Category: The Conversation

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Marc Roscoe Loustau, Affiliated Fellow at the Institute for Advanced Study, Central European University

Hungary’s long-serving leader, Viktor Orbán, was dismissed on April 12 by an electorate fed up with his authoritarian rule. Péter Magyar led his Tisza party to a landslide victory, securing a two-thirds majority in parliament. This is enough for Tisza to elect members of Hungary’s highest court and even amend the constitution.

Magyar has vowed to change the constitution as one of his first steps in office in a drive to restore democratic standards. Religious minority groups in Hungary, including several that have been treated harshly by Orbán, are likely to be among the main beneficiaries of this change.

Before Orbán came to power, the Hungarian constitution guaranteed the right to choose or change religion and the freedom to express such beliefs. However, Hungary’s religious landscape underwent significant change over Orbán’s 16 years in power.

In June 2011, not long after winning a landslide two-thirds majority in parliament, MPs from Orbán’s Fidesz party passed a law that reduced the number of recognised religious groups in Hungary from 44 to 14.

The main beneficiaries were a group of Christian churches: the Catholic Church, Reformed Church, Lutheran Church, Unitarian Church, Baptist Union and various Orthodox communities. These churches received special commendations as so-called “historical churches” that had played formative roles in Hungarian society.

The main losers from the new law included the Hungarian Evangelical Fellowship (MET), which is led by prominent anti-Orbán critic Gábor Iványi, as well as Buddhist groups and the Hungarian Islamic Community, the oldest Muslim group in the country.

The impetus for the 2011 law came from Orbán’s coalition partner, the Christian National Democratic Party, whose support largely came from the “historical churches” that benefited from the new law. The 14 groups singled out on the official recognition list received various tangible benefits. They were given access to public funding for social services, and people could donate a proportion of their income tax directly to these groups.

Hungary’s constitutional court rejected the new religion law in December 2011, primarily because the parliament approved the law through a highly irregular process. Parliament then drew up nearly identical legislation in response. After more back and forth, Orbán changed the constitution itself in 2013. This change gave parliament explicit and final authority to determine which religious groups to recognise.

Explicit political considerations were injected into the government’s procedure for recognising religious groups. Religious communities had to apply and show they would “cooperate with the state” by providing social services, such as running homeless shelters, schools and eldercare facilities.

These applications were assessed by the Hungarian parliament – and religious groups had to receive a two-thirds majority vote to receive official recognition.

The politicisation of religious life raised immediate objections. Several groups that had been “de-registered”, such as Iványi’s MET, complained of discrimination. They filed lawsuits that went all the way to the European Court of Human Rights.

In a 2014 decision, the European Court of Human Rights ruled that Hungary’s religion law was in breach of multiple articles of the European Convention. This included Article 11, which protects the freedoms of religion and association. The judgment included an order to establish a new process for registering religious groups and a requirement to provide financial restitution to the complainants.

But in a statement released following the verdict, Hungary’s Ministry of Human Resources said the Hungarian government had no obligation to adhere to the court’s rulings. The court’s decision, the statement continued, was evidence of a conspiracy by unnamed “international interest groups”. The restrictive religious legal framework remained largely in place despite the ruling.

This confrontation was one of the first instances of the Orbán government coming into clear conflict with the EU. And the government’s antagonistic response set the tone for the next decade of rancour that has imposed serious damage on Hungary’s relationship with the EU.

Indeed, relations had sunk so low by 2026 that the Danish government called for the suspension of Hungary’s EU voting rights and EU legal experts began drawing up scenarios for recreating a new union without Hungary and Orbán.

Depoliticising religion

The damages for Hungarian religious groups affected by the law have been financial and spiritual. Some groups eventually received financial compensation. But others were forced to register with the government as secular “civil associations” in order to receive government funding. Some refused to change their registration for reasons of religious conscience and effectively ceased to operate entirely.

Now that Orbán’s reign is over, the focus should be on changing the constitution. First and foremost, the process for registering religious groups should be depoliticised. Parliament should have no role and instead the decisions should be turned over to an independent body of experts whose appointments are not dependent on parliament.

But action also needs to be taken by the leadership of Hungary’s Christian churches that enjoyed the privileges of official recognition throughout Orbán’s rule. In large part, these groups did not speak up on behalf of other religious groups as they suffered discrimination at the hands of an antagonistic state.

Magyar has promised to put a revised constitution up for a popular referendum. If the constitution does include substantial and clear provisions for the depoliticisation of religion governance, the church institutions that benefited from Orbán’s rule should use their public moral authority to encourage Hungarians to vote yes.

This would go a long way to demonstrating a commitment to equal treatment for all of Hungary’s religious groups.

Marc Roscoe Loustau does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. Why many of Hungary’s religious groups will be celebrating Viktor Orbán’s election loss – https://theconversation.com/why-many-of-hungarys-religious-groups-will-be-celebrating-viktor-orbans-election-loss-280478

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Stuart Mills, Assistant Professor of Economics, University of Leeds

Rising prices are putting pressure on people to try and use less energy. But what are the most effective ways of cutting bills? We asked five experts for their practical advice.

1. Insulate your home

Upgrading loft insulation to current standards, typically 27–30cm thick for mineral wool, improves energy efficiency, comfort and long-term cost savings. It acts as a thermal barrier, as up to 25% of a home’s heat can escape through an uninsulated roof. Installing cavity wall insulation in older homes improves efficiency by reducing heat loss through walls by up to 35%.

Using draught excluders, keeping internal doors closed on cold days, and installing a smart energy controller also help retain warmth and optimise energy use. All these measures can help lower heating bills, maintain warmer indoor temperatures, reduce draughts, minimise condensation, and improve a home’s energy performance certificate rating.

The cheapest energy is the energy we do not use. That’s why the International Energy Agency describes energy efficiency as the “first fuel”. Buildings account for around 30% of global energy demand, so homes are a critical part of both affordability and energy security.

In the UK, 420,600 energy-efficiency measures were installed in 2024 through government support schemes. There is clearly strong demand for more measures like this.

Farooq Sher is a senior lecturer in sustainable energy engineering

2. Go fully electric

Almost everything in our house is now electric, including our heating, cooking and car. This makes environmental sense because electricity can easily be generated from low-emission sources, whereas gas, petrol and diesel can only really come from extracting and refining fossil fuels. In the UK, we generate electricity from a range of sources including solar, wind, tidal, and from burning gas.

Currently, close to 50% of the electricity on the national grid is from renewable sources. Providing heat from a heat pump has about 70% lower greenhouse gas emissions, compared with heat from a gas boiler.

As well as reducing emissions, electrification can reduce bills. Our heat pump replaced an old and relatively inefficient gas boiler, and our annual heating bill has fallen by about 10%. Though electricity is more expensive than gas, heat pumps can reduce bills because for every unit of electrical power they consume, they deliver between two and four times that in heat.

A well-designed and carefully installed system will improve performance. We upgraded our insulation at the same time, and in winter closed off the spare room completely. An added bonus of full electrification is that there’s no need to pay a gas standing charge, which can save about £128 per year.

Another thing to consider is using materials that reduce need for heating – for instance, double glazing. And try to minimise your demand for energy as much as possible, then install the smallest system which meets that demand. We’ve found that doing all of this leads to a warmer, nicer and cheaper home.

Stuart Walker is a research fellow in sustainabilty assessment

3. Increase your energy payments

The conflict in the Gulf is just the latest shock to the energy supply chain. And the tricky thing with supply chains is disruption takes time to be felt. Even if a peace deal sticks, consumers and businesses can still expect higher prices to ripple through the energy market for months.

As such, think about the behavioural economics of what’s known as “intertemporal choice” – your spending over time. People often excessively discount the future and focus on the present when choosing how to spend money. This is known as “present bias”.

Today, there are widespread expectations of higher energy prices, but (for now) they remain around pre-war prices. In the future – when the war is over – there will be widespread expectations of lower prices, but the current disruptions will still be rippling through the system. This mismatch between expectations and reality could leave people with a nasty surprise when their bill comes through.

So, pay it forward. Don’t fall into the trap of present bias. If you can, increase your energy bill payments today. Economists call this “smoothing out” your consumption. When higher bills bite, you’ll be (psychologically) better off for it.

Stuart Mills is a lecturer in economics

4. Sort out any draughts

In our home, we have removed the fireplace, blocked it completely and insulated inside it to cut out draughts. As it is now not so draughty, the heating isn’t required as much and we’re not losing heat through the chimney stack.

This has improved indoor air quality, partly because we no longer have to dispose of ashes and don’t have to do extra cleaning after fires. This is an indirect saving that some may not realise.

Another benefit is that we’re not exposing ourselves to particulate air pollution that results from open or stove-based fires. Home heating contributes significantly to urban air quality, and my motivation has been to improve both indoor and outdoor air quality.

I’m also not storing or buying and transporting fuel – another cost saving. I have bought a cargo ebike to commute to work, carrying my children and their belongings. It also has a bread basket on the front, which is fantastic for shopping and carrying bags. This has cut my short car trips.

We are fortunate to live in an area with good cycling infrastructure. I am aware these choices are not an option for everyone, especially those in rented or temporary accommodation.

Yvonne Ryan is an associate professor in environmental science

5. Crack on with home improvements

A good way to protect yourself against rising bills next winter is to crack on now with projects to make your home more energy efficient. One option is to stop the heat you have paid for escaping through your windows and doors.

The Energy Saving Trust estimates that upgrading your windows could save up to £140 a year. But research has shown that, while households frequently research the options and get quotes, they often stall at the final decision on a project and fail to go ahead.

One reason for this is over-reacting to “sludge” – the barriers that increase uncertainty and effort, such as difficulty finding information and contractors. This can overwhelm our understanding of the benefits of going ahead, leaving us stuck with the status quo.

But the good news is, it is perfectly possible to override these behavioural biases. Rising and volatile fuel bills may be the nudge we need to do that.

Jonquil Lowe is a visiting academic in economics

Stuart Walker receives funding from the Grantham Foundation for the Protection of the Environment. He is affiliated with Hope Valley Climate Action.

Farooq Sher, Jonquil Lowe, Stuart Mills, and Yvonne Ryan do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. Want to cut your energy bills? Here’s how five experts are doing it – https://theconversation.com/want-to-cut-your-energy-bills-heres-how-five-experts-are-doing-it-280182

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Raawiyah Rifath, Lecturer in Law, University of Exeter

The Home Office is investigating after a BBC report found evidence of a “sham industry” of immigration advisers helping people fabricate asylum claims.

The advisers and lawyers allegedly promised quick routes to refugee status – sometimes for fees of thousands of pounds – by helping asylum seekers present themselves in ways they believed the Home Office would accept. These included false claims based on sexual orientation, atheism, political activism and domestic abuse allegations.

These revelations, while concerning, should not be treated as proof of a widespread problem with asylum seekers. Instead, they show how easily people in precarious legal situations can be exploited when access to trustworthy legal advice has been allowed to erode. While some may knowingly go along with such practices, many others may be exploited by unregulated advisers selling a “quick fix” to a complex system.

In England and Wales, immigration advisers are regulated by the Immigration Advice Authority. They must pass competence exams and can only advise at the level for which they are authorised. Government guidance establishes that they must be regulated and are restricted by their qualification levels. Many of the advisers and lawyers identified in the BBC report are unregulated or operating without a licence. In the UK, providing immigration services without proper authorisation is a criminal offence.
Registered immigration advisers found to prepare fraudulent cases can lose their credentials, while solicitors who act dishonestly can face disciplinary sanctions including strike off.

People seeking asylum navigate one of the most complex areas of law, often not in their first language. At the same time, they are living in temporary accommodation and dealing with uncertainty. It may be difficult for them to distinguish between reputable solicitors, informal community brokers, regulated advisers, overstretched charities and opportunists.

Like many others in England and Wales, asylum seekers have been affected by years of legal aid shortages. This has created gaps that are being filled by exploitative advisers. “Insider knowledge” presented as certainty and speed can be easily sold to people who are unable to access reliable advice.

Legal aid is a state-funded scheme providing legal advice and representation for people who do not have the means to pay for it themselves. This is often the only route to getting regulated legal help at all in asylum matters, but the system has been weakened over many years. Large parts of civil legal aid were cut back after the introduction of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act in 2012, and what remains available is financially unviable for providers because fees have failed to keep pace with costs. As a result, there are fewer firms and longer waits for the lawyers who remain.

Between 2022-23, 63% of the population of England and Wales did not have access to an immigration and asylum legal aid provider in their area. And 51% of asylum applicants in England and Wales (37,450 people) were unable to find a legal aid lawyer.

Read more:
The legal aid sector is collapsing and millions more may soon be without access to justice – new data

Home Office policies house many asylum seekers in locations where legal aid provision is already absent. Access to regulated advisers is far from guaranteed.

The state has left too much room for under-resourced forms of assistance to become normal. As a result, third sector organisations have stepped in to fill gaps in legal support and basic welfare. This often involves the provision of legal support and information about the asylum process.

Most people seeking asylum do not understand what sort of detail the Home Office will expect, how interviews work, what documents they need to present or what counts as corroboration. They rely on legal representatives where they can find them. Considering the lack of affordable and competent advice, opportunistic actors find it easy to step in.

Why unregulated advice finds a market

These issues are worsened by the way asylum decision-making works. Research with asylum seekers about their experiences has found that immigration officials approach asylum interviews with suspicion. Decision-makers may have an idea of what makes someone’s story plausible and recognisable, which is not always reflective of people’s complex lives. For example, people seeking asylum because they are apostates – people who have left religion in a theocracy – have reported being asked to name humanist philosophers – something many would not be able to do regardless of their beliefs.

Home Office caseworkers make life-changing decisions in a system that has long been criticised for inconsistency and disbelief.

Concerns have been raised about the quality of asylum decisions made amid efforts to speed up the process and reduce the backlog of applications. Reports that caseworkers have been offered bonuses for faster decisions also cast doubt on the quality of decision-making. It is not hard to see why people may be drawn towards anyone claiming they know how to make a case “work”.

Long waits also make people more vulnerable to exploitation. Most of our research participants have spent years in limbo, waiting for application decisions. Many would be tempted by promises of a supposedly safer and faster route through the system.

The real concern is not just that some people may be coached on their story, but the fact that the system makes this coaching lucrative. This market of “insider knowledge” can only thrive in a context where regulated legal aid has collapsed, where the success of the asylum claim depends on knowing how to present oneself in a particular manner, and where delays, precarity and uncertainty are part of claimants’ everyday lives.

We welcome any well-investigated scrutiny of rogue advisers. But the legal aid crisis, the uneven geography of advice provision, the culture of disbelief among asylum officials and the assessment process itself are also worthy of examination.

An investigation that does not consider that wider context will only shift public attention to supposedly suspect claimants, instead of to the system that has left them vulnerable to exploitation in the first place.

Raawiyah Rifath has received funding from the Wellcome Centre for Cultures and Environments of Health.

Diego Garcia Rodriguez serves as a trustee of the LGBTIQ+ asylum charity Time To Be Out (https://www.timetobeout.org.uk).

Nicole Hoellerer does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. Legal aid for asylum seekers is hard to come by – it’s no wonder criminal advisers are taking advantage – https://theconversation.com/legal-aid-for-asylum-seekers-is-hard-to-come-by-its-no-wonder-criminal-advisers-are-taking-advantage-280839

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Ciara Breathnach, Professor of Irish Gender History, University College Cork

One hundred years after it was conducted, the first full census of independent Ireland is being released for free online. These nearly 3 million records will be of great significance to Ireland’s population, and a global diaspora of some 80 million claiming Irish ancestry.

As well as providing insight into socioeconomic circumstances following the establishment of Saorstát Éireann (the Irish Free State) in 1922, the 1926 census holds several keys to unravelling Ireland’s complicated past.

For many, this public release will help reconcile the enormous loss caused by the destruction of the Public Record Office of Ireland at the outset of the Irish civil war. An explosion laid waste to over 700 years of Irish historical records, including some of the 19th-century censuses.

In Ireland, public access to historical census returns is legally restricted for 100 years. Almost 16 years since the online release of the 1901 and 1911 household census returns, the demand for more genealogical records is palpable.

So, please be patient with the system (and the wonderful people behind it) as it will be busy. Excitement about previous census releases has crashed websites.

What the census could reveal

The 1926 census has some novel aspects compared with those conducted under British administration from 1821 to 1911. Although the Irish language was part of a bilingual question since 1851, the 1926 census offered the first opportunity to complete the form as Gaeilge (in Irish).

This census emphasised the “family” as the unit of inquiry, as opposed to the “household”, which was more inclusive of non-relatives cohabiting. As with past censuses, the name, age, sex, marital status/orphanhood, birthplace, language, religion and occupation of each person was documented in terms of their relationship to an appointed head of household.

A census provides the statistical underpinning to plan for future population needs. In the 1920s, the world was reeling from excess young adult mortality – a combination of the first world war and the global influenza pandemic. Ireland was no exception.

Aggregate reports from the 1926 census convey concerns about the declining population, delayed age at marriage and marital fertility.

Perhaps reflecting the remit of the responsible Department of Industry and Commerce (Statistics Branch), the 1926 census sought more precise information than previous censuses about employment and employers. The reports show that of 1,223,014 “gainfully employed” people over the age of 12, 53% were engaged in agriculture.

But regional variations were marked. In Dublin City, heartland of the pejoratively termed “beer and biscuits” economy, that figure was as low as 0.9%. In counties like Galway, agricultural dependency was as high as 75%.

Only 6% of the population was categorised as “unemployed”, most of which was temporary. Some jobs had residential components and, of those, the 14,145 “professed clergymen and nuns” outnumbered the 13,869 non-commissioned members of the recently reduced Óglaigh na hÉireann (Irish army).

The records released on April 18 tell us even more about the men, women and children behind these statistics, what their domestic lives were like, and the parts they played in Saorstát Eireann.

Mysteries of history

Like many, I approach the release with questions about my own family, such as where my grandparents were at the time.

My first search will be for deceased loved ones like my darling uncle Eamon. He will be among the infants recorded in 1926, who went on to contribute to the Bailiúchán na Scol or Schools’ Collection – a compilation of folklore compiled by Irish schoolchildren in the 1930s. Something was definitely in my eye when I found him in there a few years ago.

There are also several wider socioeconomic, cultural and political aspects to this census that I will explore.

I am interested in teasing out the relationship between the populace and the newly-formed An Gárda Síochána, the unarmed police force established in 1926 who acted as census takers. For example, did they encourage participation, or instil a reticence to engage, among those who opposed the Irish Free State government?

Related to this is whether Dublin’s sex work district, Monto, endured the moral panic that swept across Europe following the Great War. My work with Rachel Murphy on the 1911 census found several young women as sole occupants of tenement rooms, which would normally be inhabited by entire families. Will similar patterns emerge when we examine the streets of Monto in 1926?

It will be possible to investigate the ages of older cohorts alongside court records. This may challenge the well-worn jokes about those who allegedly aged more than ten years between the 1901 and 1911 censuses, in order to qualify for the old-age pension.

For scholars of migration, birthplace will be a critical data point, to trace Northern Irish Catholics seeking refuge from sectarian conflict.

Sadly, the equivalent 1926 Northern Irish returns were lost through suspected improper housing and archival neglect. This inhibits future research on the 106,456 decrease in the Protestant population from the 1911 census. Some of this reflected the departure of British Crown forces, but the majority were those fleeing the Irish Free State for political and safety reasons.

Tips for your census search

Household census returns are an excellent source of information about past family and kinship networks. But it is best to manage expectations and think creatively around naming conventions, derivatives and spelling variations. Ditto for place names – but there is a useful historical mapping tool that could help. Bear in mind also that several streets were renamed after 1922.

As a general rule, the upper echelons of Irish society are easier to find in official records than lower socioeconomic groups. My work shows how census returns are often the only official record of ordinary lives.

To protect the privacy of residents in hospitals, asylums, prisons, county homes (erstwhile workhouses) and other carceral institutions on census night, only their initials were recorded. This makes patients and inmates tricky to find, but a rough idea of age and location will prove helpful.

For the more well-documented Irish, the 1926 census offers a conduit to the delights of other freely available online collections, like the civil registration of births deaths and marriages on irishgenealogy.ie.

Ciara Breathnach receives funding from Research Ireland.

– ref. 80 million people globally claim Irish ancestry – why the release of 1926 Irish census records is so momentous – https://theconversation.com/80-million-people-globally-claim-irish-ancestry-why-the-release-of-1926-irish-census-records-is-so-momentous-280746