Councils should do more to handle threat of poor social cohesion, independent review says
Local government is struggling to manage social cohesion threats involving misinformation, conspiracy theories, and intimidation from extremist groups, according to an independent review by Dame Sara Khan DBE on social cohesion and resilience.
The independent review published today (25 March), which warned that poor social cohesion threatens democracy in the UK, also complained that local authorities lack accountability for improving and protecting social cohesion, despite duties set out in the Equality Act 2010.
It said the duty that local authorities must 'foster good relations' between differing groups of people set out under the Public Sector Equality Duty (s.149 of the Equality Act 2010) is "not being adequately implemented" by councils or assessed adequately by the Equality Human Rights Commission.
It also noted that there "continues to be a 'culture of fear' among some local authorities, where they are not prepared to have the necessary and difficult conversations".
In addition, the report said many local authorities lack basic know-how while others endure counter-productive political interference from councillors.
The situation in local authorities has not been helped by the scrapping of the 2015 Counter-Extremism strategy in 2021, which resulted in a "significant loss" of funding and resources for local authorities and civil society to help challenge extremism, according to the report.
In addition, the Government's failure to update the Hate Crime Strategy, scheduled for 2020, has also contributed to a "lack of preparedness and resilience to the numerous emerging extremism and cohesion issues many local authorities are experiencing".
The report highlighted three councils currently grappling with social cohesion issues: Oldham Council, Barrow-in-Furness Council (now Westmorland and Furness Council), and Stoke-on-Trent City Council.
In Oldham, conspiracy theories and "freedom-restricting harassment" are causing severe local democratic disruption, the report said.
"Such activity is having a serious effect on the functioning of local democracy and restricting the ability of existing and potential future council leaders and senior officials to carry out their democratic mandate," it noted.
Meanwhile, the council in Barrow-in-Furness is faced with misinformation that has been spread online and offline, which has led to a permanent far-right presence in the community, where there had not been one before, the report warned.
Finally, in Stoke-on-Trent, the activity of far-right and Islamist groups and actors is posing "serious cohesion challenges" and has created a "climate of intimidation", the report said.
While the challenges faced by all three local authorities are different, the report said that a lack of training, guidance, and support to deal with these challenges was a common theme raised by all three councils.
Dame Sara made an extensive list of recommendations based on her findings, including that the Government establish and fund an independent, impartial Office for Social Cohesion and Democratic Resilience.
She also called for the government to publish a five-year Social Cohesion and Democratic Resilience Strategy and Action Plan with long-term objectives alongside the Levelling Up Strategy.
She further recommended that Government departments proactively engage with local authorities ahead of taking action, where there is concern that those actions could fuel serious conflict and violence or undermine social cohesion in a local area – "for example in relation to asylum dispersal or other issues".
One other recommendation called on local authorities and public bodies to be held to account on part 3 of the Public Sector Equality Duty (s.149 of the 2010 Act), which places a legal duty on public bodies to 'foster good relations between persons who share a relevant protected characteristic and persons who do not share it.'
Guidance should also be issued by the Government to improve understanding among public bodies of part 3 of the Public Sector Equality Duty (s.149 of Equality Act 2010), the report recommended.
Local authorities should also ensure social cohesion and democratic resilience is embedded in their long-term strategic plans and they should conduct regular polling, mapping exercises and other initiatives, the report said.
Councils should also improve their ability to respond to conspiracy theories, disinformation, and incidents of high tension and conflict by ensuring relevant officials and councillors have conflict resolution skills and develop expertise on whether to intervene in situations.
Dame Sara said: “Rather than high risk and acute threats such as terrorism, cyber‑security and foreign state interference, many of the cohesion risks I identify are chronic, insidious and often sit below the radar; the impact of which is not actively measured or even fully appreciated.
"There is a growing and dangerous climate of threatening and intimidatory harassment leading to serious censorship – what I have termed freedom-restricting harassment – affecting not just our politicians and those in public life, but members of the public too.”
She added: "On the front line, local authorities are struggling to prevent, manage and contain the impact of conspiracy theories, disinformation and extremist activity, which is undermining social cohesion and, in some cases, causing democratic disruption.
"And while we have seen inspiring numbers come together and volunteer to support their communities during the Covid pandemic, cohesion indicators suggest this is against a backdrop of overall declining civic engagement as well as declining trust and participation in democracy and its institutions."
Responding to the independent review, Cllr Heather Kidd, Chair of the Local Government Association's Safer and Stronger Communities Board, said: "This important report reflects our concerns around the growing threat to democracy and social cohesion posed by conspiracy theories, disinformation and extremist activity, in particular the appalling abuse of councillors.
"Councils have an essential role to play in building and maintaining cohesive communities, but as this report suggests, have been limited by a lack of funding for counter-extremism work while facing significant budgetary pressures."
She added: "In spite of this, the LGA has continued to support the sector through its Special Interest Group on Countering Extremism (SIGCE) and its Debate not Hate campaign.
"We want to work with government to tackle these long-term challenges and implement the recommendations of this review. However, councils need urgent funding to counter extremism and misinformation, with the restoration of SIGCE funding and effective regional support."
Adam Carey
The full list of recommendations are as follows:
1.The government to establish and fund an independent, impartial Office for Social Cohesion and Democratic Resilience (OSCDR)
1a) The OSCDR should establish a national cohesion assessment framework to identify and collect relevant national and local data including from all local authorities. This will support the publication of a yearly ‘State of Cohesion and Democratic Resilience in England’ report. The report would provide a picture of the state and progress of cohesion and democratic resilience nationally and across all local authorities, and over time assess the progress made by local authorities. The report would examine national and local trends, as well as identify growing challenges and threats to social cohesion to help better inform policymakers and government.
1b) The OSCDR should help build understanding of ‘what works’ in the short, medium and long-term. It will commission and publish research examining what the risk factors are in an area that make it susceptible to a weakening of social cohesion, for example extremism and disillusionment with democracy. It will also examine what the protective factors are that encourage societal and democratic resilience. It will build up the evidence base on the interventions needed to counter conspiracy theories, disinformation and other acute and chronic threats.
1c) The OSCDR should establish a communications unit to support local authorities and respond to dangerous and harmful conspiracy theories and disinformation that are attempting to undermine social cohesion. We recommend the OSCDR should establish such a unit as an independent and impartial body, rather than the government.
1d) The OSCDR should undertake an inquiry examining the scale, impact and trends freedom-restricting harassment is having on censoring democratic rights and freedoms in England. The inquiry should also examine who the perpetrators are and what is needed to prevent and restrict such behaviour.
1e) The OSCDR should organise training, programmes and materials for local authorities on crisis management, conflict resolution and mediation, and how to hold difficult conversations. This will ensure local authorities are better equipped to protect social cohesion and respond to tensions and conflict. Improving training on conflict resolution must become a fundamental part of social cohesion training.
1f) The OSCDR should assess the progress made by local authorities and if, insufficient progress persists by July 2026, it should call on the government to legislate for a statutory duty on social cohesion – the details of which would be provided by the OSDCR.
2. The government to publish a 5-year Social Cohesion and Democratic Resilience Strategy (SCDR) and Action Plan, with long-term objectives alongside the Levelling Up Strategy. An integration strategy should be distinct from the SCDR strategy.
Driven by the evidence produced by the OSCDR, the SCDR strategy should take a public health approach and have 3 main objectives:
- Promote and protect social cohesion including democratic freedoms
- Identify, pre-empt and prevent threats and activity that would undermine social cohesion
- Respond to and recover from threats and incidents
The SCDR strategy and action plan should be framed around the following seven strategic priorities:
2a) Promote social cohesion through a dedicated government effort, amplifying and reinforcing democratic freedoms and norms; and supporting evidence-based local cohesion initiatives.
2b) Build resilience in local communities against extremist ideologies and narratives, including conspiracy theories and disinformation.
2c) Engage people using an audience segmentation approach to help deliver bespoke interventions and programmes to different audiences and ensure a more targeted approach. This includes those who are sympathetic to extremist narratives.
2d) Develop an early tension warning system that monitors and alerts DLUHC, the local authority and other key local partners about growing tensions.
2e) Marginalise and isolate extremist and other malign actors to prevent the mainstreaming of extremist ideologies and dangerous conspiracy theories which are causing severe harm and disruption in local areas.
2f) Respond quickly and effectively to flashpoint incidents and triggers.
2g) Repair relationships and engagement between local communities where they have broken down following serious conflict and flashpoint incidents.
The government should ensure funding and resources for local authorities, in particular where data demonstrates local areas are struggling with significant cohesion threats. Such data would be provided by the OSCDR.
3. The government should create a cross-Whitehall Cohesion Response Unit.
In partnership with relevant local authorities and other key stakeholders, the Unit should respond to early tensions and live flashpoint incidents in a quicker and effective manner. The unit would also undertake regular horizon-scanning initiatives in partnership with the OSCDR to ensure better preparedness to upcoming threats.
4. Government departments should proactively engage with local authorities in a timely manner in advance of taking action, where there is concern that those actions could fuel serious conflict and violence or undermine social cohesion in a local area – for example in relation to asylum dispersal or other issues.
Contentious or challenging policy is best delivered in conjunction with local government, who maintain greater expertise on place, whilst at the same time an engagement or even co-delivery approach mitigates against any potential tension that could be exploited by extremists and other divisive actors.
5. Government should officially recognise the phenomenon of freedom-restricting harassment and publish an Action Plan detailing how they will work to prevent and respond to it.
The OSCDR would help provide the evidence base of the scale, impact and trends of freedom-restricting harassment.
6. Government should officially recognise victims of freedom-restricting harassment and alongside the Victim’s Commissioner.
To consider ways of improving support for them including the viability of the Victim’s Code to such individuals, the role played by support bodies such as Victim Support and improving ways of holding perpetrators to account.
7. The Department for Education (DfE) should:
7a) Put forward legislation that restricts the ability for protests to occur immediately outside primary and secondary schools as is the case outside abortion clinics. We recommend a buffer zone of 150m be placed around schools, with the possible exception of pickets relating to industrial action by school staff.
7b) Establish a Cohesion and Conflict Unit which:
Brings together existing advice to schools such as the teaching of fundamental British values, dealing with political impartiality and others, while also providing clearer guidance and resources on other areas of conflict including when protected characteristics conflict and other controversial issues. The unit should issue guidance, training materials and resources to support schools in teaching what it means to live in a diverse democracy, how to manage opposing and different opinions, how to debate well and the importance of critical thinking.
7c) The Unit should provide better support and care for schools and teachers who find themselves being threatened and harassed. This should include immediate support for those schools and teachers who are having to deal with flashpoint incidents. DfE should collect and publish figures of the scale of targeting and harassment experienced by schools and teachers.
7d) The Unit should collect cohesion data to assess the progress of key cohesion indicators e.g segregation – ethnic and other – and other relevant issues. The OSCDR would ensure DfE are collecting the necessary cohesion indicators.
8. The Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) with adequate Government funding should:
8a) Hold local authorities and public bodies to account on part 3 of the Public Sector Equality Duty (s.149 of Equality Act 2010) which places a legal duty on public bodies to ‘foster good relations between persons who share a relevant protected characteristic and persons who do not share it.’ The Act describes fostering good relations as tackling prejudice and promoting understanding between people from different groups.
8b) Issue public guidance to improve understanding among public bodies of part 3 of the Public Sector Equality Duty (s.149 of Equality Act 2010).
8c) Consider what could be done to help respond, clarify and resolve clashes between different freedoms, rights and protected characteristics as set out in the Equality Act 2010, which as a result are fuelling conflict and threatening behaviour, often leading to harassment and severe abuse. The approach taken must be rapid to help assist local authorities early to deal with such incidents before they worsen and are exploited by extremist and other divisive actors.
9. Recommendations for Policing
9a) All 39 police forces in England should have a dedicated safety officer who specialises in harassment and malicious communication legislation, to engage, advise and support those individuals who are experiencing extreme or persistent harassment while also working towards holding perpetrators to account. This includes each safety officer having a comprehensive understanding of apostate and intra-faith hatred, and the theological narratives employed by perpetrators that incite hatred and cause harassment.
9b) The College of Policing should review and assess its training and understanding of social cohesion and diversity within local areas, and the principles that guide community engagement. This is particularly pertinent in relation to intra-faith and intra-minority diversity and tensions. Police forces must have a thorough understanding of the diversity among a local faith or minority community to ensure effective policing. It is vital that police forces do not inadvertently support hate preachers and extremist actors in the misguided belief that such activity supports social cohesion or diversity and inclusion principles.
10. Recommendations for HMG’s Assessment community
Improve assessment and intelligence gathering of blasphemy related incitement and violence, and extreme incidences of freedom-restricting harassment which pose a threat or potential threat to life.
11. Recommendation to the Committee on Standards in Public Life
Undertake an inquiry and put forward recommendations which support elected representatives to consider how best to protect and promote social cohesion in line with the Nolan Principles. Such an inquiry should examine where conflict and potential conflict can exist, how they should be addressed and how elected officials can be held accountable to ensure the public have confidence and trust in them.
12. Recommendations to local authorities and local partners
12a) All local authorities should ensure social cohesion and democratic resilience is embedded in their long-term strategic plans. Social cohesion should not be treated as an ‘add-on’ but instead recognised as foundational to the successful delivery of a local authority’s overall strategic plan and wider policies.
12b) Local authorities should conduct regular polling, mapping exercises and other initiatives, including open events to encourage greater participation in local democracy. This will ensure local authorities have in-depth understanding of the views, beliefs, grievances and sense of belonging of the local population they serve. This includes the extensive intra‑diversity that exists within ethnic and faith-based minority groups in their local area of which there is often little understanding and where outdated notions of engagement with self-appointed and self-representative ‘community leaders’ continue to persist.
12c) Local authorities should consider adopting deliberate democracy models to help encourage greater citizen participation and engagement in the democratic system. This includes the setting up of a local cohesion and democracy forums or citizens assembly to support these objectives.
12d) Local authorities should improve their ability to respond to conspiracy theories, disinformation and incidents of high tension and conflict. Responding to such activity can be difficult and complicated but has become necessary in modern times. This should include:
- Developing the skills and expertise to know when and when not to intervene, what kind of messaging should be issued and how.
- Ensuring relevant officials and councillors have conflict resolution skills and training to deal with local incidents more effectively. The OSCDR would work to deliver such training.
- Ensuring those appointed to support and deliver social cohesion policy have the right skillset and experience.
12e) Local authorities in the implementation of Section 149 of the Equality Act 2010 (the Public Sector Equality Duty) should ensure they fully comply with Part 3 of the Public Sector Equality Duty, which places a legal duty on public bodies to ‘foster good relations between persons who share a relevant protected characteristic and persons who do not share it.’ Local authorities should demonstrate when publishing information on how they are delivering on the PSED, how in particular they are meeting Part 3.
12f) Local businesses, charities and philanthropists should support long-term funding for local civil society organisations, charities and academic research. This would help deliver vital social cohesion and conflict resolution programmes, projects and interventions.
13. Recommendation to social media companies
Social media platforms have a responsibility to create and support tools that restrict the ability of users to engage in behaviour that encourages freedom-restricting harassment, pile-ons, doxing and other harmful activity. It is ultimately the responsibility of social media platforms to tackle such activity occurring on their platforms. Like campaigns run by the NHS and Transport for London, social media companies should deliver online zero tolerance campaigns and other campaigns to discourage freedom-restricting harassment, and where necessary to ban users and to report to the police if users engage in criminality.
14. Recommendation to OFCOM
To hold social media platforms to account on tackling freedom-restricting harassment on their platforms.
15. Recommendations to professional bodies, unions, universities, charities and regulators
15a) Conduct an annual survey to understand the extent and severity of freedom-restricting harassment faced by people within their respective professions and what censorship impacts this is having on them. This would help provide useful year on data to senior leaders to understand the scale and address accordingly.
15b) Draft guidelines to ensure that they have the right protocols and approaches in place when dealing with incidences of FRH and ensure sufficient support for victims.
Source: Threats to Social Cohesion And Democratic Resilience: A New Strategic Approach, The Khan Review.
