The Casey Review into Opportunity and Integration

Shared Services 146x219Paul Feild examines the implications for local government lawyers arising out of Dame Louise Casey's review into opportunity and integration.

"Across the Narrow Sea your books are filled with words like 'usurper' and 'madman' and 'blood right'. Here our books are filled with numbers. We prefer the stories they tell. More plain. Less... open to interpretation."

Game of Thrones ―Tycho Nestoris

Introduction

Last December (2016) the Casey Review into Opportunity and Integration was published [1] (the Casey Review). Dame Louse Casey DBE CB (Casey) was commissioned by the then Prime Minister [2] and the current Prime Minister (when Home Secretary) to examine the evidence regarding the opportunities open to, and the integration of, the most isolated and deprived communities.

The Casey Review will be of interest to those practitioners who work with these communities and of particular concern in relation to the need to advise on compliance with the Prevent Duty (Prevent) and the Public Sector Equality Duty (PSED). Furthermore I will suggest it is required reading to inform decision making with regard budgetary changes to services likely to impact on isolated and deprived communities.

Prevent Duty and the PSED

To recap, from 1 July 2015 the Counter-Terrorism and Security Act 2015 (the Act) placed a duty on specified authorities (include local authorities, NHS trusts, schools and also providers of certain services to those authorities) to have due regard to the need to prevent people from being drawn into terrorism (this is the Prevent duty). Furthermore the Act obliges the said authorities to have regard to Guidance published by the Secretary of State. A number of Guidance’s specific to authorities have been published and further details are expected to follow.

Essentially the Prevent requirement is that the authorities must in carrying out their functions and services place weight on the need to prevent people being drawn into terrorism, it is therefore a mandatory aspect of policy development and implementation.

The authorities bound by the duty will be expected to work in partnership with the common objective of advancing the Prevent duty and its agenda. The Home Office has the power to review the delivery of this duty and the power to intervene if it considers it appropriate to do so. It will thus be a necessary part of a borough’s strategy to ensure that it is being effective in the implementation and setting itself and its partners specific targets within its corporate action plan compliant with the statutory guidance.

Key areas of concern will be ensuring that existing policies, protocols and procedures are compliant with the emerging Guidance. Examples of areas that are likely to need revision and legal assistance in updating are the safeguarding policies to ensure definitions and actions are compliant, employment procedures for example whistle blowing and ensuring prevention of facilities for radicalisation, that contracts, leases, letting, and license agreements ensure that council properties are not used contrary to the Prevent Strategy and the establishment of robust information sharing protocols and agreements [3].

Finally a key additional consideration is the safety and security of the teams working on the Prevent agenda, not only in terms of personal security but also the data held. Their safety and the need to identify risk minimisation action and implement it will be a clear managerial responsibility.

While the Prevent duty applies across the span of local authority activities, it is clear that it is closely linked with PSED.

S.149 Equality Act 2010 establishes the Public Sector Equality Duty that a local authority must, in the exercise of its functions, have due regard to the need to—

  • eliminate discrimination, harassment, victimisation and any other conduct that is prohibited by or under the Equality Act 2010;
  • advance equality of opportunity between persons who share a relevant protected characteristic and persons who do not share it; and
  • foster good relations between persons who share a relevant protected characteristic and persons who do not share it.

So now let’s examine the Casey Review.

The Casey Review

Casey identifies in the foreword that though she expected to find problems relating to integration of isolated and deprived communities, she also found that the communities possessed cultural and religious practices which targeted women and children holding them back. She commented that in her view too often leaders and institutions would not stand up and protect women and children even though such practice was contrary to British values and the law. As may be expected within hours the report met with criticism from some quarters [4].

Notwithstanding the reaction, the Report should not be readily sidelined as it contains a wealth of material. The Casey Review team collected data from in excess of 800 sources and received over 200 written submissions. The appendix contains many linked references and rewards closer scrutiny being a cornucopia of collected research on life for isolated and deprived communities living in Britain.

The Numbers

Brush aside the headlines; this is what matters, the numbers.

People

There are estimated to be 65.1 million people living in the UK as June 2015 [5]. The Population grew by 4.1m between 2001 and 2011, half of which was due to immigration [6]. Rates of integration in some communities are suggested to be lessened due in part to subsequent generations being joined by a foreign born partner [7], a phenomena said to be ‘particularly prevalent in South Asian Communities’.

Immigration

Casey observes:

in the year ending December 2015, the ‘net’ immigration figure was 333,000 – but emigration does not really ‘cancel out’ immigration; it is the total churn in population that can alter the characteristics of a neighbourhood and the net figure of 333,000 reflected almost a million people in total arriving in or leaving the country over 12 months. Additionally, the placement of asylum seekers across the country – often in poorer communities – and the presence of an unknown number of illegal immigrants, adds to the level of change being experienced. 1.23

Asylum seekers

In real terms the numbers of asylum seekers are very small. The actual figure of claims in 2015 was 32,414 [8] or less than 10% of net migration. Asylum seekers are generally not eligible to work and have no access to public funds or services unless destitute and then their allowance is small [9].

Dispersal

Concentration and segregation is noteworthy [10] [11]:

  • Half of all minority ethnic citizens in Britain live in London, Birmingham and Manchester with similar patterns of urban concentration of ethnic minorities exist in Scotland and Wales.
  • People of Pakistani and Bangladeshi ethnicity tend to live in more residentially segregated communities than other ethnic minority groups. South Asian communities (people of Pakistani, Indian and Bangladeshi ethnicity) live in higher concentrations at ward level than any other ethnic minority group.
  • 24 wards in 12 local authority areas where more than 40% of the population identified themselves as being of Pakistani ethnicity; up from 12 wards in 7 local authorities in 2001.
  • 20 wards in 8 local authority areas where more than 40% of the population identified themselves as being of Indian ethnicity; up from 16 wards within 6 local authorities in 2001.
  • Compared to other minority faith groups, Muslims tend to live in higher residential concentrations at ward level. In 2011: Blackburn, Birmingham, Burnley and Bradford included wards with between 70% and 85% Muslim populations.

Casey observes that such high ethnic concentration in residential areas and schooling means the children have a lesser likelihood of growing up and meeting people from different backgrounds [12]. Furthermore there is a higher level of exclusion from opportunity [13] in that:

  • It limits labour market opportunities, notably for Pakistani and Bangladeshi groups – although it appears to improve employment opportunities for Indian ethnic groups;
  • It reduces opportunities for social ties between minority and White British communities; and
  • 41% to 51% of households of Black, Pakistani, Chinese and Bangladeshi ethnicity on relative low income compared with 19% of White households.
  • Pakistani and Bangladeshi ethnic populations live disproportionately in the most deprived areas in England compared with other groups– with the most deprived 10% of areas of England home to 31% of Pakistani ethnic groups and 28% of Bangladeshi ethnic groups.
  • People from Black, Pakistani and Bangladeshi ethnic groups are three times more likely than White British people to be unemployed.
  • For young Black men, aged 16-24, the unemployment rate is 35%, compared with 15% for young White men.
  • Where they are in work, men of Pakistani and Bangladeshi ethnicity tend to be in low status employment – one in four Pakistani men are employed as taxi drivers and two in five Bangladeshi men work in restaurants (although a number of these will be in family-owned businesses).
  • Economic inactivity levels remain unusually high among women from Pakistani and Bangladeshi ethnic groups – 57.2% are inactive in the labour market compared with 25.2% of White women and 38.5% of all ethnic minority women.

English speaking

Casey offers one explanation for the exclusion and that is the level of proficiency within ethnic communities in the use of the English language [14]. Women in those communities are twice as likely as men to have poor English.

She argues that range of socio-economic exclusion suffered by some groups must be given greater attention and in relation to social and economic integration in particular, she finds there is a strong correlation of increased segregation among Pakistani and Bangladeshi ethnic households in more deprived areas, with poorer English language and poorer labour market outcomes, suggesting a negative cycle that will not improve without a more concerted and targeted effort [15].

In addition she points out that the segregation effect can be greater for children in that Ofsted raised their concerns regarding the well-being of children attending supplementary and unregistered faith schools. The review team stated they witnessed arrangements where squalid and unsafe conditions exist and the staff are unvetted.

So how does this relate to the Prevent Strategy?

So far then the picture that emerges is that some communities have become isolated and without outreach services are unlikely to connect with, as it were, the host community. This feeds into Casey’s thesis that such communities are at risk to malign influences preying on and those around them, she says:

1.61. Concerns raised with us throughout our engagement suggest that these inequalities and divisions are persisting. And they appear to be worsening in some more isolated communities where segregation, deprivation and social exclusion are combining in a downward spiral with a growth in regressive religious and cultural ideologies.

1.62. The prevalence and tolerance of regressive and harmful practices has been exploited by extremists, both ‘Islamists’ and those on the far right, who highlight these differences and use them to further their shared narrative of hate and division. These extreme ideologies feed on fear and suspicion, peddle hatred and prejudice, and seek to turn communities against each other in a vicious circle.

1.63. Incidents of hate crime are also on the rise. In 2015-16, there were 62,518 hate crimes (based on race, sexual orientation, religion, disability and transgender) recorded by the police – up 19% on the previous year. The Crime Survey for England and Wales suggests that the actual level of hate crime experienced – including anti-Semitic and Islamophobic attacks – is more than four times the number of recorded incidents. And there is anecdotal evidence to suggest that incidents increase following ‘trigger’ events, such as the murder of Fusilier Lee Rigby or conflict in Israel and Gaza. Following the EU referendum, reported incidents of hate crime rose again, possibly reflecting another such spike, with perpetrators feeling emboldened by the result.

What next?

So what does the Casey Review say should be done? Dame Casey calls for leadership. This is understandable in the light of her work on Rotherham Council and the intervention in that borough and Tower Hamlets [16]. She recommends the following action being taken, that is to:

Build local communities’ resilience in the towns and cities where the greatest challenges exist, by:

(1) Providing additional funding for area-based plans and projects that will address the key priorities identified in this review, including the promotion of English language skills, empowering marginalised women, promoting more social mixing, particularly among young people, and tackling barriers to employment for the most socially isolated groups [17].

(2) Developing a set of local indicators of integration and requiring regular collection of the data supporting these indicators.

(3) Identifying and promoting successful approaches to integration.

Improve the integration of communities in Britain and establish a set of values around which people from all different backgrounds can unite, by:

(4) Attaching more weight to British values, laws and history in our schools.

(5) Considering what additional support or advice should be provided to immigrants to help them get off to the best start in understanding their rights and obligations and our expectations for integration.

(6) Reviewing the route to British citizenship and considering the introduction of an integration oath on arrival for immigrants intending to settle in Britain.

Reduce economic exclusion, inequality and segregation in our most isolated and deprived communities and schools, by:

(7) Working with schools providers and local communities to promote more integrated schools and opportunities for pupils to mix with others from different backgrounds.

(8) Developing approaches to help overcome cultural barriers to employment.

(9) Improving English language provision through funding for community-based classes and appropriate prioritisation of adult skills budgets.

(10) Improving our understanding of how housing and regeneration policies could improve integration or reduce segregation.

(11) Introducing stronger safeguards for children who are not in mainstream education, including those being home schooled.

Increase standards of leadership and integrity in public office, by:

(12) Ensuring that British values such as respect for the rule of law, equality and tolerance are enshrined in the principles of public life and developing a new oath for holders of public office.

Implications for local government policy and lawyers

Having a close experience with Rotherham Council is inevitably going to establish Casey’s perception about poor leadership and a failing local government that required external intervention with government appointed commissioners. But those councils are the exception, and it would be wrong to fault the political leadership of those councils alone. Local authorities are complex legal entities and the senior officer cadre must take their full share of responsibility for leadership to ensure that the organisations properly fulfil its statutory duties not least the Public Sector Equalities Duty and Prevent.

I would argue that the PSED and its impact on the Prevent duty become absolutely crucial when consideration is being made to budgetary constraints and where the savings must be made. These need to be highlighted as legal issues for consideration in the process.

The Casey Review’s conclusions are a strong argument for not pinpointing inclusion and outreach work to isolated communities and in particular assistance with learning English as areas that should fall under the axe of austerity. This is surely what PSED is expecting authorities to do. She comments about youth services being susceptible to spending squeezes yet youth social action has a role to play in reaching out and engagement. Dame Louise’s evidence shows cutting such services has the potential to harm women and children and undermine efforts to engage isolated communities and reduce the possibility of radicalisation luring those who believe they no longer have a state in the British way of life. Thus reducing these services undermines the Prevent duty.

As the evidence shows some boroughs face really intense challenges with regard to integration and the cost of inclusion due to clustering of migrants. But this can be a positive because a well designed outreach strategy for a borough(s) will include so many more people. Authorities presented with such pressures can use Casey’s report to make their case for extra resources. For example the section Funding for Local Services considers the Fair Funding Review [18] and urges local authorities to engage with the Government to make their case.

Finally the Casey Review is an essential tool in the preparation of reports to Members where access to services is a consideration and ought to be expected to be found listed under the mandatory background papers list because its rich quantitative and qualitative data sets and links [19] make it an invaluable document to inform the debate of spending in austerity even if its conclusions were not met with universal approval. Casey's report is well timed, it is a sound source of data to make the case that local authorities' vital task of building communities is too important not to invest in social inclusion, as the evidence supports the view that no less than the safety of the realm is at jeopardy if radicalisation fills the gap experienced by folk feeling they have no stake in our way of life.

Dr. Paul Feild is a Senior Governance Solicitor and Deputy Monitoring Officer for BDTLegal. He can be contactedThis email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it..

[1] To access the report, click here.

[2] You may remember him - Samantha Cameron’s husband.

[3] Terrorism is not going to go away, councils will inevitably come into contact with terrorists in a number of areas of practice - so perhaps the time has come for its prevention to be formally a component of the Annual Governance Statement.

[4] Like the Guardian editorial, even though the Casey Review is some 199 pages of content, it is questionable anyone could have read it thoroughly in that time, but it did not stop Steve Bell doing a detailed hostile cartoon the next day…

[5] Para 1.15

[6] Para 1.15

[7] Para 1.21

[8] Para 3.33 Home Office figures 2016

[9] Para 3.33 Its actually £36.95

[10] Para 1.29-31

[11] See Para 3.48 and 3.64 for a mapping of concentrations of settlements and segregation.

[12] Para 1.37 and see the table of concentrations at Para 3.73

[13] Para 1.38-48, 1.51

[14] Para 1.53

[15] Para1.54

[16] See Governance lessons from Rotherham and Tower Halmets 8 September 2016 Local Government Lawyer 

[17] See the success of the National Citizen Service Para 4.25

[18] Para 3.60

[19] See Annex C