POLICY FOCUS

 

Prevent Review 2011

7th June 2011

Background

‘Prevent’ is one of four strands of the UK government’s counter-terrorism strategy, Contest, and is aimed at people who are not necessarily breaking the law but are vulnerable to recruitment into terrorism. By design Prevent initiatives were ‘community facing’ to deliver ‘interventions’ that would act to disrupt such recruitment.

Because of the intersection between Prevent’s counter terrorism objective and the civic life of Britain’s Muslims, with its diverse background and an estimated population of 2 million in 2007, the Prevent strategy was shared between different government departments, though led by the Office for Security and Counter Terrorism (OSCT) based in the Home Office.

In early 2009 a revised Contest strategy was introduced and in July 2009 a cross-party Select Committee began an inquiry into the Department for Communities and Local Government’s (CLG) Prevent work. The findings were published on 16 March 2010. In November 2010 the Home Secretary announced a review of the entire Prevent strategy, stating Prevent “isn’t working as well as it could be” and it needed to be “effective and focused”. The review was independently overseen by Lord Carlile of Berriew.

Part of the review involved a public consultation on the issue. Most opinions expressed in submissions acknowledged the threat posed to the UK and therefore the importance of counter terrorism work as well as the need for a Prevent strategy. They also had suggestions of where elements had gone wrong and how things could be improved.

The full review was presented to Parliament on 7 June 2011 and sets out a new Prevent strategy for the Government. The relevant documents can be found at this link.

If you wish, you may download this briefing paper in .pdf format by clicking here.

What does the new strategy include?

The new Prevent strategy has three objectives:

• To respond to the ideological challenge of terrorism and the threat faced from those who promote it.
• To prevent people from being drawn into terrorism and ensure that they are given appropriate advice and support
• To work with sectors and institutions where there are risks of radicalisation which need to be addressed.

While the strategy brings a sharper focus to ideology, institutions and extremism that is not only violent in nature, much of the discussions from the previous Prevent programmes remain in place. A significant new emphasis, in line with the Prime Minister’s speech in Germany earlier this year, is the insistence that government will not fund, work with or share platforms with groups considered to be extreme – i.e. those who reject “our core values”. One wonders whether such a policy will extend to the international arena in the context of our relationship with states that have dubious Human Rights records?

Another new strand of thinking is the basis upon which local areas are prioritised for attention:

“In future, Prevent will be prioritised according to the risks we face and not (as has been the case in the past) on the basis of demographics. This is a significant development. The 25 priority areas are listed here. We expect these areas to change over time.” (Prevent Strategy 2011, p. 95)

This is a welcome step, as the previous approach risked signalling that the ‘problem’ was identified on the basis of the size of the Muslim community. A third significant shift is the recognition that integration and cohesion work must be separated out from Prevent. While this will also be welcomed by many, more details are needed to show precisely what this means in practice given that the review adds “there is evidence to indicate that support for terrorism is associated with rejection of a cohesive, integrated, multi-faith society and of parliamentary democracy. Work to deal with radicalisation will depend on developing a sense of belonging to this country and support for our core values”. The Communities and Local Government department, which already deals with the Big Society agenda, will be tasked with dealing with extremism as well as integration. The integration strategy is yet to be published.

Those arguing for a broader Prevent strategy that deals with multiple forms of extremism may not be entirely pleased to hear that while “Prevent must deal with all forms of terrorism and not just with Al Qa’ida….the allocation of resources will be proportionate to the threats we face. At present the greatest threat to the UK as a whole is from Al Qa’ida and groups and individuals who share the violent Islamist ideology associated with it.”

In his Independent Oversight Report to the Home Secretary (released alongside the new strategy), Lord Carlile mentions:

“…at the root of this Prevent strategy is the basic assertion that extremism breeds terrorism; and that extremism is the 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.” (Carlile Report 2011, p. 3).

The automatic connection of extremism with terrorism risks reinforcing the ‘conveyer belt theory’, which has now been discredited within the academic community and this represents a flawed and outdated theoretical basis at the heart of the new strategy. There will naturally be some considerable anxiety around how conservative religious values, from any religion, could simply be labelled as ‘extreme’.

Furthermore, any mention of ‘grievances’ (real or perceived) that had entered previous iterations of the Prevent strategies have been removed. Thus the list of factors “which encourage people to support terrorism and then to engage in terrorist-related activity” makes no mention at all of the political and foreign affairs context in which radicalisation flourishes.

Surprisingly for a security review it could be read as making a number of ‘political points’. RICU (Research Information and Communications Unit), a cross departmental unit in Whitehall is criticised for some of its work, as are universities for their push back on the subject of free speech on campus. It will be interesting to see how the coalition handles this agenda alongside all its other on-going, internal debates.

The review does make a few clarifications that were needed:

“Previous Prevent work has sometimes given the impression that Muslim communities as a whole are more ‘vulnerable’ to radicalisation than other faith or ethnic groups….Much more needs to be done in this critical area. But it must be proportionate and focused…It must not seem to pass judgment on faith or to suggest only a particular kind of faith is appropriate or acceptable. It must be done in conjunction with communities here and overseas who are often better able than Government itself to disprove the claims made by terrorist groups and to challenge terrorist and associated extremist ideologies.”

And there is an important emphasis on civil liberties by Lord Carlile:

“The new strategy must be delivered in an atmosphere and legal setting strongly compliant with civil liberties. It must be achieved without in any way undermining the value and proper values of British Muslims or their religion, or of any other group of people identifiable by a shared faith or other connection. Policy must be free from allegations of snooping, targeting communities or any other form of discrimination. It is a given that Muslims are no less law-abiding and no less British than any other citizens.” (Carlile Report 2011, p. 3)

As well as a word of caution:

“Actions and language that may exacerbate mistaken perceptions should always be avoided….There is a great responsibility on all, especially respected senior figures, to emphasise the benefits of the cohesiveness of Britain, and to heal divisions where they exist. This applies equally to politicians, commentators and others who, even accidentally, demonise Muslims or others, as this feeds prejudice, and undermines Prevent and other activities designed with a healing purpose.” (Carlile Report 2011, p. 4).

While the review does break some important new ground, it carries forward much of the thinking from previous Prevent strategies. The crux of the matter is how this will be implemented. What will it actually mean at a local level where the interface with communities occurs? How will things be different? What resources and new training will be provided to front-line staff that now need to deal with ‘ideology’ and broader definitions of ‘extremism’? Exactly how committed will central government be to localism when it comes to allowing local authorities to think and plan for themselves? And, of course, all this in a climate of severe cuts to departmental and local budgets.

Over the last few years the difficulties and sensitivities of working in this area have been evident to any close observer. Very few policy agendas have been as controversial as Prevent. It could be argued that the lessons from previous Prevent strategies have not been adequately learnt or taken on board – some would have wanted it to be ‘tougher’ and cast the net wider, others think it already goes ‘too far’ and is unfocused. Nevertheless, we can all agree that terrorism remains a threat to British society and its prevention is of utmost importance.