Examination of Witnesses (Question Numbers
261-283)
MR MINHAZ
KHELYA, MR
ROB CLEWS
AND MS
LISA CARROLL
18 JANUARY 2010
Q261 Chair: Can I welcome you to
this afternoon's session on Prevent? I think we have agreed,
exceptionally, that one of you or all three of you are you going
to do a very brief presentation to start.
Mr Khelya: My name is Minhaz and
I am from Blackburn with Darwen originally. Back in 2006-7, a
group of young people from Blackburn with Darwen News Forum decided
it would be good to have a conference in a lecture theatre involving
young people around the idea of terrorism and violent extremism.
From this, it evolved into a youth Muslim project, from which
it was decided that there should definitely be safe spaces for
young people and workers to talk about terrorism and violent extremism.
I think this is because both the young people and workers in that
project and fear genuinely that any discussion around terrorism
or violent extremism would lead to an arrest or censorship by
the police. As a result of this, UKYP together with the Association
of Chief Police Officers with the Blackburn with Darwen News Forum
were invited to the annual sitting in Glasgow. This is where young
people from Blackburn with Darwen conducted consultation using
a mypod. A mypod is basically interactive consulting equipment
and we asked young people questions through a glass window so
they felt they could say whatever they wanted. Moving on from
that, Nottinghamshire Youth Service conducted a survey involving
around 370 young people. Around 60 per cent of them felt that
education was needed to raise awareness about terrorism. In July
2008, UKYP organised a survey around violent extremism. We found
that the main finding from that was that nine out of ten young
people felt they needed more opportunities to discuss terrorism
and violent extremism.
Ms Carroll: The National Steering
Group (NSG) was made up of a diverse group but this is important
because terrorism and violent extremism do not just affect young
Muslims; they affect all communities. With the NSG being such
a diverse group, this encouraged other groups at the events to
come along and talk about how it affects them as well. Community
cohesion affects all young people. I am from a Gypsy background
so necessarily some people would not think that would affect terrorism
but, having all the different groups, it brought a different opinion
to the table each time.
Mr Clews: I was just going to
talk about three of our recommendations and findings which came
from the report and relate that to a couple of points made by
Minnie and Lisa. The first was the point Lisa just made. It is
quite disempowering as young people to see our report be completely
ignored by government. For example, when it targets Prevent
as a whole, it targets the Muslim community as a diverse range
group of young people, we find it quite disempowering and disengaging
to see that going on, especially when we are so diverse. We acknowledge
that terrorism and violent extremism affect young people from
every community and every background. For example, in the south
west, you had three examples of Andrew Ibrahim, Nick Reilly and
more recently with Abdulmutalab. Even though he did convert to
Islam they are not just very typical terrorists. Also on Minnie's
point, we create safe spaces for young people to talk about the
issues of terrorism and violent extremism. One of the key findings
from our report was that young people did not trust the police
to run similar conferences. What we have found out from this work
is that the police do intend over the next year to run a series
of conferences around terrorism and violent extremism to consult
with young people, basically doing what we have just done. That
is quite shocking, as young people do not trust the police and
there is no relationship there for them to work on. Thirdly, we
made a constructive criticism to DCSF (Department for Children,
Schools and Families) on the terrorism toolkit, based on consultations
with teachers and youth workers. From what we heard and in our
opinion, it was not working and it was not being as effective
as potentially it could have been. When we presented that view
to them, it was completely shot down and ignored. That is really
where we would like to finish and welcome your questions if you
do have any.
Ms Carroll: The Department for
Children, Schools and Families— we have been waiting six
months for an answer on funding, which is leaving us disheartened
as a national group but also all the other young people who are
waiting for an answer to see if this project is going to be brought
forward and carried on.
Q262 Chair: Have you largely engaged
with the Department of Children, Schools and Families or with
any other government departments?
Mr Clews: The project itself was
funded by the Association of Chief Police Officers and the Department
for Children, Schools and Families and also the Home Office, so
we have engaged with all three but primarily DCSF.
Q263 Chair: Not with DCLG, which
is our parent department?
Mr Clews: No.
Q264 Chair: We are slightly circumscribed
as to the critique of other departments that we can get into,
if I may say that to you. Obviously, we are particularly concerned
about the programme that CLG is funding in communities through
Prevent. Does the Youth Parliament have any view about
the sorts of organisations that CLG is engaging with and funding
in various places, including I imagine Blackburn, and whether
young people in those areas are being properly involved and consulted?
Mr Khelya: We have heard of the
Muslim Advisory Group. I think that is run by the DCLG. We were
also invited by the DCSF to give a joint presentation on the report
that we compiled in July. We thought that it was not fair because
they were basically jumping on our bandwagon. We did this work
and they wanted to take credit for it. That is as far as we know
about the Muslim Advisory Group.
Mr Clews: From our findings, overwhelmingly
young people have said that they do not approve of tokenistic
youth organisations, especially because they have acknowledged
themselves that it does affect young people through their different
communities. Why is there a Young Muslim Advisory Group but not
a Young Christian Advisory Group? Why is there not a Young Hindu
Advisory Group? It seems to me that it is all tied to the one
community when the problem is not exactly with that community.
Q265 Chair: Are you defending your
own turf and suggesting that if the government wants to consult
with young people it must do it through the Youth Parliament?
Mr Clews: I would not necessarily
say that, no. I think what I am saying is that terrorism and violent
extremism is an issue which affects young people from all communities
and Prevent needs to be reflective of that. I do not want
to score any own goals here today.
Q266 Alison Seabeck: I want to ask
you very quickly about sounding boards and the government's Muslim
Advisory Group. You said why not have other groups involved. Do
you think there is any value at all in having feedback from this
particular group? Do you have any sense that this particular group
is representative of young Muslims for example, because often
we find we have a group of people who have their own agenda and
purport to be representative. Would you say this group was representative
of young Muslims, from your experience?
Mr Khelya: I would not say they
were representative, as the UK Youth Parliament, to be honest
and that is basically because members of the UK Youth Parliament
are elected by their local young people.
Q267 Alison Seabeck: How many Muslims
are members of the UK Youth Parliament?
Mr Khelya: 18%.
Q268 Chair: I am not asking you personally
but can the Youth Parliament maybe provide us afterwards with
any data on the number of Muslim members of the Youth Parliament?
I guess I would want to ask on that whether, when the issue was
discussed—I accept this is not just an issue for young Muslims—was
there a variety of Muslim viewpoints or did the Muslim members
of the Youth Parliament tend to have rather similar views to each
other? I am just asking how broad the debate was within the Youth
Parliament.
Mr Clews: Do you mean with respect
to the conferences?
Q269 Chair: Yes. With respect to
the issue about terrorism and violent extremism.
Mr Clews: I am not sure I understand
the question.
Q270 Chair: One of the issues that
has been put by other witnesses in relation to the government's
engagement with members of the Muslim community for example is
whether it is only engaging with a relatively narrow band of opinion
within the British Muslim community—that would apply to
young British Muslims—or whether it is also engaging with
the more radical fringes whom, it can be argued, are particularly
important if the government is trying to engage and affect young
people who might be drawn to more extreme views. I am simply seeking
to understand whether, in the events that the Youth Parliament
organised, the strength of Muslim opinion that was expressed was
a wide one including what might be described as quite immoderate
and extreme views, or whether it actually was fairly mainstream.
Mr Clews: The statistics are here
in our report, which I am sure you have seen. At the back of it,
it does outline the number of young Muslims. Obviously we have
not gone into the details, whether they are Sunni or Shi'ite,
but I am sure with further consultation we will be able to.
Chair: I was thinking more about the
views expressed.
Q271 Anne Main: Can I put it a slightly
different way? Are you a fairly self-selecting group? Therefore,
Muslims within your group are fairly moderate in their views so
all the views expressed to you are quite moderate? In the debate
you had, were you confident that you yourselves were attracting
people from a wide spectrum of Muslim views?
Mr Khelya: I would say it was
variable in each region. I was at the north western regional conference
and we invited loads of groups from different backgrounds and
many from different Muslim backgrounds as well. We had quite a
lot of people attending but obviously anyone could have come to
that. It does not matter what kind of views they held. I think
there were students from a mosque there as well. I would say they
would not have the same moderate view as I would have as a Muslim
who has been involved in the UK Youth Parliament for about four
years.
Q272 Anne Main: In my community there
is a Muslim community of about 5,000. Some might say that radicalism
happens for example in giving leaflets out at mosques or whatever.
Does the Youth Parliament have representatives from the communities
that may have been approached in that way to give you that sort
of input? Are you confident that you have a broad enough input
in the Youth Parliament?
Mr Khelya: The Youth Parliament
is a base group but we do also have networks. For example in Lancashire,
we have a network of the Lancashire Council of Mosques and things
like that. I reckon that is what is really important because that
is how we get our message across to different organisations and
that is how we invited loads of young people to the conferences.
Q273 Anne Main: Do you feel that
by the government going down the route of specifically asking
Muslims they are actually going to get not a broad view like you
have but maybe a slightly unrealistic view?
Mr Khelya: Some will have that
view, yes.
Q274 Anne Main: Because it is targeting
one group by faith, not even by country or background.
Mr Clews: On the representation
of different communities with Project Safe Space, young people
from a variety of different backgrounds were invited to the National
Steering Group for Project Safe Space. It was not solely exclusive
to the UK Youth Parliament. For example, we do have representatives
from the Young Muslim Advisory Group. We also have representatives
from loads of different organisations like the Advisory Helpline.
It just shows that we were not targeting groups in particular.
It was open to everyone and it was fair.
Q275 Anne Main: Of course community
cohesion is a strong part of that, some people might say, by ignoring
young white youths who might get involved potentially or, as Lisa
was saying, Traveller youths who are disaffected because of potentially
being stigmatised by communities. Would you say that your group
has more views to offer than potentially one Muslim group?
Mr Clews: Yes.
Q276 Mr Betts: The evidence we have
taken from a whole variety of groups is that one of the things
that has come out from criticism is, by its very nature, when
government engages in whatever form in whatever process, it tends
to be what are called the usual suspects who get involved. In
some ways, you are a bit like part of the establishment, are you
not? You might feel it is a comfortable way for you to get your
view across but those who do not see themselves conforming very
much are probably not going to engage with you in this process.
Is that a concern to you? Have you any ideas how we might—
Mr Clews: I see that as a criticism
of you guys because there are not any opportunities for young
people from those backgrounds to get involved in events like this
and Project Safe Space. We did one conference in Slough and the
opinions we got there from the young people were very different
from the opinions we got in the north east and the north west
of England. They are not given the same opportunities as us because
we are going into those communities but we are not getting the
funding to continue doing that work, giving those young people
youth leadership opportunities and stuff like that.
Q277 Mr Betts: One of the things
I suppose we are trying to get at as well is whether you can necessarily
get at people who may have some extremist views that could eventually
turn those people into performing acts of terrorism and extremism
and whether they will ever engage in these processes, or whether
you do need things like the Channel Project, which you are probably
aware of. If it becomes known to someone that there is an individual
expressing extremist views that might give rise to concern, they
should report that to authorities in various ways. Do you think
the Channel Project should operate in parallel with what you are
doing or is it something that you would be very worried about
getting involved in at all because people might think you are
just informants to the police? Have you any ideas about that?
Mr Khelya: It could lead to that.
In the UKYP survey we did online, 60 per cent of 1,000 people
said they would not attend the conference if the police were there,
so obviously it means something if young people are running it
for young people.
Q278 Alison Seabeck: On this Channel
Project which is designed to identify young people who are at
risk from a range of sources, how comfortable do you feel that
for example teachers are looking at notebooks and looking for
stories, comments, that could be potentially considered extreme?
Clearly one of the bombers who came down from Leeds had made his
views very clear in his school notebooks. Would you have concerns
about that sort of intrusion or do you think that is appropriate
if a teacher gets concerned?
Mr Clews: I am going to relate
it to something. I went to the Copenhagen Climate Change Conference
in Copenhagen and one of the comments coming from young people
was that they did not want to have decisions being made about
them without them. It seems to me that these questions are questions
that should be targeted at teachers to gather their thoughts,
rather than to us, because they are the ones who are meant to
be participating in this project. I can give you my personal interpretation
of Operation Channel and whether it is going to be working or
not.
Q279 Anne Main: I would welcome your
view.
Mr Clews: I do not think it is
the right way of going about it. You should be openly challenging
these ideologies and having a debate in a safe environment, which
is what we advocated last year. Without that you are not going
to get anywhere. I do not think teachers feel comfortable giving
that kind of information to the police.
Q280 Anne Main: All the evidence
suggests that the evidence is not going to the police. Of the
220-odd people who have been highlighted, it has not gone to the
police. It has been taken up and dealt with in house by teachers
or taken to a slightly wider, more expert group to have that sort
of debate. In that scenario, are you content because the evidence
does suggest it is not actually going to the police. Would you
be happy with that response if it is in house, dealt with by the
teachers in school, or not?
Mr Clews: It is kind of going
beyond what they are required to do. Teachers are there to teach
young people. They are not there to snoop for the police and that
is the way it is perceived by young people. It is the way it is
perceived by youth workers. It is the way it is perceived by teachers.
If that is the way it is perceived, then you need to address it
rather than talking about who is it going to.
Q281 Chair: Some witnesses have put
to us that this is a form of child protection. Just as for example
a teacher who thought from evidence that was in a student's work
that they might be at risk of sexual abuse would feel that it
was their duty to act on that, the same sort of reasoning would
apply if they were gaining the impression that the young person
was likely to be going off and blowing up other people and obviously
blowing up themselves as well. Do you have any sympathy with that
viewpoint? If you feel you cannot answer it, that is fair enough.
Mr Clews: I feel I can answer
it. I just question the morals of Operation Channel when it does
not tell the young people the reason why these teachers are going
to be talking to them about their extremist ideology. It is not
very moral.
Q282 Anne Main: Do you think maybe
Channel is formalising something too much and that the in
loco parentis role of a teacher already does? I used to
teach. Many teachers would pick up on something that they were
concerned about, whether it was even abuse of that child in their
home, and take it through the appropriate channels. Do you consider
that this is a formalisation of something and that is what is
making you uncomfortable?
Mr Clews: I suppose so. It is
a question for the teachers. I was in a room when a member of
Avon and Somerset Police was talking about Operation Channel to
teachers and youth workers and they were using language such as
"a covert operation" and it makes me feel uncomfortable.
Chair: Thanks very much indeed. We have
noted your views about the DCSF, as I am sure they have.
| 
