerable households.
We’re providing £3bn over this Parliament to help more than half a million lower income homes become more energy efficient, saving them on average £290 per year.
Increasing the National Living Wage to £9.50 an hour in April, a pay rise of over £1,000 for 2 million low paid workers.
And providing an effective tax cut for those on Universal Credit, allowing almost 2 million households to keep an average of £1,000 per year.
The payment through energy suppliers will apply across England, Wales and Scotland.
Energy policy is devolved in Northern Ireland, with a different regulator, and the government does not have the legal powers to intervene.
So we will make sure the Executive is funded to do something similar, with around £150m for Northern Ireland through the Barnett formula next year.
And because the Council Tax system is England only, total Barnett consequentials of around £565m will be provided to the devolved administrations in the usual way.
Mr Speaker,
I know that some in this House have argued for a VAT cut on energy.
However, that policy would disproportionately benefit wealthier households.
There would also be no guarantee that suppliers would pass on the discounts to all customers.
And we should be honest with ourselves: this would become a permanent Government subsidy on everyone’s bills.
A permanent subsidy worth £2.5 billion every year – at a time when we are trying to rebuild the public finances.
Instead, our plan allows us to provide more generous support, faster, to those who need it most, providing 28m households with at least £200, and the vast majority receiving £350.
It is fair, it is targeted, it is proportionate – it is the right way to help people with the spike in energy costs.
Mr Speaker,
Today’s announcements are just one part of the government’s plan to tackle this country’s most pressing economic challenges.
A plan for growth – with record investments in infrastructure, innovation and skills.
A plan to restore the public finances – with debt falling by the end of this Parliament.
A plan to cut waiting lists and back the NHS with £29bn over three years and a permanent new source of funding.
And, with the measures I’ve announced today – a plan to help with the rising cost of energy with £350 more in the pockets of tens of millions of hard working families.
That’s our plan to build a stronger economy – not just today but for the long term.
And I commend it to this House.
Commenting on the energy cap rise, interest rate rise and the Chancellor’s measures to address the cost of living crisis, TUC General Secretary Frances O’Grady said: “The Chancellor’s announcement is hopelessly inadequate. For most families it’s just £7 a week and more than half must be paid back.
“It’s too little, it’s poorly targeted, and it’s stop gap measures instead of fixing the big problems.
“Britain needs a pay rise. The best way to help families is to get wages growing again. But this government has no plan to end pay misery.
“Ministers should be getting urgent help to families that need it most through raising universal credit. And we need a windfall tax on the excessive profits from North Sea gas to cut bills and boost investment in affordable energy.”
Responding to today’s announcements on energy costs and the cost of living, Katie Schmuecker, Deputy Director of Policy and Partnerships for the independent Joseph Rowntree Foundation said: “The Chancellor has offered cold comfort to families in poverty, who are already rationing what they can spend on essentials such as heating and food.
“These families are now expected to find at least half of the eye watering increases in energy bills, when many are already getting into debt to keep their houses warm and food on the table.
“Three quarters of those who can claim the enhanced support are not in poverty. Meanwhile inflation is set to rise at more than double the rate of benefits. This support will not get people through the next few months and it will not protect those most at risk of hardship.
“People in poverty are hit hardest by all these pressures because our social security system is simply not offering adequate support, and until that changes they will continue to be exposed to every economic shock.
“The Chancellor has made his choice, the harder choices will now be coming for those who still can’t afford essentials for themselves and their families.”
University of Birmingham’s Harriet Thomson on the rise of energy price caps: “This news comes at a time when families across Great Britain have already been facing years of rapidly increasing energy prices, as well as chaotic energy market conditions with the collapse of around 20 energy supplies since January 2021 alone.
“Just last month, ONS data found that 2 in 3 adults said their costs of living had gone up in the past month, with 79% of those attributing blame to gas and electricity prices.
“We know from the extensive body of existing evidence on this topic that lower income households will be disproportionately hit by the price cap increase, risking pushing millions more into a situation fuel poverty.
“This will have serious consequences for physical and mental health, social isolation, and educational attainment, with households forced to make difficult everyday decisions over whether to ‘heat or eat’.
“Moreover, these price increases are likely to push more people into using risky and/or polluting alternative energy sources, such as DIY candle heaters that have been linked to house fires, burning scrap wood and other flammable materials, and digging up peat. As well as the obvious risks to human life, these approaches will also exacerbate climate change.
“It’s clear that energy companies are reeling from the potent combination of cash flow reductions due to pandemic-related economic pressures on families who are building up more energy debt, and the global gas crisis.
“But the answer is not to burden households with yet more costs. The energy market is broken and needs radical reform – now is the time for the UK government to show ambition and commitment to the nation by investing in deep retrofits of our old and leaky housing stock, and to rollout decentralised renewable energy systems at scale.”
The Secretary of State for Levelling Up Michael Gove has written to the First Ministers of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland following the publication of the Levelling Up White Paper.
In the letters the Secretary of State for Levelling Up:
calls for the First Ministers of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland to work with the UK government to overcome shared challenges
The Scottish Government is yet to respond.
LEVELLING UP: REACTION
Responding to the publication of the levelling up white paper, TUC General Secretary Frances O’Grady said: “If we don’t level up at work, we won’t level up the country.
“But the government has failed to provide a serious plan to deliver decent well-paid jobs, in the parts of the UK that need them most.
“Insecure work and low pay are rife in modern Britain. And for far too many families hard work no longer pays.
“With the country facing a cost-of-living crisis, working families need action now to improve jobs and boost pay packets – especially after more than a decade of lost pay.
“Ministers should have announced a plan to get real wages rising – starting with a proper pay rise for all our key workers and the introduction of fair pay deals for low-paid industries.
“And they should have delivered the long-awaited employment bill to ban zero hours contracts – as well as new, meaningful investment in skills and good green jobs of the future.
“Without a plan to deliver decent work up and down the country, millions will struggle on, on low wages, and with poor health and prospects.”
Recent polling published by the TUC found the British public’s number one priority for levelling up is more and better jobs.
The TUC polling, conducted by YouGov, reveals that the most popular priority for levelling up, chosen by one in two Britons, is increasing the number and quality of jobs available.
Increasing the number and quality of jobs is popular across the political spectrum. Half (49 per cent) of those who voted Conservative in the 2019 general election picked it as their top priority, along with more than half of Labour voters (56 per cent) and Lib Dem voters (54 per cent).
Matthew Fell, CBI Chief Policy Director, said:“The Levelling Up White Paper is a serious assessment of the regional inequalities which have hamstrung the UK’s economic potential for generations.
“It offers a blueprint for how government can be rewired and an encouraging basis for how the private sector can bring the investment and innovation to start overcoming those deep-rooted challenges, and power long term prosperity for every community, wherever they live.
“The picture it paints of a reinvigorated 2030 UK can inspire public and private sector partners to unite on shared missions for improving health, wealth, growth and opportunity across the country.
“Crucially, it accepts the CBI view that business-driven economic clusters – enabling every region and nation to build its own unique competitiveness proposition – can be a catalyst which brings levelling up ambitions to life.”
University of Birmingham’s John Bryson on the Levelling Up announcement: “The UK has always suffered from uneven development and this is reflected in all measures of well-being – from salaries to place-based differences in mortality rates and morbidity.
“There is no country on this planet that does not suffer from some form of uneven place-based outcomes. The implication is that any attempt to remove place-based uneven outcomes will and must fail. The policy outcome might mean some alteration in the extent or degree of unevenness, but unevenness will continue to persist.
“No political party will be able to develop effective solutions to create a level playing field. Nevertheless, this does not mean that policies should not be designed to support and facilitate some form of more even development. However, the outcome will still be the persistence of uneven outcomes.
“The key to any levelling-up agenda is to accept that every place is different and that there are multiple alternative place-based pathways; London can never become Newcastle and Newcastle can never become London.
“The levelling-up agenda needs to be positioned around a debate that is not based on closing the gap between the richer and poorer part of the country, but instead must be framed around facilitating place-based responsible inclusive prosperity.
“This must be the focus as any policy targeted at economic growth can never be sustainable. The levelling-up policy initiative ultimately must be designed to encourage inclusive carbon-light lifestyles. One implication is that levelling-up might also require some degree of levelling-down.”
Campbell Robb, Nacro chief executive said: “We know tackling poverty and inequality is key to levelling up. For over 50 years Nacro has been embedded in communities helping some of our nation’s most vulnerable people through our housing, education, and justice services.
“We see a huge amount of unmet need in our country. We need radical change to the systems that support people and significant funding to address this need, not just ambitions and slogans.
“Until there is right support, opportunity, and funding in place for everyone to succeed regardless of the circumstances, we cannot truly claim to be levelling up”
Torsten Bell, Chief Executive of the Resolution Foundation, said: “We now know what levelling up is – George Osborne plus New Labour.
“The White Paper is all about combining the devolution of the former Conservative Chancellor, with the bigger and more activist state focused on deprived areas of the last Labour government.
“There is a strong case for both. Whether they can be delivered very much remains to be seen.”
Responding to the publication of Government’s Levelling Up the United Kingdom White Paper, Social Mobility Commission Chair Katharine Birbalsingh and Deputy Chair Alun Francis said:“We welcome the publication of the Levelling Up White Paper, and the fact that it gives a clear framework to address disparities between regions and communities.
“These communities are full of talented individuals and we must do everything we can to empower them to thrive. Each of the missions the paper sets out are hugely important, and it is crucial that checks and balances are in place to ensure that local government bodies, both existing and new, are held to account for their delivery.
“The Commission has been clear that social mobility must be a core objective of levelling up. We are pleased to see that equipping young people with the tools they need to succeed in life is at the heart of this strategy, and that it includes measures that can contribute to social mobility through every stage of a young person’s journey, from early childhood through education, training and employment.
“The missions are aspirational and pose the right questions, but are also hugely ambitious. The test will be in the detail and the implementation – not just boosting skills, but which skills will be taught and how; not just aiming for essential literacy and numeracy, but defining the most effective ways to achieve them.
“Ultimately, levelling up will be judged on how well it creates opportunities in places they did not exist before. A key test will be how we help those with the fewest opportunities find decent work – this is not just about stories of rags-to-riches. More still needs to be done to stimulate the creation of much-needed quality private sector jobs in the most deprived areas.
“As the Social Mobility Commission we stand ready to work with the government to flesh out that detail, advise on the best ways to make these missions a reality, and ensure that levelling up empowers people up and down the country to stand on their own two feet.”
Finally, after months of delays, the levelling up White Paper is out! So was it worth the wait?
Levelling Up White Paper leaves low paid workers behind
As the TUC has argued, you can’t level up without levelling up at work. In-work poverty, driven by the prevalence of low-paid and insecure work, is sky-high in every region and nation of the UK. This reflects the fact that low-paid sectors, such as retail and social care, are major employers in every area of the country (writes TUC’s JANET WILLIAMSON).
And more and better jobs is the public’s top priority for levelling up, with recent polling for the TUC conducted by YouGov finding that increasing the number and quality of jobs is seen as a priority for levelling up by one in two people from right across the political spectrum. Does the White Paper deliver this?
The White Paper sets out 12 missions – or aims – spanning living standards, R&D, transport, digital connectivity, education, skills, health, well-being, pride in place, housing, crime and local leadership. There is not a specific mission on work, but the living standards mission is “By 2030, pay, employment and productivity will have risen in every area of the UK, with each containing a globally competitive city, and the gap between the top performing and other areas closing.”
So, what is the plan for achieving this?
In a nutshell, it is to grow the private sector and improve its ability to create new and better paid jobs. There are five strategies to support this aim, all of which fall under a typical ‘industrial strategy’ umbrella: improving SME’s access to finance; boosting institutional investment, including from the Local Government Pension Scheme (LGPS) and the recently established National Infrastructure Bank; attracting foreign direct investment and using trade policy, in particular freeports, to boost investment; improving the diffusion of technologies and innovation; and supporting and growing the manufacturing sector.
There are some important questions to be answered in relation to some of these strategies; for example, it is vital that the LGPS is invested in the long-term interests of its members, without its funds being diverted towards other purposes. And each deserves proper examination in its own right.
But what they have in common is that all of them aim to create a better distribution of well-paid and highly skilled jobs around the country. This is needed – but what about the jobs that people are already in? There is no plan to address inequality within the labour market and nothing to level up work that is low paid and insecure.
The experience of London shows that the prevalence of high-paid jobs does not automatically lead to rising incomes for the wider community. Indeed, London has the highest rate of in-work poverty in the country, with people in low-paying service sector jobs priced out of housing and local amenities.
To level up, we must tackle low pay and insecurity head on, and focus on those sectors that need it most.
We need to strengthen the floor of employment protection for all workers by raising the minimum wage and tackling zero hours contracts. And the government should lead by example, giving public sector workers a proper pay rise and reversing the devastating cuts that public services have suffered in the last decade. Decent jobs should be a requirement of all government procurement, so that the power of government is used to drive up employment standards.
But we also need to change the way our economy works to hardwire decent work into business models and economic growth. Relying on the private sector to level up without changing how it works will fail. We need corporate governance reform to rebalance corporate priorities and give working people a fair share of the wealth they create. And we need a new skills settlement to give working people access to lifelong learning accounts and a right to retrain.
Levelling up at work means addressing the imbalance of power in the workplace
Working people need stronger rights to organise collectively in unions and bargain with their employer. Collective bargaining promotes higher pay, better training, safer and more flexible workplaces and greater equality – exactly what we need to level up at work. Unions should have access to workplaces to tell people about the benefits of unions, following the New Zealand model.
And to level up we must tackle entrenched low pay and poor conditions within sectors head on, bringing unions and employers together to set sectoral Fair Pay Agreements for low paid sectors, starting with social care.
Creating new and better jobs is important; but this Levelling Up White Paper has left those in low paid, insecure work behind.
A survey led by the University of Birmingham says people from middle and upper-class occupational groups are more likely to hold prejudiced views of Islam than people from working class occupational groups.
The survey, which was carried out in conjunction with YouGov, found that 23.2% of people who come from the social group ABC1 harbour prejudiced views about Islamic beliefs compared with only 18.4% of people questioned from the C2DE group.
However, when asked their views about Muslims, or most other ethnic or religious minority groups, older people, men, working class people and Conservative and Leave voters are consistently more likely to hold prejudiced views.
The survey, presented in a report titled ‘The Dinner Table Prejudice: Islamophobia in Contemporary Britain‘, interviewed a sample of 1667 people between 20th and 21st July 2021 which was weighted by age, gender, social grade, voting record, region and level of education to ensure representativeness.
Weighting was based on the census, Labour Force Survey, Office for National Statistics estimates, and other large-scale data sources.
Other key notable findings in the survey are:
Muslims are the UK’s second ‘least liked’ group, after Gypsy and Irish Travellers: 25.9% of the British public feel negative towards Muslims (with 9.9% feeling ‘very negative’). This compares with 8.5% for Jewish people, 6.4% for black people, and 8.4% for white people. Only Gypsy and Irish Travellers are viewed more negatively by the British public, with 44.6% of people viewing this group negatively.
More than one in four people, and nearly half of Conservative and Leave voters, hold conspiratorial views about Sharia ‘no-go areas’: 26.5% of the British public agree that ‘there are areas in Britain that operate under Sharia law where non-Muslims are not able to enter’. This increases to 43.4% among Conservative voters and Leave voters. In addition, 36.3% of British people, and a majority of Conservative voters (57.3%) and Leave voters (55.5%), also agree that ‘Islam threatens the British way of life’.
Support for prohibiting all Muslim migration to the UK is 4-6% higher for Muslims than it is for other ethnic and religious groups: 18.1% of people support banning all Muslim migration to the UK (9.5% ‘strongly support’). Overall support for prohibiting Christian Migration is 13.1%, Sikh migration is 11.8% and Jewish migration is 12%.
The British public is almost three times more likely to hold prejudiced views of Islam than they are of other religions: 21.1% of British people wrongly believe Islam teaches its followers that the Qur’an must be read ‘totally literally’. The figure for Islam compares with 7.5% for Judaism and the Hebrew Bible, 3.9% for Sikhism and the Guru Granth Sahib, and 4.8% for Christianity and the Bible
British people are more confident in making judgements about Islam than other non-Christian religions but are much more likely to make incorrect assumptions about it: British people acknowledge their ignorance of most non-Christian religions, with a majority stating they are ‘not sure’ how Jewish (50.8%) and Sikh (62.7%) scriptures are taught. In the case of Islam, however, people feel more confident making a judgement, with only 40.7% being unsure. This is despite the fact that people are much more likely to make the incorrect assumption that Islam is ‘totally’ literalistic.
Dr Stephen H. Jones from the University of Birmingham and lead author of the survey says: “Prejudice towards Islam and Muslims stands out in the UK, not only because it is much more widespread than most forms of racism, but also because prejudice toward Islam is more common among those who are wealthier and well-educated.”
The survey also has made specific recommendations to scale back the rise of Islamophobia:
Government and other public figures should publicly acknowledge and address the lack of public criticism that Islamophobic discourses and practices trigger, and how Islamophobia stands out compared with other forms of racism and prejudice.
Civil society organisations and equality bodies concerned with prejudice and discrimination should acknowledge that systemic miseducation about Islam is common in British society and forms an important element of Islamophobia.
Educators should provide clear guidance clarifying when tropes about the Islamic tradition move from acceptable criticism to become harmful.
Civil society organisations should introduce religious literacy as a component part of any large-scale equality and diversity campaign or policy initiative.
The BBC and other broadcasters should maintain their commitments to religion programming, but with renewed emphasis on combatting intolerance.
Commenting on the recommendations Dr Stephen H. Jones says: “No-one is calling for laws regulating criticism of religion, but we have to recognise that the British public has been systematically miseducated about Islamic tradition and take steps to remedy this.”
New research says lack of trust in public sector officials has played a key role in low uptake of COVID-19 vaccinations amongst groups termed “high risk.”
According to research from the Universities of Birmingham and Leeds, vaccine hesitancy was greatest among people from lower socio-economic and/or ethnic minority backgrounds. The researchers recommended that the Government should review public health messaging, with a focus on tailoring health promotion advice to these groups and greater effort in improving trust in public sector and the Government.
The study showed during the period immediately before Britain’s COVID vaccine rollout in December 2020, over 11% of UK adults said they were unwilling to take a COVID vaccine. But this hesitancy wasn’t spread evenly across the population.
It was lowest among white people, with 9% saying they didn’t want a COVID vaccine. In comparison, 50% of Black people said they didn’t want to receive the vaccine, and hesitancy was also high in other non-white groups: 28% of South Asian and 17% of other Asian respondents said they were unwilling to be vaccinated.
Dr Kausik Chaudhuri, Senior Lecturer in Economics, Leeds University Business School and lead author of the study said: “Our study shows that hesitancy is at least partly driven by people feeling disenfranchised by the state or not trusting government personnel.
“When we analysed data from the UK Household Longitudinal Study, we found that participants who agreed or strongly agreed with the statement that “public officials don’t care”, or who felt that they “don’t have a say in what government does”, were least likely to want to get vaccinated.
“It is worth noting that their responses were not based on how the government had been managing the pandemic. Rather, they can be interpreted as a reflection of peoples’ overall faith in public institutions, irrespective of COVID.”
Even though rates of declared vaccine hesitancy have since fallen, the research paper suggests that the general trends have been borne out over the past year across every age group: COVID vaccine uptake has been highest among white people and lowest among Black people, with the difference often a sizable gap of around 20 percentage points.
Among those eligible for the vaccine, the uptake of booster doses has also been low among non-white groups.
The research also showed that:
Clinically-vulnerable respondents were more willing to take a COVID jab.
Self-employed people were less willing to get vaccinated compared to employed people.
Respondents who said that they felt positive about their financial wellbeing were almost three times as likely to be willing to take a vaccine compared to those felt they were just getting by or struggling.
Siddhartha Bandyopadhyay, Professor of Economics from the University of Birmingham and co-author of the study (above) says: “Building trust in the public sector and government are essential to improving uptake amongst groups who are most at risk from COVID.
“Public sector officials along with government need to look at new and innovative ways to engage with citizens as well as be transparent in their communication to refute fake news related to vaccines.
“Similarly, it is imperative that politicians and officials maintain high ethical standards during times of emergency like the pandemic when there is reduced oversight. It hasn’t helped in the UK where we see news of parties being held at Downing Street in the middle of lockdowns along with reports of the government breaking the law in the awarding of PPE contracts which has only lowered public trust in officials.
“During a period when new COVID-19 variants are on the horizon, the focus should be on clear public health messages around vaccination, rather than what is making headlines in this regard.”
A defective gene, normally found in blood cancers, could be treated with drugs already available for cancers with similar gene defects, scientists at Queen’s University Belfast and the University of Birmingham have revealed.
The research team, funded mainly by Cancer Research UK and the Medical Research Council, found that tumours with mutations in the SF3B1 gene respond to PARP inhibitors, a type of drug used to treat cancers which have similar mutations in the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes.
The researchers believe that PARP inhibitors could be used to treat patients with tumours carrying the defective SF3B1 gene. This mutation is most often found in blood cancers, including chronic lymphocytic leukaemia, as well as some rare cancers like uveal melanoma.
Dr Kienan Savage, lead author and Reader at the Patrick G Johnson Centre for Cancer Research at Queen’s, (above) said: “Our findings have clinical implications for the treatment of many cancers.
“We specifically focused on this genetic mutation as it is found in several difficult to treat leukaemias and other cancers, and it affects so many cancer patients. By deepening our understanding of this gene mutation, we have identified new ways of treating these cancers that could improve survival rates.”
PARP inhibitors, which include olaparib and rucaparib, are used to treat some patients with ovarian, breast, prostate and pancreatic cancers – usually patients who have inherited a faulty BRCA1 or BRCA2 gene. Around 1 in 400 people have a faulty BRCA1 or BRCA2 gene.
The research, published today in Cancer Research, a journal of the American Association for Cancer Research, found that the SF3B1 mutation produces similar effects to the faulty BRCA1 gene by damaging DNA, preventing it from being repaired properly, and stopping it from making normal copies of itself. PARP inhibitors target the cell’s DNA repair tools by locking them in place on the DNA. This stops DNA repair, causing the cancer cells to die.
The scientists found that cancer cells with the SF3B1 mutation were sensitive to olaparib, the most common PARP inhibitor, some specific chemotherapies and to radiotherapy. The scientists believe that the SF3B1 mutation disrupts the cell’s ability to make DNA repair proteins, leaving it vulnerable to drugs which target these proteins.
The SF3B1 mutation occurs in up to 30% of blood cancers called myelodysplastic syndromes, where blood cells don’t form properly. They are difficult to treat as they occur predominantly in older patients who may not be considered fit for treatment. The mutation is also common among uveal melanoma or cancers of the eye, which currently have limited treatment options.
Dr Katrina Lappin, from Queen’s and first author of the study, added: “Our research shows that cancers with these specific mutations, may be treated effectively with PARP inhibitor therapy drugs, which are less toxic, better at killing cancer cells with these mutations and can be taken at home in tablet form.This could have huge implications for improving outcomes and quality of life of people with these cancers.”
“This work will pave the way for clinical trials using PARP inhibitors for the treatment of patients with this commonly associated cancer mutation, allowing a more personalised approach to the treatment of these cancers.”
The researchers now want to test PARP inhibitors in clinical trials with patients who have the SF3B1 mutation to see if they can stop their cancer from spreading.
Co-author Professor Grant Stewart, of the University of Birmingham, said: “Our work demonstrates that a molecular understanding of how a specific gene mutation affects a cancer cell’s ability to repair damaged DNA can be exploited clinically to specifically tailor the anti-cancer therapy used to treat an individual’s tumour.
“This will increase the effectiveness of the therapy and hopefully, reduce the chances of re-occurrence.”
Michelle Mitchell, Chief Executive of Cancer Research UK, said: “Our scientists helped to discover the BRCA gene over 25 years ago and since then we’ve led the way in developing PARP inhibitors to treat cancers with BRCA gene faults.
“It’s really exciting to hear about a new mutation, which behaves like the BRCA1 mutation and could in the future be treated in the same way. With PARP inhibitors already widely available, there is huge potential to help people with some of the rarest and most difficult-to-treat cancers known to us.
“Over the past two decades, PARP inhibitors have saved thousands of lives worldwide, and it will be interesting to see if this research in the future could lead to a similar impact for people with rarer cancers.”
The research was funded by the UK Medical Research Council, Cancer Research UK, Blood Cancer UK, Leukaemia and Lymphoma NI and Great Ormond Street Hospital Children’s Charity.
Research shows people with vision impairment lack support to gain quality education and employment
A study just published by the Vision Impairment Centre for Teaching and Research (VICTAR) at the University of Birmingham and Thomas Pocklington Trust (TPT) shows one in five people with vision impairment did not gain quality employment despite earning qualifications in line with the general population.
The study tracked 80 participants from England over a period of 11 years (from age 14 to 25) to improve understanding on why this population is vulnerable to becoming long term NEET (not in education, employment or training).
Many of the young people spoke positively about their experiences in school and achieved average or above average GCSE qualifications. But then faced a range of barriers when entering Further Education, Higher Education and ultimately the employment market.
Rachel Hewett, Birmingham Fellow at the Vision Impairment Centre for Teaching and Research School of Education, University of Birmingham said: “The research identified key challenges once the young people transitioned into Further Education (FE). Many young people found adjustments were not put in place in time and they had a lack of access to specialist support.
“Careers guidance often focused on keeping the young person in education, with limited support for transitioning into employment. This led to some of the participants ‘churning’ in the system.”
Many barriers were observed once the participants moved into Higher Education, such as an inaccessible application process for UCAS and Disabled Students’ Allowance (DSA), and inaccessible virtual learning environments and a failure from institutions to make reasonable adjustments.
This led to some of the cohort withdrawing from their courses, repeating modules or entire academic years, or leaving with a degree classification which they feel did not reflect their ability.
Several of the participants wished to pursue apprenticeships but were unable to identify suitable opportunities or access specialist support to help them consider alternative options.
Tara Chattaway, Head of Education at TPT said: “It is evident that young people with vision impairment are not getting the support at transition periods in their lives. The lack of support, accessibility and inclusion can impact on the quality of education the young person receives and on then on their employment opportunities.
“We are calling on Government to bridge this gap and to ensure that the Skills and Post-16 Education Bill and their response to the impending SEND review truly supports the aspirations and learning needs of vision impaired students.”
At the end of the study 66% of the remaining participants were in some form of employment, 17% remained NEET, including seven young people who by the age of 25 had never experienced paid employment. Of particular concern is the lack of support available to help young people with vision impairment access employment once they become NEET, with several of the young people being actively discouraged by Jobcentre Plus staff to search for employment, in favour of long-term benefits.
The research did identify factors that drive positive outcomes for young people with vision impairment. They include:
Self-advocacy skills and a good understanding of their vision impairment and the adjustments they require.
A well developed and broad range of skills for accessing information.
Mobility and orientation skills, including skills for getting around in unfamiliar environments.
Tara added: “At TPT we understand the importance vision impaired students having the right access to materials, assistive technology and independence skills in order to thrive in education and to transition into employment. More must be done.”
A University of Birmingham-led study funded by the UK Coronavirus Immunology Consortium has found that many patients with COVID-19 produce immune responses against their body’s own tissues or organs.
COVID-19 has been associated with a variety of unexpected symptoms, both at the time of infection and for many months afterwards. It is not fully understand what causes these symptoms, but one of the possibilities is that COVID-19 is triggering an autoimmune process where the immune system is misdirected to attack itself.
The study, published in the journal Clinical & Experimental Immunology, investigated the frequency and types of common autoantibodies produced in 84 individuals who either had severe COVID-19 at the time of testing or in the recovery period following both severe COVID-19 and those with milder disease that did not need to attend hospital. These results were compared to a control group of 32 patients who were in intensive care for another reason other than COVID-19.
An autoantibody is an antibody (a type of protein) produced by the immune system that is directed against one or more of the individual’s own proteins and can cause autoimmune diseases.
Infection can, in some circumstances, lead to autoimmune disease. Early data suggest that SARS-CoV-2 infection can trigger long-term autoimmune complications and there are reports of SARS-CoV-2 infection being associated with a number of autoimmune disorders including Guillain-Barre Syndrome.
Supported by UK Research and Innovation (UKRI) and the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR), the study found higher numbers of autoantibodies in the COVID-19 patients than the control group and that these antibodies lasted up to six months.
Non-COVID patients displayed a diverse pattern of autoantibodies; in contrast, the COVID-19 groups had a more restricted panel of autoantibodies including skin, skeletal muscle and cardiac antibodies.
The authors also find that those with more severe COVID-19 were more likely to have an autoantibody in their blood.
First author Professor Alex Richter, of the University of Birmingham, explained: “The antibodies we identified are similar to those that cause a number of skin, muscle and heart autoimmune diseases.
“We don’t yet know whether these autoantibodies are definitely causing symptoms in patients and whether this is a common phenomenon after lots of infections or just following COVID-19. These questions will be addressed in the next part of our study.”
Senior Author Professor David Wraith, of the University of Birmingham, adds: “In this detailed study of a range of different tissues, we showed for the first time that COVID-19 infection is linked to production of selective autoantibodies.
“More work is needed to define whether these antibodies contribute to the long-term consequences of SARS-CoV-2 infection and hence could be targeted for treatment.”
Professor Paul Moss, Principal Investigator of the UK Coronavirus Immunology Consortium and Professor of Haematology at the University of Birmingham added: “This is an interesting study that reveals new insights into a potential autoimmune component to the effects of COVID-19.
“Research like this has been made possible by the huge collaborative efforts made by those that are a part of the UK Coronavirus Immunology Consortium. This study is another important step towards delivering real improvements in prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of COVID-19 to patients.”
The study participants were separated into four cohorts:
Group one: 32 individuals sampled during their stay in intensive care for reasons other than COVID-19. 41% of individuals had autoantibodies. In this group, there were many different causes of their illness (over half was pneumonia) and autoantibodies were found against nearly all of the different autoantigens examined, indicating a more random distribution.
Group two: 25 individuals who were sampled during their stay in intensive care following a diagnosis of severe COVID-19. 60% had autoantibodies. Of those who tested positive for autoantibodies, 41% had epidermal (skin) antibodies, while 17% had skeletal antibodies.
Group three: 35 individuals who had been admitted to intensive care with COVID-19, survived and were sampled three to six months later during routine outpatient follow up. 77% of individuals had autoantibodies. Of those who tested positive for autoantibodies, 19% had epidermal (skin) antibodies, 19% had skeletal antibodies, 28% had cardiac muscle antibodies; and 31% had smooth muscle antibodies.
Group four: 24 healthcare workers sampled one to three months after mild to moderate COVID-19 that did not require hospitalisation. 54% of individuals had autoantibodies. In those who tested positive for autoantibodies, it was against only four autoantigens: 25% had epidermal (skin) antibodies; 17% had smooth muscle antibodies; 8% had anti-neutrophil cytoplasm (ANCA) antibodies that target a type of human white blood cells; and 4% had gastric parietal antibodies which are associated with autoimmune gastritis and anaemia.
A University of Birmingham-led study of over a thousand dental professionals has shown their increased occupational risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection during the first wave of the pandemic in the UK.
The observational cohort study, published today (3 June 2021), in the Journal of Dental Research, involved 1,507 Midland dental care practitioners. Blood samples were taken from the cohort at the start of the study in June 2020 to measure their levels of antibodies against SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19.
The team found 16.3% of study participants – which included dentists, dental nurses and dental hygienists – had SARS-CoV-2 antibodies, compared to just 6% of the general population at the time. Meanwhile, the percentage of dental practice receptionists, who have no direct patient contact, with SARS-CoV-2 antibodies was comparable to the general population, supporting the hypothesis that occupational risk arose from close exposure to patients.
The study also found ethnicity was also a significant risk factor for infection, with 35% of Black participants and 18.8% of Asian participants having SARS-CoV-2 antibodies, compared to 14.3% of white participants.
Blood samples were taken from participants three months later, in September 2020, when dental practices in England had re-opened with enhanced PPE and infection control measures in place, and once again in January 2021, six months after the start of the study, during the second wave of the pandemic when healthcare workers were being vaccinated.
The results showed that of those who had previous COVID-19 infection, over 70% continued to have SARS-CoV-2 antibodies both at three months and six months later, and they were at a 75% reduced risk of re-infection with the virus.
The study also demonstrated the immunological impact of COVID-19 vaccination, with 97.7% of those without previous infection developing an antibody response at least 12 days after their first Pfizer vaccine. In those with evidence of previous infection, the antibody response was more rapid and higher in magnitude after a single dose of the Pfizer vaccine.
Furthermore, none of the cohort with a level of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies greater than 147.6 IU/ml in their blood tested positive for COVID-19 throughout the six-month period from the first to the final blood tests.
First author Dr Adrian Shields, of the University of Birmingham’s Institute of Immunology and Immunotherapy, said: “Understanding what an antibody test result means to an individual with respect to their risk of infection is essential to controlling the pandemic.
“Our study has taken the first steps in defining the level of antibody in a persons’ blood necessary to protect them from infection for six months. Furthermore, by comparing the antibody levels we have found in dentists to those contained in widely available reference material produced by the World Health Organization, we hope the protective level we found can be easily confirmed and compared by other laboratories.”
Corresponding author Professor Thomas Dietrich, of the University of Birmingham’s School of Dentistry, adds: “Critically, only 5.3% of the cohort developed an antibody response that exceeded this threshold of 147.6 IU/ml following the first wave of the UK pandemic.
“This suggests that natural infection alone is unlikely to generate meaningful, durable herd immunity.”
Co-corresponding author Iain Chapple, Professor of Periodontology at the University of Birmingham and Consultant in Restorative Dentistry at Birmingham Community Healthcare Trust, adds: “Dental professionals are thought to be at high risk of exposure to SARS-CoV-2 because they routinely operate within patients’ aerodigestive tract and regularly carry out aerosol-generating procedures that result in the production of airborne particles.
“Through our research, we have clearly shown that dental professionals were at increased occupational risk of exposure to SARS-CoV-2 prior to the new PHE guidance on PPE. The occupational health measures that have been put in place in general dental practice as a consequence of COVID-19 appear to remove that increased risk, however, this will need to be thoroughly investigated to see if they have successfully interrupted transmission of SARS-CoV-2 and other respiratory viruses.”
Co-corresponding author Professor Alex Richter, also of the University of Birmingham, said: “This is the first time the occupational risk of exposure to a potentially fatal respiratory virus has been studied in a large dental cohort.
“It is important that we now progress our research to ensure we have an understanding of how people are protected from re-infection with COVID-19 following natural infection and vaccination.
“The nature and duration of immunity in these cohorts will be critical to understand as the COVID-19 pandemic progresses, particularly with respect to the efficacy of vaccination strategies -single-dose, multiple-doses, vaccine combinations – and in relation to novel viral variants of concern.”
Managers are much more positive about their staff working from home and working flexibly since lockdown says a new study undertaken jointly by the Equal Parenting Project at the University of Birmingham and the Work Autonomy, Flexibility and Work-Life Balance at the University of Kent.
The report titled ‘Managing Employees during the COVID-19 Pandemic: Flexible working and the future of work’ is based on a UK wide survey with managers which aimed to understand the organisational perspective on managing homeworking since the UK COVID-19 lockdown.
During the COVID-19 lockdown, many organisations have been forced to move the majority of their workforce to remote working, often at very short notice. In many cases these businesses had previously discouraged flexible working and had very little infrastructure in place to support these new ways of working. The question arises, what impact did this shift to homeworking have and what does this mean for the future of work?
To answer this question, the research team undertook a survey of managers between the 24th July to 11th August 2020. The sample consisted of managers from across the UK, an array of industries and all levels of management.
In total, 742 managers completed the survey which involved questions around norms for working from home, attitudes toward working from home, trust, key learning experience what tools the organisation supplied to employees to enable them to work from home and what support was made available to the employees.
As the first academic piece of research exploring managerial experiences during the COVID-19 pandemic in the UK, this research discovered that 54.7% of managers reported over 80% of their employees have been working from home since lockdown.
As a result of their management experiences during lockdown, fewer managers now believe that presenteeism and long working hours are essential to career progression within organisations.
Many managers also reported that working from home increases productivity, concentration, and motivation due to their experiences in lockdown. 58.6% of managers surveyed said that working from home increases productivity whereas only 44.1% agreed with this statement before lockdown.
However, managers also saw some draw backs, with 58.7% of all those surveyed saying that working from home lead to isolation, and other citing issues around blurring of boundaries as key negative outcomes.
Regardless, most managers now believe working from home will become much more commonplace in the future, with more jobs, including senior roles, being advertised as being available for flexible working and more support being made available for home working.
Commenting on the report Dr Holly Birkett, Co-Director of the Equal Parenting Project at the University of Birmingham said: “The report shows managers are much more positive about working from home and flexible working, than they were before the pandemic.
“Managers say their organisations are going to be more supportive of homeworking and flexible working in the future, including more likely to support working from home, job shares and part time working even for Senior roles.
“This change along with the breakdown of the presenteeism culture and the removal of a flexibility stigma, which existed before COVID -19, could help improve employee wellbeing, help to support people to take on caring roles and break down many of the barriers women face to balancing career and family, with the potential to improve female representation on Boards and close the gender pay gap.”
Overall, the data included in the report has shown that working from home has been commonplace since the initial lockdown and managers have faced a steep learning curve regarding how to manage remote teams often with very little support or guidance.
Despite this, managers have been pleasantly surprised about the results with their teams generally performing really well during this time. While there have been some performance issues these were generally where this was already an issue prior to lockdown.
Dr Sarah Forbes, Co-Director of the Equal Parenting Project said: “Due to positive experiences of working from home and with flexible working patterns amongst their staff, managers are keen to support more working from home and flexible working in the future.
“This could take the form of better flexible working policies and tools to facilitate this as well as training being readily available for managers to learn how to better support remote workers in their team. However, we also need to understand working remotely over long periods of time can also be very isolating and that some people much prefer working in an office environment.”
Dr Heejung Chung, Principal Investigator of the Work Autonomy, Flexibility and Work-Life Balance Project at the University of Kent said: “As we have also seen in our previous employee survey, the flexible working genie is out of the bottle – more workers want to work flexibly in the future, and as this report has shown, managers now see how flexible working can benefit companies.
“However, that shift will not be the same for all companies and for all workers. Government policies to help make that cultural shift, by introducing stronger rights to flexible working and better protection against discrimination for flexible workers may help this transition go smoothly after the COVID-19 lockdown measures end.”
The webinar will also have presentations by Lauren Adams, HR Director at CBI , Daisy Hooper, Head of Policy and Public Affairs at CMI, and Anthony Fitzpatrick, Employee Relations and Global Employment Policy Lead at Aviva will deliver organisational and managers’ perspectives on experiences of remote working during the pandemic and how these experiences are likely to change the future of work.
