Impact case study database

In the run up to the referendum and in its immediate aftermath, NI’s role in Brexit was consistently overlooked or misunderstood. PId was key to reframing the debate and situating NI as core to the Withdrawal process. PId’s impact has centred on issues of human rights, equality, citizenship and the CTA.

PId’s public engagement and policy work, including animations and policy briefs, drawing directly on our research, informed, shifted and set the parameters on which NI and Brexit came to be eventually considered a serious facet of Brexit amongst the general population and media. The project team published more than 30 blog pieces and newspaper opinion pieces on Brexit. Between 2015 and 2020 O’Donoghue was, amongst others, interviewed by The Irish Times, der Standard and The New Yorker, appeared on BBC Breakfast (20 August 2019), France 24 (24 September 2019, 13 October 2020, Today FM (Irish national radio) over 30 times and RTE Radio1. In the referendum’s immediate aftermath our policy brief on ‘Brexit, Ireland and Northern Ireland’ (2016) was relied upon as some of the only in-depth and up-to-date legal commentary on Brexit and NI . Journalist Emer O’Toole used the paper as the basis of an influential opinion piece in The Guardian. The piece, one of the first to tackle the legal reality of a likely return to a physical border used the policy paper as its basis quoting ‘UK-Ireland border would represent an external border to the EU as a whole. There are no other “external” EU borders that do not come with border controls’ [E1]. Alongside this work, the project team has commissioned an innovative series of animations explaining Brexit’s impact on Northern Ireland; Brexit and the Irish Border, Northern Ireland: Brexit, Peace and Prosperity and Brexit Holdem: Who to Watch as Brexit Unfolds. These animations have been viewed on YouTube over 12,500 times.

Our Policy Brief Brexit, Ireland and Northern Ireland 2016 was cited and endorsed in authoritative House of Commons Library Briefings on Brexit including our recommendation that the GFA requires a Northern Ireland specific solution. Our publications are also included in the Northern Ireland Assembly’s Brexit Reading List. Our detailed submissions to the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, the EU Select Committee and the Irish Oireachtas’ Joint Committee on the Implementation of the GFA have drawn the parameters on which Northern Ireland operates since Brexit.

Pre the Brexit referendum, our evidence to the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee inquiry into ‘Northern Ireland and the EU referendum’ demonstrated that withdrawal from the ECHR, in the context of Northern Ireland must be treated separately. This was endorsed in the Committee’s final report and recommendations [E2a, p28-29]. Further submissions to the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee inquiry into ‘The Land Border between Northern Ireland and Ireland’ were cited approvingly in the final report to set the parameters of the legal situation of NI and what the contents of a specific solution should entail [E2b, p44].

Our evidence to the House of Lords EU Committee inquiry into ‘Brexit: devolution’ cited in its final report drew on PId’s evidence emphasising the need to avoid a physical land border as a focal for potential violence and history of EU funding in the border region in maintaining peace. The report quotes our evidence directly that ‘that the burden of Brexit would ‘fall most heavily on Northern Ireland, because of its unique historical, political and geographical situations’. In their [our] view, it would not be possible after Brexit to maintain the open border as it exists at present in terms of goods. They feared that the return of physical manifestations of the border would act as a lightning rod to dissident republicans’ [E2c p19] The Withdrawal Agreement and the Northern/Ireland Protocol follow these recommendations.

PId’s submitted evidence to the Irish Oireachtas Joint Committee on the Implementation of the GFA, which repeatedly cited the Policy Paper in its final report to shape its account of how Brexit would affect the GFA’s arrangements [E3, pp.112-117 fen 84,92,93].

PId briefed Margaret Ritchie, (MP, between 2010 and 2017, former SDLP leader, member of the House of Lords), including meetings and emails. In a testimonial letter [E4] Ritchie states:

‘In early 2017 following an in-person briefing from the group and email correspondence regarding draft parliamentary questions, I questioned the Government on potential human rights reform occurring alongside the Withdrawal negotiations. In response the Government acknowledged it would not pursue human rights reform during Brexit and would likely be obliged to accept human rights obligations in establishing the future UK/EU relationship. This was an important early response from the UK Government […] which ultimately led to protections being embedded in Article 2 of the Protocol to the Withdrawal agreement.’

Our proven expertise and track record led to our successful tender to complete our first Report on Brexit and Human Rights for the Joint Committee and from here our subsequent Reports. The Report Discussion Paper on Brexit [R2], which O’Donoghue and Warwick presented to the Committee in Dublin, was the basis for the Joint Committee’s lobbying of both Governments to sustain cross-border human rights protections. Our Report demonstrated the extent to which Brexit could result in diminution of rights as well as multiple categories of rights holders living side by side in NI, which would negatively impact on the peace process. Published March 2018, the Report received extensive media coverage [E5a], including Joint Chairs of the Committee citing our Paper in media interviews and formed the basis of the Joint Committee’s dealings with the UK and Irish Governments and EU on Brexit (including advancing the findings presented in this paper in a meeting with Michel Barnier):

‘This research has been vital ... for balancing a public narrative that all too often focuses on trade… The Commission was able to use this research to flag these issues in discussions with the UK Government and EU negotiating team, obliging the negotiators to spell out the choices that were being made in terms of rights protections’ (Chief Commissioner Les Allamby) [E6]. ‘This research was central to the concerted efforts of both bodies in Northern Ireland and IHREC to shape public debate on the Withdrawal Agreement and redress a previous imbalance in the political and public narrative which was overwhelmingly focussed on trade’ (Chief Commissioner Caroline Fennell) [E6].

Subsequently, PId was commissioned by the Joint Committee to author a Discussion Paper on the Common Travel Area [R4]. In preparation for the Report O’Donoghue and Warwick briefed Irish diplomats in London and O’Donoghue and Murray briefed civil servants at the Home Office on the limitations of the CTA. The Report was presented in November 2018 and immediately adopted is the basis for a major policy campaign by the Joint Committee to pressurise the UK and Irish Governments to clarify and further protect the reciprocal rights extended to each other’s’ citizens under the CTA.

The Report ‘…was the basis of the Commission’s engagement with the UK and Irish Governments over the Common Travel Area.’ The report generated front-page headlines in the Irish Times and triggered a debate in Dáil Éireann. In the months after the report was published the UK and Irish Governments responded in light of its recommendations, concluding a new Memorandum of Understanding redefining the scope of the CTA and introducing specific legislation covering social security arrangements between the two governments (Chief Commissioner Les Allamby) [E6].

The CTA report received considerable media attention, including front-page headlines in the Irish Times and Irish World (interview with O’Donoghue) and shaped public debate [E5b].

PId’s call for enhanced legal protections was taken up by Fianna Fáil, the then opposition in Ireland, in parliamentary debate and was referenced as the basis of questioning the Minister of Employment Affairs in the Irish Dáil about certainty over maintaining reciprocal arrangements between Ireland and the UK [E7]. Since the Report’s publication it has shaped public debate and understanding of the CTA. The UK and Irish Governments signed a Memorandum of Understanding which delineates the CTA to rectify some of the shortcomings that the Report described as ‘written in sand’ in direct response to our Report’s finding and recommendations: ‘The work was vital to establishing the rights implications within Northern Ireland of the UK’s withdrawal from the European Union. The fruits and proof of the success of this engagement is evident in the major role of the Commissions and the Joint Committee envisaged in Article 2 of the Withdrawal Agreement’s Protocol with regard to safeguarding rights’ (Chief Commissioner Caroline Fennell) [E6].

Our 2020 Report for the Joint Committee ‘Continuing EU Citizenship “Rights, Opportunities and Benefits” in Northern Ireland after Brexit’ has significantly impacted and shaped UK and Irish Government responses to citizenship rights across Ireland, Northern Ireland, and Britain. The cumulative impact of the Reports is that the Joint Committee now has a specific role in post-Brexit human rights protection.

‘[B]oth Commissions in Northern Ireland, and the Joint Committee of representatives of the Human Rights Commissions of Northern Ireland and Ireland, will provide a dedicated monitoring mechanism to ensure the protection of the Belfast/Good Friday Agreement and the UK government’s commitment to no diminution of rights under the 1998 Agreement’ (Chief Commissioner Caroline Fennell) [E6].

During UK Parliamentary debates on the Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Bill both CTA and EU Citizenship Reports were repeatedly relied upon by Parliamentarians to push the Government to confirm that their changes were in line with its recommendations and the EU Settlement Scheme was in accordance with the GFA. The UK Government responding to these debates, changed its advice to Irish citizens on registering for the EU Settled Status Scheme. Government minister, Baroness Williams of Trafford, in direct response to a Parliamentary question stated that registering under the system would enable Irish citizens to prove their status.

‘I and other peers drew extensively upon the …Group’s Reports for the Joint Committee on Citizenship and the Common Travel Area to push the Government to confirm that their changes would be in line with its recommendations. The conclusions of these reports, in particular that the existing CTA arrangements are ‘written in sand’ were relied upon […] the UK Government, in direct response to these interventions, changed its advice to Irish citizens regarding the EU Settled Status Scheme’ (Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick) [E4].

In 2015, as a result of a campaign led by Rape Crisis and the End Violence Against Women Coalition, drawing on the McGlynn/Rackley research, England & Wales adopted a new criminal law prohibiting the possession of rape porn.

Direct effect on campaign to reform English & Welsh law to criminalise rape porn (between 2013 and 2015): McGlynn worked closely with the organisations leading the campaign, giving advice on law reform options, and shaping their policy decisions, lobbying and press statements. The campaign put the issue onto the public and Government agenda, resulting in Prime Minister David Cameron announcing the change, reversing existing policy. [E1]

Government acknowledged McGlynn’s role: The Government acknowledged the influence of McGlynn, stating that its ‘justifications for the provision are based on work carried out by a number of academics and NGOs, in particular by Professor Clare McGlynn and Professor Erika Rackley of University of Durham, the End Violence Against Women Coalition (EVAW) and Rape Crisis.’ [E2a]

Research shaped legislative debates: The research shaped the legislative decision-making process, for example the parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights Report on the Bill endorsed the McGlynn/Rackley justifications for criminal regulation, namely that rape porn is a form of ‘cultural harm’ and the measures are ‘human rights enhancing’. The House of Lords Library Note on the Bill cited this Report and specifically these justifications. [E2b]

Research and advice led to Labour party Bill amendments: McGlynn/Rackley prepared a briefing on law reform options and met with Labour Party spokespeople to give advice, leading to Labour Party amendments being introduced in the House of Lords by Baroness Thornton (Shadow spokesperson for Equalities), including reference to ‘cultural harm’ as a justification for action, as well as specific amendments relating to definition of ‘realistic’, extending the defences and including ‘context’ when interpreting images. [E3]

Justice Act (Northern Ireland) 2016: the impact extends to Northern Irish law, which extended its extreme porn laws to include rape porn.

Influence on Isle of Man Sexual Offences Bill (between 2018 and 2020): On request of the Isle of Man Dept of Home Affairs, McGlynn prepared briefings on law reform options which led to specific changes to Sexual Offences and Obscene Publications Bill, including new offence criminalising rape porn with specific provisions on the ‘context’ of images. The Bill is currently going through legislative process. [E4]

McGlynn gave oral evidence to the Scottish Parliament’s Justice Committee and advised that the draft Bill did not cover the distribution of upskirt images, but should. The Committee Report includes many citations to McGlynn’s oral evidence and McGlynn/Rackley’s written evidence, including recommending review of the upskirting lacuna. Following briefings and email contact with McGlynn/Rackley, Elaine Murray (Justice Committee Member and Member of the Scottish Parliament) proposed an amendment based on McGlynn/Rackley’s evidence and recommendation. The amendment was adopted in sec 2(5)(b) of the 2016 Act which now clearly criminalises the non-consensual distribution of upskirt images. [E5]

McGlynn played a significant role in the adoption of this Act through advice and guidance to MPs, parliamentary briefings and submissions, by shaping the actions of many NGOs recommending change, and by extensive media and public engagement (including BBC Radio 4’s Today programme and Woman’s Hour, BBC Radio 5 Live and quoted in all major UK press outlets). Briefings focused on strengthening the law to cover all forms of upskirting and image-based sexual abuse.

Shaping Public Debate leading to Private Members Bill: In April 2015, McGlynn raised the failure of the law to cover upskirting (with Press Association and reported on ITV news) leading to her working with the Press Association in February 2018 to release new FOI data. The widespread media coverage of the PA story (including over 40 references to McGlynn) helped to initiate the Private Members Bill (March 2018) put forward to change the law and which was later adopted by the Government. [E6a]

Parliamentary Select Committee adoption of recommendations: In June 2018 McGlynn gave oral evidence to Parliament’s Women & Equalities Select Committee, and its report (November 2018) cited and endorsed her recommendations for comprehensive law reform including upskirting. [E6b]

NGO, Police and Crime Commissioner and Mayor of London adoption of recommendations: McGlynn gave advice on law reform options to Women’s Aid which distributed a briefing to the House of Lords citing and endorsing the McGlynn proposals for amendments to the Upskirting Bill [E6c]. McGlynn submitted her own evidence to the public bills committee and in addition, Victim Support, the Mayor of London and the Northumbria Police and Crime Commissioner also cited and endorsed the McGlynn recommendations for strengthening the Bill (2018) in their evidence [E6d];

Direct influence on Parliamentary amendments: McGlynn worked closely with Maria Miller MP (Chair of Women & Equalities Select Committee) to draft amendments to the Bill, including extending the range of perpetrator motivations and including distribution of images. Miller’s amendments were supported by a cross-party coalition of MPs. Miller cited the McGlynn research and briefings in her Parliamentary speeches including: ‘I have worked on the amendments with Professor Clare McGlynn’. [E6e]

Direct influence on Parliamentarians and proposed amendments: McGlynn’s evidence was also cited and endorsed by other MPs during parliamentary debates; McGlynn’s briefing to the House of Lords was cited by peers on why the Bill needed strengthening (e.g. Baroness Barran) and influenced Lord Pannick’s and Baroness Burt’s proposed amendments to the Bill. Pannick’s article in The Times calling for changes cited McGlynn. A Women’s Aid briefing (endorsing McGlynn’s recommendations) was cited many times during House of Lords debate. [E6f]

In 2015, the distribution of sexual images without consent (‘revenge porn’) became a new criminal offence in England & Wales. McGlynn’s research and briefings shaped proposed amendments to the Bill, influencing the actions of the Labour Party and directly affecting the campaigns adopted by many NGOs.

Research and briefings led to Labour party amendments to 2015 Bill: McGlynn/Rackley were asked to brief Labour Party spokespeople on the Bill [E7a] and discussed justifications for proposed amendments, including the removal of the distress threshold. In the House of Lords, Baroness Thornton stated: ’Professors Rackley and McGlynn, who have been advising many Members of the House throughout the discussions about revenge porn and rape porn, explained that the focus of the law should be on the offender’s actions and the absence of consent, not on the victim’s response, and I think that is right’. [E7b]

Research and briefings led to Liberal Democrat and Women’s Equality Party amendments to Policing and Crime Bill 2016: McGlynn’s briefings and emails with parliamentarians influenced Liberal Democrat amendments to a subsequent Bill, which would have reformed the distress threshold (instead introducing a recklessness standard) and introduced automatic anonymity. Following advice and emails, McGlynn’s briefings also shaped the campaigning for reform by the Women’s Equality Party. [E7c]

Directly shaping many NGO, Parliamentary and PCC campaigns to reform the law:

McGlynn advice, briefings and participation in meetings influenced the All Party Parliamentary Group on Domestic Violence Report (2017) on the adoption of the concept of ‘image-based sexual abuse’ and the McGlynn/Rackley recommendations to reform the law including the distress threshold and anonymity. [E7d]

Parliament’s Women & Equalities Select Committee Report on Public Sexual Harassment (2018): McGlynn gave oral and written evidence to the Committee, and the report includes numerous citations of her work and adopts her recommendations, including recognising ‘revenge porn’ as a sexual offence and that: ‘A new law should be brought forward on image-based sexual abuse to criminalise all non-consensual creation and distribution of intimate sexual images, on the basis of the victim’s lack of consent rather than perpetrator motivation.’ [E7e]

McGlynn’s Briefing influenced policy recommendations of the Fawcett Society (2018) including removing distress requirement from law, introducing anonymity and using the term image-based sexual abuse. [E7f]

McGlynn worked closely with North Yorkshire Police and Crime Commissioner (between 2016 and 2018) in developing their campaign for anonymity for complainants, including commenting on draft briefings, surveys and attending a meeting with then Minister for Justice (Philip Lee MP). McGlynn/Rackley research is cited and its recommendations endorsed in the PCC 2018 report on ‘revenge porn’, calling for anonymity for complainants and broader law reforms. [E7g]

(e) McGlynn’s advice directly led to changes on non-consensual distribution of sexual images in the Isle of Man Sexual Offences Bill (2018-2020): McGlynn’s advice was sought on the draft Sexual Offences Bill and her bespoke briefing directly influenced the drafting of the Bill, which includes a new part entitled ‘Image-based sexual abuse’ and provides for a comprehensive law covering all forms of non-consensual distribution or taking of sexual images (legislation currently going through Parliament). [E4]

(f) Assisting Facebook to better understand harms of image-based sexual abuse and develop improved reporting tools and prevention work (2018-2020): McGlynn was invited to Facebook HQ in the US by the Global Safety and Product Development Teams to present her research (with colleagues), on the harms of image-based sexual abuse, to a closed roundtable in August 2018. In March 2019, Facebook announced new reporting tools and prevention mechanisms, citing the workshop as their research base. McGlynn has also contributed to closed ‘concept hacks’ to improve Facebook’s responses to victims. Facebook’s Global Safety Policy Manager commented, in an email to McGlynn: ‘Thanks to your counsel this past 18 months, we have been able to expand our policies and enforcement guidelines, develop new tech to combat this abuse and offer more supportive resources to people who encounter this horrible abuse. Your research has helped us better understand the experience of victims, how victims report their experience, what barriers arise when they make a report and what support or tools they needed to feel safe on our platform.’ [E8]

The term ‘image-based sexual abuse’ developed by McGlynn/Rackley has been adopted globally by victims, voluntary organisations, MPs, parliamentary reports, criminal justice personnel and is now commonly used in both national and international media and public debates (see above) as well as: reports by Women’s Aid, Fawcett Society, End Violence Against Women and Parliamentary Report on Independent Complaints and Grievance Policy (July 2018), police websites (e.g. West Mercia police) providing information for victims, MPs and Parliamentarians use of term in debates, and extensive use in UK media. In Ireland, many NGOs use this term, for example Women’s Aid and Irish Council for Civil Liberties in a 2020 election briefing, and it is widely used in the Irish press. International examples include the term being used in reports by New Zealand government organisation Netsafe; YMCA Canada; Human Rights Watch 2020 report on privacy rights; and the Sentencing Advisory Council, Victoria (Australia) 2020 report sentencing image-based sexual abuse. The term is also used by public bodies, survivors, activist groups and media in Australia, Isle of Man, United States and Singapore. [E9]

The Doing Business Reports are highly relevant for the World Bank’s decisions about investment and development aid. The World Bank’s International Finance Corporation (IFC) invests more than USD19,000,000,000 per year in private businesses in developing countries. A recent observational study also found that a country that implements reforms initiated by the Doing Business Reports receives more funds than otherwise [E1] and a recent survey experiment also established that the rankings of the Doing Business Reports shape the views of investors as regards investment opportunities **[E1]**Since the ratings and rankings of the Doing Business Reports are freely available online, there is also evidence that other private and public lenders, donors and investors take them into account [E1]. Moreover, the Doing Business Reports function as a general global benchmark of what are regarded good rules for doing business; thus, many countries are concerned about their rankings and change their laws accordingly (e.g., for Singapore and Georgia: [E1], **[E1]**) and/or establish reform committees that consider the Doing Business Reports ( **[E1]**).

‘Dear M Siems […] we are reaching out to you regarding the Protecting Minority Investors indicator, an imperfect and limited measure of corporate governance and ease of shareholder litigation, derived as you know from now outdated work by Shleifer, Djankov, La Porta and Lopez-de-Silanes. At the same time, because of its resonance with policy-makers, the Doing Business indicators on corporate and securities regulations remain a powerful tool of change and adoption of sound corporate governance principles in a very large array of jurisdictions around the world.’ (see [E3] for the full email exchange).

Drawing directly from his ‘index of shareholder protection’ (see section 1, above), Siems offered advice to the World Bank about the way the ‘protecting minority investors’ index could be improved. Based on this advice, the World Bank implemented 11 changes of this index. In detail, (i) two of those changes initiated by Siems are general ones, namely that the guidance clarifies now that stock exchange-listing rule are also considered as a source of law and whether variables should code the law of private or public companies. (ii) Two specific changes concern the introduction of new variables that derive from Siems’ shareholder protection index: the revised version of the World Bank’s index now includes a variable on the topic ‘Does the sale of 51% of Buyer's assets require approval of shareholders?’ which directly derives from the first variable of Siems’ research (see the definition in section 1, above); the other new variable is the one asking ‘Can shareholders who hold 5% of Buyer’s share capital put items on the general meeting agenda?’ and it derives from the second variable of Siems’ index. (iii) The remaining seven specific changes concern various details of the definitions of the variables.

All these changes and the impact of Siems’ advice are shown in the sources to corroborate the impact, notably his email-correspondence with the World Bank and the track-changed version of the World Bank’s revised index [E3], [E4]. Specifically, in an email from 11 February 2015, the World Bank wrote to Siems:

‘Dear Mathias, Many thanks again for your interest, inputs and support, and apologies for the delay. As you can see in the sample questionnaire (with preliminary UK data), we were able to incorporate several of your recommendations. In particular, we have added questions you have suggested from your index’ […] [referring specifically to the new variables on ‘de facto changes’ and ‘agenda setting’ as well as to five of the modified variables and further possible changes] (see [E3] for full email).

Research by Siems was also cited approvingly in the narrative text of the 2016 and 2017 versions of the Doing Business Report where the World Bank explained the general need to strengthen shareholder protection [E2], [E2]. The changes to the 2016 report initiated by Siems have been retained in the Doing Business Reports of the subsequent years.

These changes initiated by Siems had a direct impact on the World Bank’s approach to measuring the strength of shareholder protection. As the research by Siems is based on an advanced coding scheme (see Section 2, above), this revised index therefore provides more reliable information on which the Word Bank can make its investment decisions (see A, above).

Specifically, the changes initiated by Siems in the revised index made a considerable difference for the rating and ranking of many countries concerning their position as regards the strength of ‘protecting minority investors’. As the Doing Business Report 2016 re-calculated the 2015 data based on the revised index of measuring shareholder protection, it is possible to compare how far the scores of all 189 countries have changed due to this revision. It can be seen that the changes are considerable: some countries have changed upwards of up to 65 country ranks in this category and some downwards of up to 52 country ranks [E5].

It can also be shown that the changes of the ‘protecting minority investors’ index initiated by Siems have led to changes in state legislations. The World Bank tracks legal reforms responding to the Doing Business Reports which shows that there were 36 countries with reforms in the field of ‘protecting minority investors’ in 2017 or 2018 [E2]. In the preparatory legislative documents, France, Morocco and India explicitly referred to the Doing Business Report as a justification for their law reforms (see [E6] for details); thus, given that Siems initiated two general changes in the index (see above), Siems’ research has had proven impact on the law reforms in these countries. Furthermore, 20 of the other countries also changed their rules for at least one of the more specific changes initiated by Siems concerning questions addressed by ‘protecting minority investors’ index (see [E6] for details).

The actual harmonisation process is now implemented in stages. In the first instance, the EU has enacted a new Directive (EU) 2019/2121 as regards cross-border conversions, mergers and divisions. The Study co-authored by Siems has contributed to this process. This Study contained detailed recommendations on cross-border conversions [output 6 at pp. 331-345 as ‘reincorporations’], including the suggestion that this area of law should be addressed by a new EU directive. The EU then also commissioned a further study on this topic by the consultancy company Ernst & Young, which also referred to the Study co-authored by Siems [E8]. In addition, the Study co-authored by Siems has an impact on an on-going EU initiative to combat ‘letterbox companies’. A document by the Secretariat of the European Parliament draws on this Study in order to identify the extent of this problem [E9]. The EU Commission subsequently appointed ICF Consulting in order to produce a further ‘Study on letterbox companies’. The Commission’s request for service of this project states explicitly that for the ‘measures taken by Member States, the EU and third countries to fight letterbox companies’ this new study ‘should take into account the study [co-authored by Siems]’ [E10]. Siems is also a senior expert of this new study and has contributed to its text.

Leigh’s research demonstrates how, notwithstanding the resistance of the security sector to effective accountability and implementation of human rights protection, change can nonetheless be stimulated by engagement with supra-national and international organisations and, through them, at the national level.

Leigh’s evidence to the European Parliament (EP) Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs (E1a, Annex) is directly reflected in the conclusions and recommendations of its 2014 Report on mass surveillance by intelligence agencies (E1a, 57). Leigh’s evidence, based on the research insights from R1 R2, R3 and R4 was adopted in the Report’s findings that most existing national intelligence oversight mechanisms have been overtaken by the growth in international intelligence cooperation and that a gap in accountability had resulted ( R3, ch. 1; E1a Preamble BX and BZ), notably because of the limited access of oversight bodies to information received from foreign intelligence agencies due to the ‘third party’ rule (‘originator control’) (E1a, Preamble BY). In line with Leigh’s evidence, the Report recommended further steps to increase cooperation among national oversight bodies ( R3, 9-10, R4, 156-158; E1a, reccs. 76 and 80) and that further attention be given the exclusion of oversight bodies from information about cooperation under the ‘third party’ rule ( R4, 152-154; E1a, recc. 77). These findings were adopted in the EP resolution of 12 March 2014 (E1b).

Following this report, at the request of the EP the EU Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA) launched a project in 2014, to assess the protection of privacy and data protection in the context of large-scale surveillance across the EU 28 member states. Leigh was involved at every stage as one of a small group of invited experts, participated in three whole-day advisory meetings in November 2014, November 2015 and February 2017 and provided written feedback on the drafts of the two reports issued by the FRA in 2015 (E2 and E3, 12) and 2017 (E2 and E4, 18) which was incorporated into the final versions.

The 2017 Report predominantly draws on R4 for its key recommendations on oversight of international intelligence cooperation. These include: the need for prior executive approval of intelligence cooperation arrangements ( R4, 93; E4, 101); that risk assessments be carried out before undertaking intelligence cooperation ( R4 109 and 112; E4, 102); that caveats should be attached to intelligence shared with foreign partner agencies dealing unambiguously with how the intelligence may be shared and used and that reliability assessments should be similarly attached to shared intelligence relating to identifiable individuals ( R4, 114-115; E4, 103); legislation should include provisions on record keeping ( R4, 94; E4, 104), requiring oversight bodies to be informed of cooperation agreements and clarifying the role of oversight bodies in relation to cooperation ( R4, 94 and 190; E4, 105); and that these bodies receive should such agreements and conduct audits of implementation of the agreements ( R4, 144; E4, 107).

In 2010 the CoE Council of Ministers formally adopted a series of principles for protecting the human rights of armed forced personnel based substantially on R6: Recommendation CM/Rec(2010)4. R4 is the sole non-treaty source referred to in the resolution. Of the 85 principles in the resolution, 41 correspond directly to best practices advocated in R6. The resolution recommends that member states give effect to these principles in national legislation and through military training, practice and dissemination.

In March 2017 Leigh was invited by the CoE to participate in a project on ‘Strengthening the Application of European Human Rights Standards in the Armed Forces in Armenia’ (budget: EUR1 million), to enhance capacity to apply European human rights standards and to improve the prevention, identification, referral and handling of human rights violations in the armed forces, especially ill-treatment. As a result of the project the relevant military legislation is being reviewed and amended to make it compliant with international and European human rights standards. In January 2019 the CoE Council of Ministers reconfirmed the programme in its Action Plan for Armenia 2019-2022 (total budget: EUR19.8 million) (E6).

Another CoE organ the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) relied on CM/Rec(2010)4 (reccs. 40-46); ‘that the length of any alternative service to be performed by objectors should be reasonable in comparison with the length of ordinary military service’ ( R6, 82 and 86) to conclude that RoA had violated the Art. 9 ECHR in Adyan v. Armenia App no 75604/11 (12 Oct. 2017), para. 41.

Armenia (RA) has been engaged in continuing military conflict with Azerbaijan since 1991 in the disputed Nagorno- Karabakh region. Conscription into military service applies to men between 18-27. Significant human rights abuses of conscripts in RA have been detailed by several international bodies, including the CoE. R4 was translated into Armenian in 2008. In 2009 the government and the OSCE set up a training programme on human rights for RA armed forces personnel as advocated in R6, ch. 19, involving use of R6 in training the staff of army units and military educational institutions . Leigh participated in a review of aspects of military discipline legislation by oral evidence to the Standing Committee on Defence, National Security and Internal Affairs on the Draft Military Code (National Assembly of RA, 11 March 2011).

Under the CoE Strengthening Human Rights programme Leigh co-authored 2 major reports (15,000 words each) based on R6 and CM/Rec(2010)4 and 4 missions to Armenia in 2017, during which c. 50 meetings were held with officials from the Ministry of Defence, military academy, military police, military prosecutor's office, military investigator's office, Court of Cassation, Ministry of Justice, Public Defender's office, defence attorneys and various NGOs. The reports make extensive specific recommendations for reform of RA legislation covering the following: military call-up and medical examination process (and appeals procedures for both); deferment and exemption from military service; data protection; equality and non-discrimination; conscientious objection; freedom of religion and of expression; investigation into cases of torture or ill-treatment and non-combat deaths; compensation for death or permanent injuries caused to military personnel; military discipline and military offences; the independent investigation of complaints of human rights violations; and whistleblowing.

Extensive legislative and policy changes are being implemented in response to these reviews. The RA government has included implementation of the project in its Program for 2017-22 (E7, ‘Defence’, 4 ‘Nation Army Concept’) and has relied upon its participation in the programme in its implementation plan to the CoE Council of Ministers (2017) following two adverse ECtHR judgments ( Zalyan and Others v. Armenia, App nos. 36894/04 and 3521/07, 17 March 2016 and Muradyan v. Armenia, App no 11275/07, 24 Feb. 2017). A number of changes have already been made by the RA Ministry of Defence and in law (E8 and E9).These include substantial reform of the process for medical examination of conscripts: closer regulation of the content and structure of the medical report (E9, Art. 17(3)); a clear requirement to provide all related  medical documents/data to recruits or their parents within 3 days (E9, Art. 25(6)); publication of the limitations applicable to recruits with health problems; and introduction of specified degrees of fitness for military service (E9, Art. 17(3)). Restrictions on the human rights of members of the armed forces have also been removed concerning: belonging to a religious association (E9, Art. 8); use of mobile phones; and preventing women entering the Armed Forces and allowing them to hold some “pure” military positions.

The UFW Project has made a core contribution to legal policy of the United Nations (UN) through the work of the International Labour Organization (ILO) – the UN Specialist Agency responsible for international law and policy on working life. Manuela Tomei, the Director of the ILO Conditions of Work and Equality Department, testifies to the “substantial impact of the project on global labour rights policy” [E1]. Sangheon Lee, the Director of the Employment Policy Department attests that the project has been “of great value to … the ILO’s efforts to develop robust policies towards achieving decent work in countries across the world.” [E2]

In 2013, the ILO identified as an Area of Critical Importance the elimination of Unacceptable Forms of Work (UFW) (“in conditions that deny fundamental principles and rights, put at risk the lives, health, freedom, human dignity and security of workers or keep households in conditions of extreme poverty.”) (ILO Towards the ILO Centenary (2013), The Director-General’s Programme and Budget Proposals for 2014-15 (2013)).

Recognising that there was no comprehensive understanding of UFW or how to address it, the ILO “sought guidance … on conceptualizing and addressing this global problem” from McCann [E1]. McCann co-authored a policy report [E3]; was advisor to the two units that lead the ILO’s efforts on eliminating UFW – the Conditions of Work and Equality Department (e.g. submission to the ILO Governing Body (executive) discussion of UFW, [E4, E1] and the Employment Policy Department [E2]; and briefed the ILO Director-General (July 2017).

Through these channels, the research has been “instrumental in generating a sophisticated concept of UFW that has been adopted in the work of the ILO.” [E2] Its particular influence is in outlining (1) the dimensions of UFW; (2) a strategy for local actors to determine intervention priorities; and (3) a strategic regulation approach [E1, E2].

The research has been incorporated into four flagship ILO policy agendas on the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs); the Universal Labour Guarantee and Centenary Declaration for the Future of Work; Unacceptable Forms of Work; and national employment policy [E1, E2]:

• Sustainable Development Goals: The research is central to the ILO’s work as the lead UN agency responsible for achieving the SDGs. It has been incorporated through the inclusion of UFW in the ILO’s platform for achieving the SDGs (ILO Decent Work and the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development [E1].

• Universal Labour Guarantee/Centenary Declaration. As shown in the testimony by the Director of the ILO Employment Policy Department, McCann and Fudge’s model of UFW has also “evolved into” [E1] the notion of a Universal Labour Guarantee proposed by the Global Commission on the Future of Work (2019), a landmark commission chaired by the premiers of South Africa and Sweden (ILO Global Commission on the Future of Work Work for a Brighter Future (2019) [E1]. The Guarantee was subsequently adopted in the ILO’s Centenary Declaration for the Future of Work (June 2019) [E1]. As the Director of the ILO Conditions of Work and Equality Department attests: “The project’s Multidimensional Model of UFW underpins the Declaration – the flagship instrument of the Organization in its centenary year – by proposing universal protections that extend beyond basic human rights to encompass working conditions (wages, working hours, safety and health) [E1].

• Unacceptable Forms of Work. The research has also had what the Director of the ILO Conditions of Work and Equality Department describes as a “crucial influence” at the country-level by providing a framework for ILO interventions on Unacceptable Forms of Work in Benin, Bolivia, Brazil, Costa Rica, India, Malawi, Morocco, Pakistan, Pacific Island countries, southern Africa, Thailand and Uzbekistan [E1].

• National employment policies. The project’s “findings and recommendations on effective labour regulation [are] … exceptionally valuable to [the ILO] in developing and strengthening employment policies which fully integrate effective labour regulation,” as confirmed by the Director of the Employment Policy Department. In this regard, the research has influenced employment policy in China, Indonesia, Mozambique, the Philippines, South Africa, and Uganda [E2] and discussions with the International Monetary Fund, World Bank and OECD [E2].

The research has impacted labour law and policy in Australia and Wales through collaborations initiated as part of McCann’s ESRC Strategic Network on Unacceptable Forms of Work.

In Australia, the report of the Victorian Government’s Inquiry into the Labour Hire Industry and Insecure Work used McCann’s model of UFW as a framework for conceptualising insecure work ([E5], pp 264, 266-267; [E6]). The regulatory approach from the research – specific regulation – underpinned legislative change: in response to the Inquiry, the Victorian Government legislated a licencing scheme for labour hire services that specifically regulates vulnerable categories of work (Labour Hire Licensing Act 2018 (Victoria, Australia) [E6].

The model has also been adopted by the Australian trade union movement, particularly influencing the Victorian Trades Hall Council (VTHC) (a peak-level TU confederation of 40 unions and 430,000 members) through the efforts of Lisa Heap, Women’s Lead Organiser of the VTHC and a member of the UFW Strategic Network. Heap attests that “this research has been vital to the VTHC in shaping its policies on precarious work and gender discrimination” [E6]. In particular, she has used it in her work leading the State of Victoria’s first Women’s Rights and Safety Unit, a partnership between the Victorian state government and the union movement to address gender inequality among Victoria’s 1.5 million women workers [E6].

The research has shaped the VTHC’s submissions to the Inquiry into the Labour Hire Industry and Insecure Work [E7, p7] in which it was “particularly valuable in offering a multi-dimensional approach to resolving issues associated with insecurity that is more comprehensive and sophisticated than other models” [E6]. The research was also used in VTHC submissions to the Australian Parliament Senate Standing Committee investigation of Gender Segregation in the Workplace and its Impact on Women’s Economic Equality ([E8], p 19).

Heap also attests that her “engagement both with the UFW framework and the Strategic Network on Unacceptable Forms of Work was influential in the development of” Victoria’s Women in Construction Strategy – commissioned from Heap by the Victorian government to increase women’s participation in building and construction. Through Heap, the research also informed the work of the Victorian Ministerial Council on Women’s Equality, including in Victoria’s first ever Gender Equality Strategy, Safe and Strong [E6].

In Wales, the research has shaped the Welsh Government’s policy on tackling workplace exploitation [E9]. The Government’s position paper on Brexit and Fair Movement of People drew on McCann’s model to underpin the employment dimension of Welsh migration policy, which is centred on tackling exploitation [E9]. The Model was used to develop the concept of a spectrum of exploitation in labour markets and helped to shape the Government’s response: forceful enforcement of labour legislation and the extension of collective bargaining and trade union access [E9]. This policy was subsequently developed by the Welsh Fair Work Commission to recommend social partnership legislation and a Fair Work Agency, both now forthcoming in a Social Partnership Act and Social Partnership and Fair Work Directorate (2020) [E10].