1. Submission from Commission
for Racial Equality
1. Introduction
1.1 The Commission for Racial Equality (CRE) welcomes
this opportunity to respond to the above discussion paper, and
the accompanying document 'Part Two: Government Response to Privy
Counsellor review of the Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act
2001'. In submitting a response we have not attempted to address
all the issues raised in the documents. Instead we have focussed
on issues we consider to have particular relevance for the purposes
of racial equality.
2. The role and the remit of the CRE
2.1 The CRE is charged with three duties under the
Race Relations Act, 1976:
working towards the elimination of racial discrimination;
promoting equality of opportunity and good race relations
between persons of different racial groups generally; and
keeping under review the working of the Act.
3. The race equality duty
3.1 Under the Race Relations (Amendment) Act 2000
(RR(A)A), named public authorities (listed in schedule 1A of the
RR(A)A 2000) are subject to a general statutory duty to ensure
that in carrying out their functions, they give due regard to
the need to eliminate unlawful racial discrimination, to promote
equality of opportunity and good relations between persons of
different racial groups.
3.2 Listed public authorities are responsible for
ensuring that the duty is an integral part of any function where
racial equality is relevant. The Home Office and all criminal
justice agencies are subject to this duty.
3.3 In addition to the general duty, listed public
authorities are also subject to specific duties in relation to
their policy and service delivery, which include the requirement
to produce a Race Equality Scheme (RES). The RES should set out
those of its functions and policies or proposed policies which
that person has assessed as relevant to its performance of the
general duty and should contain details of the arrangements made
for:
i) assessing and consulting on the likely impact
of proposed policies on the promotion of racial equality
ii) monitoring its policies for any adverse impact
on the promotion of race equality
iii) publishing the results of such assessments,
consultations and monitoring with respect to the above
iv) ensuring public access to information and services
which it provides, and
v) training staff in connection with the duties imposed
by section 71 (1) of the RR(A)A 2001 and associated orders
3.4 An authority must within a period of 3 years
from the 31 May 2002, and within each further period of three
years, review the assessment referred to in (i) above.
3.5 The provisions of the Act and its amendment will
be relevant to all service providers.
4. Adverse or negative impact of policy
4.1 We expect that all planned policies and proposals
for new pieces of legislation are subject to a race equality impact
assessment, (as outlined in i, para 3.3). We would like to know
whether such an assessment took place prior to the introduction
of the Anti-Terrorism Crime and Security Act 2001 (ATOS Act).
We would add that even for those public authorities subject only
to the general duty, carrying out a race equality impact assessment
is crucial in establishing how the general duty has been met.
4.2 Further, in relation the ATCS Act, we expect
that if the race equality duty is being adhered to, then arrangements
for ethnic monitoring are in place (as outlined in ii, para 3.3).
However the discussion paper: 'Counter-Terrorism Powers: Reconciling
Security and Liberty in an Open Society' contains no reference
to any reporting or monitoring for any adverse impact. Further,
having studied the relevant data that has been made available
publicly,[162]
we are concerned about the absence of any ethnic monitoring statistics.
This makes it impossible to assess the impact that the legislation
is having on different racial and faith groups. Nor does the data,
in its current format, allow us to assess the extent to which
the legislation may have a differential impact on particular racial
groups.
4.3 In view of this, we would ask if the original
datasets (used to produce the existing statistics for arrests,
charge, detention and stop and searches) could be re-examined,
in order to produce race and faith breakdowns?
4.4 We would also like to stress that any proposed
changes to counter-terrorism legislation in Britain, following
the current review taking place, must be subject to a race impact
assessment, prior to implementation.
4.5 Where negative impact is identified, agencies
are required to examine alternative means of achieving the desired
policy goal, which will not have a negative impact on race equality.
Where adverse impact has already occurred, it is necessary to
either justify such policy or consider alternative policies for
the future and also take action to mitigate the negative effects.
5. Impact on Muslim communities
5.1 We are conscious of increasing concerns amongst
Muslim communities of the impact of anti-terrorism legislation
and are concerned about the impact this may have on good race
relations. As the powers of the ATCS Act are particularly directed
at terrorists, with explicit reference to Al-Qaida and the network
of terrorist groups associated with it, we believe that it is
vital that the Home Office considers the implication of such a
policy on Muslim communities in Britain, in particular. We would
also point out that any adverse impact on community confidence
would be contradictory to the Home Office's public service agreements
(PSAs) on increasing confidence, including that of ethnic minority
people.
6. Ethnic monitoring of suspects
6.1 We are concerned that the Home Office has not
been collecting data, at the very least by race, and ideally,
by race and faith. In a response to a parliamentary question (House
of Commons Hansard Written Answers for 18 November 2003), the
Home Secretary stated that this data could only be collated and
verified at disproportionate cost.[163]
6.2 The view of the CRE is that we recommend that
this cost should be balanced and justified against the damage
to community relations resulting from the belief that policies
of conscious or unconscious religious profiling of Muslims are
standard practice amongst officers involved in counter-terrorism
operations.
6.3 In a recent report from the Metropolitan Police
Authority (MPA) ('Report of the MPA Scrutiny on MPS Stop and Search
Practice', May 2004), there is discussion on the negative impact
that stop and search is having on community relations. The report
cites evidence from the Home Office (2004) stating that black
and Asian people are stopped eight and three time more often than
white people (page 5).
6.4 Whilst we recognise that stop and search is a
necessary tool for combating crime, the current levels of disproportionality,
are unjustifiable. The MPA Scrutiny Panel also reported that current
stop and search practice has created deeper racial tensions and
has severed valuable sources of community information and criminal
intelligence (page 10).
6.5 It is up to the courts to decide whether disproportionate
stop and search figures could amount to unlawful discrimination
under the provisions of the RR(A)A (section 1 9B). In view of
our concerns about this disproportionately, we are actively seeking
cases to the test the law in this area.
7. Recommendations
Comprehensive monitoring
7.1 In order to effectively monitor any adverse impacts,
we recommend that arrangements are put in place for a comprehensive
system of collecting data on suspects under the Terrorism Act
2000 and the ATCS Act. In order to establish the real impact on
Muslim communities it is critical that data is collated by race
and faith, for all of the following activities:
Instances of stop and search (including a breakdown
of stop and search carried out under the Police and Criminal Evidence
Act 1984 and Section 44 (I) and (II) of the Terrorism Act 2000);
Arrests;
Convictions leading from all arrests connected with
anti-terrorism legislation;
Detentions and certifications; and
Release without charge.
7.2 We believe that the urgency of the need to collect
data on faith cannot be underestimated, if the Home Office and
relevant criminal justice agencies are to begin to assure Muslim
and other affected communities that they are not being targeting
on grounds of race or religion. Further such data must be made
available to the public, on a regular basis.
7.3 Whilst a number of community sources (e.g. Forum
Against Racism and Islamophobia, Muslim News, Muslim Safety Forum)
are currently involved in the collection of case information on
the categories listed above (para 7.1), the information gathered
lacks comparability (due to differing sources of origin), is hard
to validate and cannot be used to identify trends over time. We
therefore suggest that consideration should be given to the means
to resourcing the most effective methodologies for gathering such
data. Options to enable this to be achieved include:
Resourcing a consortium of community-based agencies
to regularly collate information on stop and search, anti-terrorism
led investigations and unacceptable police practice which can
be fed back to i) the Government ii) relevant agencies and other
stakeholders. (The CRE believes that community-based agencies
are best placed to gather this information as they often have
the closest links to local people and are more likely to be trusted
by community members than official data gathering agencies).
Funding for a consortium of legal representatives
to have an information sharing arrangement for cases concerning
anti-terrorism related charges.
Community involvement
7.4 In addition to comprehensive monitoring, we believe
that Muslim and other affected communities, need to be consulted
and involved in relevant fora concerning anti-terrorism investigations.
7.5 An excellent example of such an approach is the
forthcoming meeting between the Crown Prosecution Service and
representatives of the Muslim Community, due to take place at
the end of this month. However, we recommend that more needs to
be done - there are not enough opportunities for discussion on
such mailers between government agencies and the Muslim communities.
There may be a significant role for community-based agencies to
play in facilitating such dialogue.
7.6 Further, Police authorities need to balance the
requirements of effective policing and at the same time ensuring
that unnecessary race or faith bias in stop and search is tackled.
We feel that this is crucial because community confidence in processes
and powers to fight terrorism are only achievable through open
and transparent mechanisms and a belief within communities that
adequate safeguards are in place to ensure the fair treatment
of suspects.
7.7 It is also important to consider the impact of
these issues on matters of citizenship and integration, as there
is a danger that some individuals of Muslim faith may feel less
a part of British society as a result of being perceived as a
security threat. We are concerned about the impact that this is
having on race relations in Britain. We believe that individuals
who do not feel that they belong in society find it difficult
to participate or contribute to their full potential. Indeed some
recent accounts (anecdotally and from the media), of increasing
radicalisation and affiliation to groups representing extremist
ideologies amongst some cohorts of Muslims, are a concern for
us all.
We hope that the points made are useful and look
forward to the JCHR response to the Home Office concerning these
matters. Please note that we will be sending a copy of this letter
to the Home Office, the Independent Police Complaints Commission,
the Association of Community Police Officers and the HM Inspectorate
of Constabulary, for their reference.
24 June 2004
162 
