The Defence and Security Accelerator (DASA) is pleased to launch a new open call that focuses on tackling security challenges in the UK. The Security Rapid Impact Innovations is now open, and seeks ideas that could enhance UK security and is related to one or more of the following government departments;

• Home Office (HO)
• Department of Transport (DfT) (in relation to security departments)
• other Government Security Departments

How much funding is available?

There is no funding limit for Security Rapid Impact Innovations, however we expect to fund bids between £100K – £350K.

Don’t miss out! The closing date for Cycle 1 of Security Rapid Impact Innovations is 8 July 2021. Click here for more information.

What innovations are we seeking?

Providing security for the UK and its citizens is one of the most important and challenging responsibilities of government and is growing increasingly diverse and complex. To maintain a strategic advantage, we need to ensure the UK has capabilities to ensure public safety and deal with a broad range of challenges that disrupt our way of life.

We are open to ideas that will seek to enhance understanding of threats to UK security and safety, enable threat prevention, or enhance the threat response.

DASA expects that some proposals will be relevant to both defence and security.

What Technology Readiness Level is expected?

Security Rapid Impact Innovations are expected to deliver a technology model or prototype demonstration at around Technology Readiness Level (TRL) 6 or 7, at the end of the contract. This demonstration should be at a limited scale and in the context or environment in which it is expected that the solution would be used.

What does my Security Rapid Impact Innovations proposal need to include?

• your project should have a realistic prospect of achieving an impact within a 3 year frame from the completion of the project and must complete by March 2024
• we will only fund proposals if there is a strong security user requirement and capability need for the idea
• your project can include a further priced option for a Testing and Trialling phase

For more information and requirements for your proposal, click here.

Next step? Submit an innovation outline to an Innovation Partner

Please note, for this Security Rapid Impact Innovations Open call a submitted innovation outline is required prior to full proposal submission. To do this, visit the contact a DASA Innovation Partner page and go through the easy to follow steps.

The Innovation Partner will contact you within 10 working days of your Innovation Outline submission. Once the Innovation Partner has considered your outline, they will advise you whether your idea is suitable for DASA funding and provide you with guidance on the bidding process.

The closing date for proposals is 8 July 2021.

The Paymaster General has appointed Sir Robert Francis QC to undertake an independent study, looking at options for a framework for compensation for the victims of the infected blood tragedy. The study will report back to the Government with recommendations, before the Infected Blood inquiry reports. The terms of reference of this study which will determine its scope and will be finalised following consultation between the independent reviewer and those infected and affected.

The purpose of this study is to advise on the parameters and principles of a potential framework for a scheme of compensation to be paid to the victims of infected blood. It is anticipated that the Inquiry’s findings and recommendations may point towards such a scheme when it reports.

The study is a separate piece of work from the ongoing Infected Blood Inquiry, which is an independent public statutory Inquiry. The findings of the study will be made public and available to the Inquiry before its report is published.

The purpose of doing this work now is to ensure that there is no unnecessary delay in implementing any potential recommendations by the Inquiry in relation to compensation or levels of financial support.

Suggested scope of the study

To help inform consultation on the study’s terms of reference, the following points cover the suggested scope of the study:

• To consider the rationale for such compensation

• Give independent advice to the Government regarding the design of a workable and fair framework for compensation for individuals infected and affected;

• To consider the scope of such compensation, and whether it should be extended beyond infected individuals and their partners, to include for example affected parents and children, either because of the impact of caring responsibilities or the effects of bereavement;

• To consider the measures for compensation, looking at other national schemes (for example, the compensation tribunal established in the Republic of Ireland),

• To consider the relationship between a compensation framework and the current financial support schemes;

• To consider options for administering the scheme.

• Submit to the Government its report and recommendations as quickly as possible and no later than the end of February 2022, to provide the Government with advice on potential options for compensation framework design.

Sir Robert is keen to receive comments on this suggested scope for the study from people directly infected, and others with an interest. He is particularly interested in the following areas so responses should be framed along these lines:

• Do these points capture all the things the study should consider?
• Do they cover the right areas?
• Are there issues missing from this list which Sir Robert should look at?

Consultation deadline extended

The deadline for the consultation about the Study’s terms of reference has been extended until 9 August, to allow the recognised legal representatives (RLRs) of infected and affected core participants to provide submissions. The RLRs will be asked to make their submissions about draft terms of reference which will be based on the responses to the consultation received so far, and provided to the RLRs on 26 July. Because of the wholly exceptional nature of this issue, limited funding will be made available to each firm for the purposes of completing this piece of work on the consultation. Sir Robert will consider responses to the consultation before submitting his proposals to the Paymaster General for decision. The terms of reference will be published shortly afterwards.

Approach

It is not the intention of the study to interfere with the work of the statutory public inquiry or anticipate its findings, or compromise it in any way. The study will, however, take account of evidence heard and published by the Inquiry.

The study is quite different to the public inquiry. It will not undertake, or otherwise commission, new evidence in relation to the facts being investigated by Sir Brian, but the views of the infected and affected community on such a compensation scheme and their experiences of seeking support will be at the heart of the study. Sir Robert will want to hear directly from people directly affected, as well as being able to call on Department for Health and Social Care, HM Treasury and other departments for information and analysis to which the study may have regard.

The study will:

• Listen to the experiences and views of those who have suffered harm.
• Consult with relevant individuals or organisations with experience of setting up a compensation framework to offer workable solutions to assist in the design.
• Look at other compensation schemes, for example the Republic of Ireland compensation tribunal, to consider how they operate and what lessons can be taken for the design of a UK scheme.
• Provide advice and recommendations to The Government

The study will not:

• Re-run evidence already being heard by the Inquiry in relation to the historical background to the tragedy or how it happened.
• Require victims to have legal representation to put forward their views. Sir Robert is keen to hear directly from infected and affected people and this study is not intended to re-run the legal submissions made to the Inquiry. Participants can of course engage legal representation to present their contributions, but we do not think this will be necessary.