Local STP and Health inequalities Jan 25th Bridge Park

You can register:

·        Online: https://brentnhshealthforum_Jan2017.eventbrite.co.uk
·        By emailing: brentccg.engagement@nhs.net

"If the community sees [PREVENT] as a problem, then you have a problem”

Image for earlier report by Rights Watch LINK

Earlier this month Brent Council organised a public discussion on Extremism at which the majority of the audience appeared to be opposed to the Prevent Strategy - not because they were in favour of 'Extremism' but because they saw the strategy as sterotyping the Muslim community and being implemented in a top-down way which excluded community organisations. Additionally it threatened free speech in schools and colleges and had a corrosive effect on good community relations.  Overall it was likely to be counter-productive.

Now Open Society has taken up many of these issues in a report entitled Eroding Trust: The UK's PREVENT Counter Extremism Strategy in Health and Education LINK

Concerned organisations in Brent has set up a Monitoring Group on Prevent on Facebook which can be found HERE.

As a contribution to the Brent debate I publish below the Executive Summary of the Open Society Report:

“I’ve never felt not British. And this [Prevent experience] made me feel very, very, like they tried to make me feel like an outsider. We live here. I am born and bred here, not from anywhere else”.

“It could have gone the opposite way if I wasn’t thinking straight, if I were the type who was being brainwashed. The way they went about it, [Prevent] could have made me do exactly what they told me not to do. I associate with Prevent negatively, it is not helpful at all”

 Executive Summary and Recommendations

The UK’s Prevent strategy, which purports to prevent terrorism, creates a serious risk of human rights violations. The programme is flawed in both its design and application, rendering it not only unjust but also counterproductive. 

Launched in 2003, the Prevent strategy has evolved against the background of increased public fears over the threat of “home grown” terrorism. The strategy in its cur- rent form aims “to stop people becoming terrorists or supporting terrorism”. In 2015, legislation created a statutory Prevent duty on schools, universities, and NHS trusts, among other public sector entities, to have “due regard to the need to prevent people from being drawn into terrorism”. This requires doctors, psychologists, and teachers, among other health and education professionals, to identify individuals at risk of being drawn into terrorism (including violent and non-violent “extremism”) for referral to the police-led multi-agency “Channel” programme (for England and Wales) or “Prevent Professional Concerns” (for Scotland), both of which purport to “support” such individuals. 

This report analyses the human rights impact of Prevent in its current form in the education and health sectors. It focuses on these sectors because they are critically dependent on trust and have particular care-giving functions that have not traditionally been directed towards preventing terrorism. Under Prevent, doctors and teachers who have a professional duty to care for their charges are now required to assess and report them for being at risk of “extremism”, which is defined as “vocal or active opposition to fundamental British values, including democracy, the rule of law, individual liberty and mutual respect and tolerance of different faiths and beliefs”. Because the conscription of these sectors into preventing terrorism is part of a growing trend, the report’s principal findings, listed below, not only apply to the United Kingdom, but are relevant and instructive for other governments grappling with these challenges. 

First, the current Prevent strategy suffers from multiple, mutually reinforcing structural flaws, the foreseeable consequence of which is a serious risk of human rights violations. These violations include, most obviously, violations of the right against discrimination, as well the right to freedom of expression, among other rights. Prevent’s structural flaws include the targeting of “pre-criminality”, “non- violent extremism”, and opposition to “British values”. This “intensifies” the government’s reach into “everyday lawful discourse”. Furthermore, Prevent’s targeting of non-violent extremism and “indicators” of risk of being drawn into terrorism lack a scientific basis. Indeed, the claim that non-violent extremism – including “radical” or religious ideology – is the precursor to terrorism has been widely discredited by the British government itself, as well as numerous reputable scholars. Prevent training, much of it based on unreliable indicators, appears to be largely unregulated. Moreover, the statutory duty creates an incentive to over- refer. This incentive is reinforced by the adverse consequences associated with non-compliance with the Prevent duty and the lack of adverse consequences for making erroneous referrals. The case studies and interviews in this report confirm the tendency to over-refer individuals under Prevent. The fundamental nature of these defects makes them unlikely to be cured by a mere renaming of Prevent to “Engage”.

Second, Prevent’s overly broad and vague definition of “non-violent extremism” creates the potential for systemic human rights abuses. On the basis of this definition, schools, universities, and NHS trusts, among other “specified authorities” subject to the Prevent duty, are required to assess the risk of children, students, and patients being drawn into terrorism and report them to the police-led Channel programme where necessary. By the government’s own admission, thou- sands of people have been erroneously referred to the Channel programme. Individuals (including children) erroneously referred under Prevent experience the referral as inherently stigmatising and intensely intimidating. They also fear continued surveillance and the creation and retention of Prevent records, which may taint them and lead others to view them as “extremists” in the future. 

Specifically, the targeting of non-violent extremism raises serious concerns about possible violations of the right to freedom of expression. Children in schools have been targeted under Prevent for expressing political views. University conferences relating to Islamophobia and Islam in Europe have been cancelled, raising questions of possible breaches under the Education Act (1986) and article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights. More generally, the case studies and interviews in this report suggest that Prevent has created a significant chilling effect on freedom of expression in schools and universities, and undermined trust between teachers and students. This risks driving underground, removed from debate and challenge, conversations about controversial issues such as terrorism. In addition, as indicated by the large number of interviewees for this report who requested anonymity, there is a genuine and intensely held fear among some that public criticism of Prevent will trigger retaliation. This fear is particularly acute for parents who fear that their children will bear the brunt of the retaliation. 

Third, the Prevent duty creates a risk of discrimination, particularly against Muslims. Frontline professionals have broad discretion to act on their conscious or unconscious biases in deciding whom to report under Prevent. Current and former police leads for Prevent recognise that currently, Prevent operates in a cli- mate marked by Islamophobia. Significantly, between July 2015 and July 2016, Islamophobic crime in London rose by 94 percent. This climate creates the risk that Muslims in particular may be erroneously targeted under Prevent. All of the case studies relating to the targeting of individuals under Prevent raise serious questions about whether they would have been targeted in this manner had they not been Muslim. Relatedly, in some case studies, Muslims appear to have been targeted under Prevent for displaying signs of increased religiosity, raising questions about the violation of their right to manifest their religion.

Fourth, by requiring the identification and reporting of individuals at risk of violent and non-violent extremism, Prevent creates a risk of violations of the right to privacy. Many of the case studies describe individuals being intrusively questioned under intimidating conditions about their religious and/or political beliefs. One case study raises troubling questions about the collection (apparently without informed consent) of names and political opinions from Muslim children for the Home Office.

Fifth, there are serious concerns about the treatment of children under Prevent. Although the government describes Prevent as a form of “safeguarding” (a statutory term which denotes promotion of welfare and protection from harm), the two sets of obligations have materially different aims, particularly with respect to children. In contrast to the Prevent strategy, for which the primary objective is preventing terrorism, the primary objective of the duty to safeguard children under domestic legislation is the welfare of the child. This reflects the obligation under article 3(1) of the Convention on the Rights of the Child to make the best interests of the child a primary consideration in all actions relating to children. Accordingly, while compliance with safeguarding obligations would only permit referral to Channel while prioritising the best interests of the child, the Channel duty guidance does not specify that as a mandatory or even a relevant consideration. All of the case studies in this report relating to children – including one in which a four year-old child was targeted– appear to be instances in which the best interests of the child were not a primary consideration. 

Sixth, the Prevent duty risks breaching health bodies’ duty of confidentiality towards their patients and undermining the relationship between health professionals and their patients. The standard for disclosure of confidential information under Prevent appears to be much lower than that warranted by the common law duty of confidentiality enshrined in the NHS confidentiality code of practice and the General Medical Council’s confidentiality guidance. Specifically, requiring a medical professional to report to the police-led Channel programme an individual who is at “risk of being drawn into terrorism”, including “non-violent extremism”, appears to be a much lower standard than requiring the medical professional to report (under the GMC guidance) the individual only when failure to disclose confidential information would expose others to a risk of death or serious harm. This could generate breaches of the confidentiality duty along with violations of the right to private life under article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

Finally, there are serious indications that Prevent is counterproductive. The case studies show that being wrongly targeted under Prevent has led some Muslims to question their place in British society. Other adults wrongfully targeted under Prevent have said that, had they been different, their experience of Prevent could have drawn them towards terrorism, and not away from it. Government data reveal that 80% of all Channel referrals were set aside, implying that there were thousands of individuals wrongly referred to Channel. This in turn risks under- mining the willingness of targeted communities to supply intelligence to law enforcement officials which could be used to prevent terrorist acts.
 

As Sir David Omand, the architect of the original version of Prevent, has observed: “The key issue is, do most people in the community accept [Prevent] as protective of their rights? If the community sees it as a problem, then you have a problem”. This report demonstrates that the UK’s Prevent strategy is indeed a serious problem. 

Recommendations

To the UK Government:

1.     Repeal the Prevent duty with respect to the health and education sectors. 


2.     End the targeting and reporting of “non-violent extremism” under the Prevent strategy. 


3.     End the use of empirically unsupported indicators of vulnerability to being drawn into terrorism. 


4.     Establish an independent public inquiry – with civil society participation – into the Prevent strategy and associated rights violations. 


5.     Create a formal and independent complaints mechanism through which individu- als whose rights have been violated by the Prevent strategy can seek and obtain prompt and meaningful remedies. 


6.     Publicly commit to a policy of zero tolerance regarding retaliation against indi- viduals who allege rights violations under Prevent. 


7.     Publicly disclose data on total number of individuals referred to and processed through Prevent, Channel, and Prevent Professional Concerns (PPC), as well a the breakdown of these figures by age, type of extremism, and referring authority. 


8.     Publicly disclose, to the extent it exists, evidence underpinning and data relating to the UK’s Extremism Risk Guidance (ERG) 22+. 


To the Children’s Commissioners for England, Wales, and Scotland:

Conduct an assessment of the impact of Prevent on children, including but not limited to whether the best interests of the child are a primary consideration in Prevent-related actions. 

To the National Association of Head Teachers, the National Association of Schoolmasters Union of Women Teachers, the Association of Teachers and Lecturers, the National Union of Teachers, and other teachers associations: 

Conduct an assessment of the impact of Prevent on teachers and children, including but not limited to the extent to which the best interests of the child are a primary consideration in Prevent-related actions.

To Universities UK:

Conduct an assessment of the impact of Prevent in universities, including but not limited to its impact on academic freedom and freedom of speech. 

To the General Medical Council: 

Review and clarify professional standards relating to the duty of confidentiality as interpreted and applied in Prevent settings. 

To the British Medical Association, the British Psychological Society,
the Academy of Medical Royal Colleges, the Royal College of General Practitioners, the Royal College of Psychiatrists, and other professional bodies in the health sector: 

Conduct an assessment of the impact of Prevent on the practice of doctors, psychologists and other healthcare professionals, and on patients and patient care, including but not limited to an assessment of how the duty of confidentiality is being interpreted and applied in Prevent settings.

Eroding Trust: Discussion of Open Society report on Prevent Wednesday October 19th

The launch of of a new report by the Open Society Justice Initiative assessing the human rights impact of the government’s Prevent strategy in health and education.

The report, entitled “Eroding Trust: The UK’s Prevent Counter-Extremism strategy in health and education” seeks to contribute to the debate on Prevent, at a time when the government is preparing to update the CONTEST counter-terrorism strategy of which it is a part.

Based on legal analysis, case studies of individuals directly affected by the Prevent strategy in health and education, as well as interviews with health and education professionals, current and former government officials, religious leaders, and community advocates, this report presents the most comprehensive account to date of how Prevent is being implemented in these areas.

The launch will take place on Wednesday 19th October in Committee Room 10 at 6pm. I would be delighted if you could attend.

RSVP to Priya Dev – devp@parliament.uk

Eroding Trust: Discussion of Open Society report on Prevent Wednesday October 19th

The launch of of a new report by the Open Society Justice Initiative assessing the human rights impact of the government’s Prevent strategy in health and education.

The report, entitled “Eroding Trust: The UK’s Prevent Counter-Extremism strategy in health and education” seeks to contribute to the debate on Prevent, at a time when the government is preparing to update the CONTEST counter-terrorism strategy of which it is a part.

Based on legal analysis, case studies of individuals directly affected by the Prevent strategy in health and education, as well as interviews with health and education professionals, current and former government officials, religious leaders, and community advocates, this report presents the most comprehensive account to date of how Prevent is being implemented in these areas.

The launch will take place on Wednesday 19th October in Committee Room 10 at 6pm. I would be delighted if you could attend.

RSVP to Priya Dev – devp@parliament.uk

'Transformation' of health & care in Brent - Public Meeting

From Brent NHS Clinical Commissioning Group

You are invited to a public meeting and workshop to discuss our plan to transform your health and care system. The five year plan is a collaboration between Brent CCG, Brent Council and NHS providers in the borough.

This event will take place on Monday 26 September from 6.30pm at Brent Civic Centre, Engineers Way, Wembley, HA9 0FJ

Last year the government outlined a new approach to help ensure that health and care services were built around the needs of local populations. To do this, every health and care system in England was asked to produce a multi-year plan.

To develop and deliver plans locally, 44 'footprint' areas throughout the country were established. Brent sits within the North West London (NWL) footprint which is being coordinated by the NWL group of Clinical Commissioning Groups (CCGs). The plans are being developed in partnership with the eight Local Authorities and NHS providers in the area.

Cllr Krupesh Hirani, Cabinet Member for Community Wellbeing said:

Residents' opinions' are absolutely key to the successful development and delivery of Brent's plan, especially in delivering the long-term outcomes we want to achieve for our patients and the wider public. The development of future services that will better enable this vision to become a reality will rely on strong and consistent patient and public engagement throughout the process.

In order to hear your views, we encourage you to come along to the event on Monday 26 September.

Dr Ethie Kong, Chair of Brent CCG said:

Join our conversation in making health services work in a sustainable and efficient way across the borough. We are committed to an NHS that fits residents' needs, so come along and tell us what you think of the work we have done so far. We look forward to working with the patient and public to continue to shape our health strategy over the coming years. 

  Register your interest HERE

Greens out in force to support the People's Assembly's 4 demands

There was an excellent Green Party presence at the People's Assembly March Against Austerity today as Greens rallied to support the four demands on Health, Homes, Jobs and Education.

Brent Big Health Debate Meetings in October

From Brent NHS Clinical Commissioning Group

Local Commissioing Intentions Followup Meetings

As places are limited please can you contact Sandra Sam-Yorke at brentccg.engagement@nhs.net  8900 5376 to register as soon as possible. Also you can review and comment on our draft commissioning intentions using our online survey HERE

Topic	Locality	Date	Venue	Lead
Integration of health and social care	Wembley	16-Oct, 3-5pm	WCHC Boardroom,   116 Chaplin Road, Wembley, HA0 4UZ	Sean Girty
Community services	Willesden	22-Oct 2-4pm	Willesden Centre for Health & Care Robson Avenue, Willesden Green, NW10 3RY	Isha Coombes
Mental Health Community Action on Dementia	Kilburn	23 Oct, 12-5pm	Clayton Crown Hotel   142-152 Cricklewood Broadway, NW2 3ED	Brent Council & CCG
Planned care	Kilburn	23-Oct, 1-3pm	St Anne’s Church - 125 Salusbury Road, West Kilburn, NW6 6RG	Huw Wilson
Mental Health Post-traumatic stress disorder	Harness	27-Oct, 11:30-1pm	Brent Mind The Design Works Park Parade, Harlesden,NW10 4HT	Brent Mind
Mental Health Brent User Group	Wembley	29-Oct,  3-5.30pm or 5-7.30pm	Patidar Centre 22 London Rd, Wembley, Middlesex HA9 7EX	Brent User Group

Have your say on Brent NHS services: October 7th

From Brent Clinical Commissioning Group (CCG)  LINK
 

You are cordially invited to attend our next Health Partners Forum, The Big Brent Health Debate that will take place on:

Wednesday, 7^th October 2015 @ Sattavis Patidar Centre, Forty Avenue, Wembley Park, Middlesex, HA9 9PE

Buffet will be served from 5.15pm with the evening’s discussion starting at 6.00 – 8.30pm.

Brent CCG’s vision is to improve the quality of care for individuals, carers and families by empowering and supporting people to maintain independence and active lives.

·      How do you want NHS services to be delivered in Brent?

·      What services matter most to you?

·      Is there anything you would change if you could?

Come and find out more about our draft commissioning intentions for 2016/17 and our key priorities for next year at the Health Partners Forum.

It is your opportunity to have your say on helping to shape the healthcare priorities for the year ahead.

Your opinions will help GPs decide what services work well, what doesn’t work so well and where we need to make improvements to healthcare services in Brent.

To RSVP and for more information please email: brentccg.engagement@nhs.net  or call 020 8900 5376.

You can also register for the event by visiting: https://hpf-oct2015-brentccg.eventbrite.co.uk

Please provide own translator if required. There will be live captioning for the hearing impaired.

We therefore look forward to seeing you on the 7^th October 2015.   Please share this communication with your family members, friends, neighbours and community.

Let’s work in partnership to make our 2015 Health Partners Forums rewarding events for us all.