Unintended consequences of counter-terrorism legislation

Thanks to Robin Richardson for forwarding the following extract which I think contributes to our discussion on this blog about the Prevent Strategy and its impact in Brent.

 

Unintended consequences of counter-terrorism legislation

Extract from Living with Difference: diversity, community and the common good, the report of the Commission on Religion and Belief in British Public Life, published on 7 December 2015.

­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­______________________________________________________________

8.22      Counter-terrorism legislation and strategies are a proper responsibility for all governments and have rightly been a priority in Britain and other western countries since the outrages in New York (2001), Madrid (2004) and London (2005). More recently, major atrocities have included murders in Woolwich (2013), Paris (2015) and Tunisia (2015). Governments have a clear responsibility to prevent such outrages. Also, as with the whole spectrum of crime and disorder, they have leadership tasks in relation to fear of terrorism, and to fostering security not only as objective fact but also as subjective feeling. According to the Pew Research Center, between 2011 and 2015 the percentage saying they are very concerned about Islam-related extremism in their country increased by 38 percentage points in France, 29 points in Spain, 21 points in the United Kingdom, 20 points in Germany and 17 points in the United States.[1] Within the overall pattern of public opinion in Britain it has been found that fear of Islam-related terrorism is higher amongst older people and people living outside London, and in particular parts of the electorate.[2]

8.23     The ways in which anti-terrorism policies operate in practice can have, however, unintended consequences. In particular, significant numbers of citizens may come to feel they are viewed as Other, namely as people who do not truly belong and cannot be trusted, 'them' rather than 'us', suspects or potential suspects, not ordinary citizens with the same values as everyone else. Counter-terrorism policies and measures may then not only fail to achieve their objectives but actually may make matters worse, such that both terrorism and the fear of terrorism increase, and both security and sense of security are diminished.[3] At the present time it is Muslim communities in Britain that are most directly and obviously affected. All people, however, are of course affected by increases in fear and feelings of insecurity, as also all people in a society are affected by the ways in which majorities and minorities see and approach each other.

8.24     To decrease the danger of unintended harmful consequences in counter-terrorism measures against Islam-related terrorism, the following five points need to be carefully considered:

a)      The government needs to engage with a wide range of academic theory, research and scholarship about the nature and causes of terrorism. Amongst other things, this means it should encourage and promote, not seek to limit, freedom of enquiry, speech and expression, and should not loosely use words and concepts which scholarship shows to be controversial and unclear. Such words and concepts include 'ideology', 'radicalisation', 'extremism' and 'Islamism'.[4] 

b)      The government needs to meet and engage with a wide range of Muslim groups and organisations, and to show that it understands, even if it does not agree with, the views about the nature and causes of terrorism that they hold. It cannot otherwise gain the trust and confidence of significant opinion leaders, and therefore cannot otherwise rely on their support and assistance. Their support and assistance are essential, however, if counter-terrorism strategies are to be successful. In its selection of organisations with which to engage the government must guard against the perception that it is operating with a simplistic good Muslims/bad Muslims distinction, or between ‘mainstream moderates’ and ‘violent or non-violent extremists’.

c)       There is no causal or inevitable link between conservative or orthodox theological and moral views on the one hand and propensity to violent and criminal behaviour on the other. Nor, more fundamentally, is there a simple, one-way causal link between a worldview, ideology or narrative on the one hand and specific actions and behaviours on the other.[5]

d)      There is no simplistic us/them distinction or clash between western or Enlightenment values on the one hand and the values of other cultures, countries and civilisations on the other, nor between Christian values and those of other religions.

e)      Political leaders should seek not only to promote debate and deliberation about the causes of terrorism but also to challenge misunderstandings and negative stereotypes in the population at large and in mass-circulation newspapers – they have a duty to lead public opinion, and not only to reduce fear and insecurity in the majority population but also to give principled reassurance and moral support to groups and communities which feel vulnerable to violence or discrimination.

8.25     These concerns were well summarised in the September 2015 report of Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation. The report listed 15 issues raised by the government’s new measures on countering extremism and commented that the issues matter because ‘they concern the scope of UK discrimination, hate speech and public order laws, the limits that the state may place on some of our most basic freedoms, the proper limits of surveillance, and the acceptability of imposing suppressive measures without the protections of the criminal law’. The report then issued the very important warning that ‘if the wrong decisions are taken, the new law risks provoking a backlash in affected communities, hardening perceptions of an illiberal or Islamophobic approach, alienating those whose integration into British society is already fragile and playing into the hands of those who, by peddling a grievance agenda, seek to drive people further towards extremism and terrorism’.[6] There is a severe danger, to put the same point in different words, that the vision of a society at ease with itself, sketched at the start of chapter 3 of this report, and frequently referred to throughout the following chapters, will be harmed not helped by government action. It could be harder not easier, as a consequence of government action, for the citizens of the UK to live with their differences. It is essential that forthcoming proposals on countering extremism should be scrutinised with the maximum possible care and amended accordingly if appropriate, and that subsequent operations when they are enacted should be monitored with a very high degree of diligence.

Bibliography

Anderson, David (2015) The Terrorism Acts in 2014: report of the Independent Reviewer on the operation of the Terrorism Act 2000 and Part 1 of the Terrorism Act 2006. London: Williams Lea Group.

Choudhury, Tufyal and Helen Fenwick (2011) The impact of counter-terrorism measures on Muslim communities. EHRC Research Report no. 72. Manchester: Equality and Human Rights Commission.

Christmann, Kris (2012) Preventing Religious Radicalisation and Violent Extremism: a systematic review of the research evidence. London: Youth Justice Board for England and Wales.

Francis, Matthew (2012) ‘What causes radicalisation? Main lines of consensus in recent research’, Radicalisation Research, 24 January. http://www.radicalisationresearch.org/guides/francis-2012-causes-2/

Hickman, Mary J, Lyn Thomas, Henri C. Nickels and Sara Silvestri (2012) 'Social cohesion and the notion of suspect communities: a study of the experiences and impacts of being suspect for Irish communities and Muslim communities in Britain', Critical Studies on Terrorism, 5/ 1, 89-106.

Home Office (2015) Counter-Extremism Strategy. London: Home Office.

King, Michael and Donald M. Taylor (2011) ‘The Radicalization of Homegrown Jihadists: A Review of Theoretical Models and Social Psychological Evidence’, Terrorism and Political Violence, 23/4, 602-622.

Poushter, Jacob (2015) Extremism Concerns Growing in West and Predominantly Muslim Countries: Worries Especially Widespread in Western Europe and the U.S. Washington, DC: Pew Research Center.

YouGov (2014) ‘YouGov Nato’. https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/1hdxa38zho/InternalResults_140801_NATO_W.pdf

Notes and references  

---

[1] Poushter (2015), p. 2.

[2] A 2014 survey of 2,083 British adults found that 79 per cent of respondents deemed Islamic terrorism to pose an important threat to the country (rising to over 90 per cent of Conservative and UKIP supporters and those over age 60). 46 per cent of respondents thought the threat posed was critical. YouGov (2014).

[3] See, for example, Mohammed (2015); Hamid (2015).

[4] See Harris, Bisset and Weller (2015).

[5] For reviews of various proposed models of radicalisation which highlight the multiplicity of factors that can be involved, see, for example, Francis (2012); Christmann (2012); King and Taylor (2011). The Radicalisation Research website produces and collates research on these issues, http://www.radicalisationresearch.org/.

[6] Anderson (2015), p. 65.

 

Only 'Limited Assurance' for Brent Council data protection in ICO Audit

The Information Commissioner's Office recent audit of data protection at  Brent Council resulted in a 'Limited Assurance' grade - the second lowest.

The report LINK Executive Summary states:

There is a limited level of assurance that processes and precedures are in place and are delivering data protection compliance. The audit has identified considerable scope for improvement in existing arrangements to reduce the risk of non-compliance with the Data Protection Act.

Among the areas for improvements are (bold is my emphasis):

At present the[Council] have not implemented any endpoint controls which would restrict the import and export of data using portable devices resulting in the risk that an individual could download personal information without authorisation or potentially introduce malware into the council's network.

There is currently no formally establised programmes of data protection security or information security related refresher training in place, with the last training of this nature being delivered via e-learning in 2012. Staff who commenced employment at the council prior to the last refresher course in 2012 may not have had data protection or information securioty refresher training for a significant period of time.

[The Council] reported a 64% subject access compliance rate during 2014. This increased to 78.6% during January - May 2015, and are targeting 80% during 2015 and 95% for 2016. The ICO belives this latter target is more appropriate and (The Council] should also ensure that they prioritise requests which are in danger of falling outside the statutory 40 calendar day period.

[The Council] have aimed to raise awareness of data sharing through a combination of methods which include e-learning and use of the intranet. Despite this, awarness of specific data sharing policies and / or guidance amongst operational staff was low, with interviews unable to make reference to specific polices.

There are inconsistencies in the use and completion of the Data Sharing Agreement (DSA) template and no specific provisions within the DSAs viewed as part of the audit to distinguish between fact and opinion within shared data.  In addition not all the DSAs and supporting procedural documentation specify retention periods for shared data or prescribe that the recipients of shared data must destory or return that data once the relevant purpose is served or any relevant retention period expires.

There is an Appendix attached to the report showing that although Islington and Barnet Councils achieved the higher 'Reasonable Assurance' grade (second out of four grades) other councils also achieved the Limited Assurance.  An Action Plan is tabled LINK and the ICO will conduct a desktop check within 6 to 9 months.

Brent Budget Scrutiny Panel recommend Council Tax rise to protect the most vulnerable

In a report to be discussed at the Scrutiny Committee meeting on January 6th 2016, Brent Budget Scrutiny Panel recommend that the Council raise Council Tax by the maximum of 2% which is allowed without a referendum as well as the 2% ring-fenced rise for adult social care.  Last year there was much controversey when Cllr John Duffy proposed an increase in Council Tax. LINK

The Panel  also call for the proposed 10% cut in road and pavement repairs to be abandoned.

On Council Tax their reasoning is set out as follows:

.        7.1  The minimum legal requirement on the Council this year is to set a balanced budget 
and a level of Council Tax for the forthcoming financial year. As noted above, we are satisfied that they will do the former, but we anticipate much further debate around setting the level of the latter. 


.        7.2  During the last Parliament, the government offered a freeze grant to local authorities who froze or reduced their basic level of Council Tax. This was the equivalent to a 1 per cent increase in Council Tax in each financial year. Along with most local authorities, Brent accepted this grant in every year of the last Parliament and never increased its level of Council Tax. 


.        7.3  The advantage of this policy was that the Council were able to receive some additional funds without asking local people to contribute any more through the Council Tax system. 


.        7.4  This disadvantage was that the Council’s overall tax base would decline each year, as the additional funds provided could not increase cumulatively. Accordingly, The Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy (CIPFA) has estimated that had Council Tax risen in line with the Retail Prices Index measure of inflation of the course of the last Parliament, average council tax bills would be £168 higher next year, yielding an extra £2.8bn in funding for local authorities. This amount is equivalent to the entire road maintenance budget for the UK or the public health grant for local authorities. 


.        7.5  In their Local Government Settlement announced before Christmas, the government announced both that the freeze grant would henceforth be abolished, and that Councils would continue to only be able to raise Council Tax up to 2 per cent without having a run a referendum. 


.        7.6  We feel that these dual announcements leave the Council with little option but to increase Council Tax by the maximum allowed in this budget. It is understandable that the Council has decided not to increase Council Tax in previous years to protect residents, but in accepting the freeze grant, Brent has left its Council Tax base at a level several years out of date, and if action is not taken soon this baseline will be far behind what is required to run services in the future. 


.        7.7  We also understand that this will have an impact on our residents. We therefore recommend that the Council reviews its Council Tax support scheme including any potential increase which might need to be made to protect the most vulnerable in the borough. 


.        7.8  Likewise, the government have also announced that they will allow Councils to increase Council Tax by a further 2 per cent if the money is ring fenced to spend on social care. We feel that this option should also be carefully considered by the Council as a way to prevent the most drastic of cuts in this area. 
 


The recommendation on road and pavement repairs states:

.        6.4 ….we are very concerned about proposal MGF002, which proposes to cut the core budget for core highways maintenance by 10 per cent. It was noted that the list of potential risks associated with this item was longer than many others, something particularly alarming in light of the overall saving being relatively low at £50,000. 


.        6.4  The report notes openly that this cut will lead to fewer active repairs, something which could be dangerous for residents, but also severely damage the reputation of 
the Council, particularly at a time when Council charges and taxes may be set to increase. It also risks additional costs in litigation arising from possible accidents arising as a result of poorly maintained roads and pavements.

.        6.5  We recommend that this proposal be dropped and that instead the Council examines if alternative ways to repair the street scene will decrease the need for reactive action in the long term. 


.        6.6  For example, it was noted that tarmacking or concreting pavements leads to more even surface than paving slabs and does not give space for plants to grow upwards and damage the surface. Prioritising such alternatives may help to save the authority in the long term rather than always replacing paving stones on a like-for-like basis. 


.        6.7  Another idea raised was to seek an outside partner to doggedly pursue illegal rubbish dumpers in the borough. The partner would be incentivised by being able to keep a large percentage of fines generated but the Council would realise long term savings as levels of illegal rubbish dumping – and associated clean-up costs – decrease. A similar approach could also be taken to people who drop litter or who do not clean up after their dogs. 


The Panel  calls for Scrutiny Committee involvement to be much earlier in the budget making process and makes an overall critique of the package:

.        4.4 Our main broad critique of the package is that it lacks a common thread or philosophical story. The package instead appears to be a collection of disparate ideas brought together in order to reach the final figure required. 


.        4.5  A clear example of this would be in the DOE001 proposal to increase the take up of direct payments for home care and community support. This is simply presented as a savings proposal rather than as part of the Council’s long-term vision of how to deliver care. 


.        4.6  We feel that setting out the Council’s concrete vision at the start of the process, and ensuring that each proposal made aids progress towards that vision, rather than stalling it, would be an approach which would better ensure this continuity of purpose in future years. 


There is much else of interest in the full report that can be found below:

Brent Council may join Judicial Review bid on Shaping a Healthier Future

I thought this posting on the Brent Council website LINK by Cllr Kruoesh Hiran, Cabinet member for Adults, Health and Wellbeing,  deserved a wider audience. It sets out Brent Council's response to the Mansfield report.

Following a year long investigation into health service changes across five London boroughs the Independent Healthcare Commission for North West London reported its findings earlier this month.
The Commission, which was chaired by one of the UK’s leading lawyers Mr Michael Mansfield QC, was jointly commissioned by the boroughs of Brent, Ealing, Hammersmith & Fulham, Harrow and Hounslow. Naturally, as the democratically elected representatives of local people, we shared serious concerns about how A&E and other health services were changed across our boroughs.

However, it is important to also note that our concerns are not solely focused on A&E. One of the main issues here in Brent is the outdated population estimates underpinning the original plans. Yes A&E is a barometer of how the NHS is performing but it is clear that there is a wider system problem.

The Mansfield report highlights social care funding cuts and the significant cuts to local government. A good NHS needs a properly funded social care system. But the funding cuts to councils have reduced local authorities’ ability to provide more preventative services. It is the same problem emerging with Public Health funding.

Naturally when you are looking at a report, which affects two million people across North West London, there will be some issues more relevant than others to Brent’s 320,000 population.
First let’s turn to the main findings in the report:

• there is still no completed, up to date business plan in place that sets out the case for delivering the Shaping a Healthier Future programme (SaHF), demonstrating that the programme is affordable and deliverable
• there was limited and inadequate public consultation on the original SaHF proposals and those proposals themselves did not provide an accurate view of the final costs and risks to the people affected
• the escalating costs of the programme do not represent value for money and is a waste of precious public resources
• NHS facilities, delivering important public healthcare services, have been closed without adequate alternative provision being put in place
• the original business case seriously underestimates the increasing size of the population in North West London and fails to address the increasing need for services.

The report also makes it clear that we are now looking at a £1.3 billion project while the original proposals were predicating a saving of over £200 million a year. A continued lack of investment in the out of hospitals strategy, while still implementing the A&E closures programme has led to unacceptable standards and low performance within A&E.

We are supportive of a good out of hospital strategy. It is in all our interests as it is generally better to have good health services closer to home. However, those services need to be in place before hospitals are reconfigured.

This is combined with a lack of bed capacity at Northwick Park and the delays in resolving this situation have been ongoing for the past year. Residents still consistently report problems with accessing GP appointments in a timely way and this inevitably leads to people presenting at A&E, while the use of urgent care centres is below capacity.

What was truly shocking to me in the report was the statistics on Northwick Park hospital where performance has been consistently poor since September 2014. A key graph in the report shows London Ambulance Service ‘black breaches’. These are where an ambulance has taken more than an hour to take a patient to A&E. In Northwick Park there were 633 such breaches compared to 106 at Hillingdon. Especially relevant is the fact that the London Ambulance Service has just been placed into special measures as, if you close A&Es, you are clearly more reliant on this service.

In summary, the SaHF plans really need to go back to the drawing board. We want greater local authority involvement in the actual decision making process and designing of services. While it is clear that mistakes have been made Brent Council wants to take this forward in a positive way.
Co-production is a good example where there is potential. There has been a recent decision to involve a Health and Wellbeing Board representative in local primary care. I am now Brent’s representative and although it has been a slow process to get here, I think we are now moving in the right direction.

In the meantime, we will thoroughly explore all of the recommendations in the Mansfield report
including the possibility of joining a Judicial Review after careful consideration and assessing the impact on Brent residents.

Finally, it does not give me any pleasure to write about the findings in this report but please do be reassured that Brent Council will continue to do our very best to help support our local NHS partners to learn the lessons from it and ultimately to deliver a good and more fully integrated NHS for all Brent residents.

• Read the Mansfield Health Commission Report (.pdf)

Brent Connects Forums to discuss council cuts

Brent Council consulting on where to make the cuts, rather than how to fight them.

NHS Consultation on patient transport services in NW London

Thursday 21^th January,  at 2pm to 4pm
Venue: Wembley Centre for Health & Care, 116 Chaplin Road, Wembley, HA0 4UZ

The NHS is reviewing patient transport across North West London. They are looking for the views of patients and carers to understand their experiences of using these services.

In January 2016 they would like to meet with people living in North West London that currently use or care for someone who uses patient transport services. They are holding workshops in Wembley and Hammersmith to share their initial findings and to hear your views on their proposed improvements.

More information is in the introductory letter and flyer – please circulate. If you are interested please contact by Tuesday 5^th January by email travel@nw.london.nhs.uk or phone 020 3350 4734.