|
Memorandum
from
This submission is made by the Prevention of Violent Extremism (PVE) Forum. the partnership body for PVE
work in Lancashire, on behalf of the County, Unitary and District Councils of
Lancashire, Blackburn with Darwen,
Summary This is a bullet point summary of the main issues. Central Government approaches to Prevent are not well harmonised across Government departments. This means effort is required to re-integrate approaches at a local level. This is particularly true, although not restricted to finance arrangements. Information sharing from those responsible for Pursue to those involved in Prevent isn't good. The approach is too risk adverse and information which would aid effective Prevent tactics is not formally disclosed. The establishment of a Lancashire Contest Board has helped this process but there is some way to go before it could be described as truly effective. Prevent is not just about Government policy. Delivery at a local level and the trust that all partners build and maintain with communities is fundamental to whether Prevent is going to work or not. The Prevent agenda has
aided the development of a robust partnership arrangement in There are now signs of
significant projects that are able to address the issues of: vulnerability of
people to violent extremism, empowerment of communities and engagement with
young people and women. Robust evaluation built in at the start has aided in
learning in However, the Prevent Agenda is mistrusted by some individual Muslim within the communities; there are those who perceive it to be a spying exercise in all but name. The language of Prevent is complex and would benefit from clarity at a Government level without going through local interpretation. RICU are starting to address these issues. Terminology used to address violent extremism can be seen to be an attack on the principles of Islam where adherence to the principles of Sharia Law, segregation of the sexes etc, is almost portrayed as being on the continuum of violent extremism. This needs clarifying even more than the explanation given in Contest 2. Cohesion is implicit in all the work but it has meant that a considerable amount of the work has been more cohesion focused rather than dealing with the elements who purport violence in our communities. However, cohesion is recognised as an important part of the PVE Agenda and therefore needs to be an acceptance of the need for merged activity at the boundaries. The focus on Islam has meant that other elements of violent extremism: Far Right, Animal Liberation Front, etc have not received the same level of scrutiny. Whilst acknowledging the need to focus activity where the threat is greatest, it would be very helpful if all forms of violent extremism were included within Prevent. This is a long term strategy that would suffer by withdrawal of funding or attempts at getting quick wins. The more we understand each other the more will be able to deal with the issues. The Prevent Agenda is not an exact science. It is an incredibly complex are of business. If handled poorly the negative impact on community cohesion could have serious and long-term consequences. Questions 1) Is the Prevent programme the right way of addressing the problem of violent extremism, or are there better ways of doing it? We would contend that a Prevent programme should be in place which coordinates all Government departments and aids delivery at the most local level. However, what we are experiencing are multiple government departments providing direction, setting performance measures and providing finances in different ways. The complexity of this method of delivery makes it very difficult to co-ordinate at a local level. Whilst Contest was published in 2003 it wasn't until 2006 that it started to be widely spoken about in the public sector. The movement of responsibility from the Security Service and the Police into other public sector departments and community's agenda is complex and the language to the uninitiated has been an issue. The Prevent programme was initially led by CLG Pathfinder 2007/8 and whilst very Prevent focused, it acknowledged the need for the broader community cohesion agenda. It is now led by OSCT and as such the focus has become much sharper on terrorism. The number of instruction booklets and guidance to the multiple partners is excessive as are the numerous returns back to GO and the central government departments. We understand the anxiety to make progress and to be seen to make progress but the extreme complexity of this agenda has only been made more complex. A good example of this complexity are the funding streams which have been allocated to Local Authorities, the Police, the probation Service, the YOT's, Education, etc. They come with different timescales, submission procedures, monitoring, evaluation and spending criteria. We would recommend a much closer join between any funding allocated locally. This would greatly assist delivery. 2) How robust is the Government's analysis of the factors which lead people to become involved in violent extremism? Is the 'Prevent' programme appropriately targeted to address the most important of those factors? It
is not possible to give a definitive answer. We would submit that there is no
'silver bullet' to answer all the issues. Feedback from some proportions of the
community suggests trust in Government and authority in general was severely
damaged by the invasion of We are aware that the interpretation and in some areas manipulation of the UK Foreign Policy has motivated people to violence. Restoring trust is a major part of business of Prevent and the restoration of this trust will then enable us to be in a position where we can really discuss Prevent at the next level. Discussion
around Foreign Policy is important and we have seen some signs that this has
now taken a higher priority with visits to 3) How appropriate, and how effective, is the Government's strategy for engaging with communities? Has the Government been speaking to the right people? Has its programme reached those at whom it is-or should be-aimed? Great effort needs to be exercised in collecting the views of as wide a group of people as possible. There are opportunities for wider consultation. There are a number of community organisations and individuals whose views have been seen to influence Government policy over the past years. It is appreciated that these people have an expectation that they are involved in discussions and are affected by Prevent. However, there are those in the community who argue that there would appear to be an over reliance on these organisations and individuals - many of whom have been very accepting of the Governments policy.
There are examples of divisions that have begun to grow between those who feel they have been marginalised and those who are closer to the source of policy making and finance. Whether these perceptions are true or not does not really matter as the perceptions are real to the people involved. By
way of example, the argument has been articulated by some members of the Muslim
community that certain groups, particularly those connected to the Deobandi
school of thought within Islam, have not had the same access to Government as
others. There is a view that the main Government advisors have shown a slant
towards the Barelwi and Sufi movements which has caused the Deobandi adherents
to move even further away from the agenda. The Deobandi movement is the
predominant Islamic movement in It has been very helpful to have the Lancashire Council of Mosques (LCM) represented at every level within Contest and Prevent in the County. This organisation is an umbrella organisation that is able to represent the views of over 90 affiliated mosques within the County from all Islamic schools of thought. This is a significant development and in reality local partnership is crucial to delivery with an organised structure of delivery that involves all sections of the community. Nevertheless, great care has had to be taken not to marginalise those not affiliated with the LCM. 4) Is the necessary advice and expertise available to local authorities on how to implement and evaluate the programme? We are grateful for the advice and information booklets/guidance/toolkits that are now being produced by Government departments. No one organisation sits in a silo and operates on its own. As such there is a necessity to read a number of these documents and to appreciate what is required to then be put into place. The issue isn't availability of advice but the clarity and coherence of actions and delivery. The Lancashire Contest Board and the PVE Forum seeks to bring together this advice and guidance and in effect make sense of it at a local level. It would appear that there isn't always consistency from central government in the timing and issuing of guidance with individual ministers tasking departments and different times. It would be more helpful if there was greater consistency and real expectation that everyone works in partnership on these issues. We appreciate that this may mean some documentation is delayed to allow more consultation but Prevent is a long term programme would we would contend that this would be time well spent.
5) Are the objectives of the 'Prevent' agenda being communicated effectively to those at whom it is aimed? We would contend that the Prevent agenda should be communicated to everyone not just too Muslim communities. The messages contained within Prevent are applicable to everyone and it has been more helpful when we have done so. The ideology of the 'far right' and the radicalisation of young people is almost the contrary position to the Al Qaeda narrative and the understanding of both enables a more constructive dialogue to take place. Simplicity of language is important in promoting Prevent messages and articulating the objectives. In addition, failure by Central Government to be seen as totally open and transparent does feed those who would wish to further the terrorist agenda. A good example is the debate about rendition and complicity with torture. The information from the Government appears, to some, to be a very cleverly tailored attempt at obfuscation of what actually has happened. Whilst this may seem harsh there is concern that there is a strong community resonance with this statement in the County. 6) Is the Government seeking, and obtaining, appropriate advice on how to achieve the goals of the 'Prevent' programme? We are aware of the many Government departments are working on Prevent and the co-ordination through the OSCT. We are also aware that lots of different people give advice and some of it can be contrary to the other. However, when a consensus is reached it would seem to be a good opportunity to listen to that advice. Whilst
it is clear that Government is trying hard to listen there are still
significant lost opportunities. For example, in January 2009 a meeting was held
at the Home Office hosted by OSCT, CLG and the FCO. The meeting concerned the
Israeli invasion of We have welcomed and would recommend further cross government department hosted debates with the communities delivered at a local level. It has been very helpful when Government officials have come to the County and engage with communities. The events that have been held here have all been well received and have increased community confidence in the Prevent agenda.
7) How effectively has the Government evaluated the effectiveness of the programme and the value for money which is being obtained from it? Have reactions to the programme been adequately gauged? We
have ensured that evaluation of projects has been a consistent theme of the
work in The introduction of NI 35 has raised a number of issues, in particular with the emphasis on understanding Muslim communities. This has reinforced the perception that the problem can be perceived as solely an Islamic faith issue. In many ways though it has meant that everyone has at least had to address the issue head on and this has been a productive exercise. The methodology for proving NI35 and settling targets must lead to significantly different approaches and results across the Country. 8) Is there adequate differentiation between what should be achieved through the Prevent programme and the priorities that concern related, but distinct, policy frameworks such as cohesion and integration? There is definitely the potential for confusion about Prevent work and other policy frameworks such as cohesion. We have tried to ensure that these two agendas are seen as distinct but inform each other and ensure that reconciliation of any issues are part of the process of both policy areas. The two strategic groups within the County that deal with Prevent and Cohesion have representation at a senior level to enable this to take place. However, a degree of latitude is to be welcomed when defining 'prevent' and 'cohesion' work. There is distinct overlap.
September 2009
|