Memorandum from the Mayor of London (PVE
62)
INTRODUCTION
1. The Mayor of London welcomes the opportunity
to comment on the Communities and Local Government Committee inquiry,
which he sees as an opportunity to highlight the unique needs
of preventing terrorist attacks in London. While he shares the
goals underlying the Government's agenda he has concerns about
the effectiveness of the strategy.
2. The current Prevent Strategy concentrates
on Islamic-based violent extremism and fails to address other
forms of terrorism that could seriously impact on London. The
strategy could alienate London's Muslim communities, who feel
that they are being stigmatised with violent extremism. The Mayor
believes that this undermines the relationship with Muslim communities
whose support is crucial to the prevention of terrorism. There
is a wider point too about "single group funding" which
breeds resentment—not just by Muslims who regard themselves
as being unfairly targeted—but also by other communities
who see Muslim problems as being unduly favoured over their own
problems. Therefore the current approach alienates people on all
sides of the divide.
3. The Government should be clear on the
criteria with which it will decide who to engage with and support
moderates to drive out extremists. At present there are no criteria
for engagement, meaning decisions taken can sometimes appear whimsical
and inconsistent.
4. Substantial resources have been allocated
to the Prevent programme, yet there is little evidence that Value
for Money considerations have been applied at local and national
levels. It is important that public money not be used to fund
groups that promote extremism—as has sometimes happened.
OVERVIEW
5. London is the focus of political protest,
demonstrations and processions. It hosts national and international
sporting events, including the forthcoming 2012 London Olympic
and Paralympic Games. It contains many diplomatic premises. The
Parliamentary and Government institutions of Westminster and Whitehall
are based in London, as too are the financial districts of the
City and Canary Wharf, making it a global financial powerhouse.
London is the hub of the country's road and rail networks, has
two important airports within its boundaries—London City
Airport and Heathrow—and the largest urban transport system
in the country. Many of the largest companies are headquartered
in London, as are a number of key utility sites. Numerous iconic
heritage sites adorn the Capital.
6. Consequently, London is an attractive
target for those who wish to cause serious disruption and the
loss of life. In the last few years, examples of these include
the failed bombing attempts in London's Haymarket and the Ministry
of Sound Nightclub, and the suicide bombing on London Underground
and buses that resulted in the deaths of 52 people, 700 injuries,
psychological trauma and infrastructural transport problems, which
were carried out by radicalised Muslim terrorists and neo-jihadists.
7. London has been repeatedly warned that
it faces a high level of threat from terrorism. The Government's
response has been to develop a counter-terrorism strategy, a strand
of which is Prevent, aimed at tackling the radicalisation of individuals
and deterring those who facilitate terrorism or who explicitly
encourage others to become terrorists in the name of Islam. Whilst
the Mayor recognises that the threat of such terrorism is significant,
growing and evolving, he believes that it is imperative that the
Government also address other forms of terrorist threats. Northern
Irish Republican splinter groups responsible for mass terrorism
in London over the last 25 years have not altogether disappeared.
Extreme right-wing groups such as Combat 18 remain active,
and anarchists and single-issue extremists such as the Animal
Liberation Front persist, as was evident during the recent G20 Summit
London demonstrations. Future violent extremists comparable to
the London nail bomber David Copeland who carried out attacks
against ethnic minority communities in Brick Lane, Brixton and
Soho cannot be discounted. The Mayor would therefore welcome debate
as to whether the Government's Prevent Strategy should overly
focus on violent extremism, or whether alongside this, another
strategy should be developed specifically addressing extremism
in all its forms.
8. The Mayor is committed to put in place
systems and communications mechanisms that will facilitate the
best possible response to any future terrorist incident. That
is why, in his capacity as Chair of the Metropolitan Police Authority,
he is working with the Metropolitan Police Commissioner to address
the safety and security of Londoners and those who visit the Capital.
As Deputy Chair of the London Regional Resilience Forum, he also
seeks to improve the response not only of those agencies for which
he has statutory responsibly—the police and fire service—but
also other partner agencies to minimise the impact of future terrorist
incidents in London. The Mayor would welcome debate in the near
future on a greater role for London's Government, the Greater
London Authority, on the prevention of extremism and terrorism
within its borders. It is in this context that his submission
to this consultation has been made.
RESPONSE TO
THE PREVENTING
VIOLENT EXTREMISM
QUESTIONS
Q1. Is the Prevent programme the right way
of addressing the problem of violent extremism, or are there better
ways of doing it?
9. The Mayor shares the underlying goals
behind the Prevent Strategy but he has concerns about its effectiveness.
First the strategy cannot only focus on preventing violent extremism,
but should look at all forms of extremism. The strategy requires
a long-term approach.
10. The Government's Prevent strategy budget
is substantial. The cost of the key deliverables in the Prevent
Delivery Plan for 2008-09 totals over £140 million.
However, the global economic crisis will inevitably impact upon
public spending. The Government has already announced a £5 billion
reduction in public spending from 2011 onwards. The Mayor
regards it as imperative that the Government adopts a rigorous
approach to ensure value for money is achieved in the allocation
of Prevent monies. It is important that public money should not
be used to support organisations that support extremism in any
form.
11. The Mayor believes that Prevent initiatives
have too often been prepared to engage with ostensibly non-violent
Islamists, regarding them as a useful bulwark against their more
violent counterparts. This is a fundamentally flawed approach
as it bolsters an Islamist narrative that is at odds with the
professed values of the liberal British State. The most obvious
way of addressing the problem is for the State to create a strong
values-led initiative at the heart of Prevent based around inalienable
and non-negotiable values such as equality for women, homosexuals
and religious minorities.
Q2. 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?
12. In order for the Prevent programme to
be comprehensive, the Government needs to address the political
context within which the UK's Muslim population overall suffers
extensive forms of social exclusion, limited economic success,
high levels of unemployment and being under-represented in public
life, as these can manifest themselves into:
— A sense of alienation among younger Muslims;
— perceived misrepresentation of Muslims
by the mainstream media;
— perceived victimisation by the police,
courts, other law enforcement and security agencies;
— experiences of Islamophobia, discrimination
and inequality;
— a feeling of exclusion from the political
system and other civic processes;
— the resulting perception that their views
are not reflected in policy and legislation; and
— belief in conspiracy theories.
13. The Government also needs to consider
the impact of international events and foreign policy, which are
perceived by the Muslim community as evidence that the UK is complicit
in attacks on Islam.
14. The Mayor believes that addressing these
issues is crucial. A failure to do so could result in radicalisation,
whereby the activities of terrorists are deemed by some to be
justified. The Mayor is minded that whilst this circle is small
amongst the UK's Muslim communities, it demonstrates a breakdown
of trust between the Government and a number of its citizens that
could be exploited by extremist groups and terrorist organisations
at home and abroad.
15. The Mayor recommends that the Government
work more closely with communities to collect and disseminate
good practices and lessons learned locally, nationally and internationally
not only on the process of radicalisation but also the factors
which prompt withdrawal from violent or radical groups ie disengagement
and de-radicalisation, to inform the development of initiatives
and programmes.
16. Finally the Mayor strongly believes
that the Government needs to address other forms of extremism,
which pose multiple threats to London and the UK. Extremism of
any form is not acceptable and cannot be tolerated.
Q3. 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?
17. Whist the Mayor supports the Government's
rhetoric on community engagement, he believes that it is flawed.
This is premised upon the fact that currently there is no clear
and precise framework for local partners (ie councils and police)
to engage with local communities. There are a number of Government
objectives and aims, as well as minimalistic criteria regarding
this issue but insufficient advice has been provided to local
councils and police who have been given the responsibility to
decide which community groups or individuals they should engage
with. This is further compounded by many government funded activities—whilst
they help Muslim communities engage in cohesive activity, particularly
those involving women and young people—CLG has conceded
that "very few projects engaged with individuals or groups
specifically glorifying or justifying violent extremism."
18. The Mayor believes that it is also incumbent
upon Government to acknowledge and address concerns that in several
local authorities some Muslim communities have refused to engage
with or seek funding under the Prevent programme, as they feel
stigmatised with its associations to violent extremism.
19. Government has also traditionally given
too much credence to supposedly "gatekeeper" organisations
that profess to represent the Muslim community. Yet, there is
no organisation that can truly claim to speak on behalf of British
Muslims, reflecting the diversity of opinion among British Muslims.
20. Another point is that the government
seems obsessed with engaging Muslims only on the basis of their
confessional identity. Why has it not explored alternative means
of reaching out to young Muslims through cultural and social platforms?
More Muslims attend the Bradford Mela—a festival of South
Asian food and music—every year than go to events such as
IslamExpo or the Global Peace and Unity conference.
Q4. Is the necessary advice and expertise
available to local authorities on how to implement and evaluate
the programme?
21. The Mayor recognises that the Prevent
programme is relatively new. Consequently, current Government
advice and expertise on how to implement and evaluate the programme,
available to not only local authorities, but also police, partners
and other stakeholders is only just emerging. The Mayor advises
that a National Support Framework is needed, that engages with
all stakeholders. Support should take a range of forms, both direct
and indirect, including advice, guidance, toolkits, diagnostics,
dissemination of best practice, mentoring and peer support. The
development of these must be based on input from stakeholders
and should be subject to review to ensure that they are fit for
purpose.
22. This is one area where there needs to
be greater centralisation, with the creation of a due diligence
unit at the heart of government which is able to advise and inform
local authorities about how best to proceed with difficult issues.
The reason for this is that it can be a daunting task to build
the requisite knowledge and expertise to understand the ever changing
carousel of radical leaders and their front groups.
Q5. Are the objectives of the "Prevent"
agenda being communicated effectively to those at whom it is aimed?
23. If it is the Government's intention
that Councils and the police take the lead in communicating the
objectives of the Prevent agenda, then a framework to help local
partners develop and implement local Prevent communication strategies
is needed. Such a strategy must contain the aims, objectives and
key messages of the Prevent programme. It should also detail key
audiences, the responsibility of each partner agency; resources,
links to engagement, and systems for review and evaluation. The
Mayor is minded that effective communication is an essential part
of mobilising local communities in the fight against terrorism.
It will be difficult to make the right connections and build the
far-reaching partnerships that can help address radicalisation
and extremism, without such communication strategies. More importantly,
the Government must challenge those who want to disrupt a peaceful
and just democratic society through extremist activities.
Q6. Is the Government seeking, and obtaining,
appropriate advice on how to achieve the goals of the "Prevent"
programme?
24. It is critical for the Government to
ensure that it seeks advice, input and review from statutory,
voluntary, community and business sector stakeholder agencies,
representative groups and individuals to assist in achieving the
goals of the prevent programme.
Q7. 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?
25. The Government needs to consider and
evaluate the effectiveness and value for money of the Prevent
programme with rigour. It is concerning that the current assessment
of Preventing Violent Extremism funding, measured through performance
indicator NI:35 is largely concerned with only the methodology
and process of Prevent, rather than actual results. This is reinforced
by the HMIC-Audit Commission Report which found that "outcomes
were mostly measured by monitoring spend against budget and the
timeliness of the completion of projects". They found few
performance or success measures to judge the outcomes and achievements
from preventing violent extremism projects. As a result it is
difficult to measure and define what works in preventing violent
extremism. The Mayor is of the view that this must be urgently
addressed. He is also concerned that National Indicator 35 (NI:35)
which was an initial requirement for local authorities to adopt
if they were to qualify for ring-fenced preventing violence funding
has been altered so that payments are now administered through
Area Based Grant, resulting in money that was supposed to be focussed
solely on preventing violent extremism is now being spent on broader
areas.
26. The fact that local authorities are
no longer required to accept NI:35 as a precondition for
Prevent funding could be seen as the Government moving away from
the original aim of Prevent funding and hence a dilution of the
criteria used to assess the effectiveness of local authorities.
27. The Mayor is also anxious that there
does not appear to be a national system in place by which the
Government keeps track of Prevent grants once they have been disbursed
to local authorities that use the money to fund projects carried
out by community groups. This is further compounded by a lack
of knowledge by the Government and local councils as to the extent
to which community groups are possibly linked to extremist groups
and how the money will be used once given to them.
28. The Mayor does not feel in a position
to comment on whether the reactions to the programme have been
adequately gauged. However, the Mayor sees it as important that
the Government respond to the findings and recommendations of
the joint HMIC-Audit Commission report on preventing violent extremism.
The Mayor would welcome a Government response to the concerns
expressed in the HMIC Prevent Report which found that only seven
police forces have established mechanisms to assess the effectiveness
of Prevent interventions and that only 10 forces has established
an assessment framework in partnership with local authorities,
to assess delivery against NI:35 aimed at "building
resilience to violent extremism".
Q8. 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?
29. There is confusion in this area. The
Government's "Updated Guide for Local Partners", states
that: "work to promote community cohesion and to prevent
violent extremism are separate but related policy areas".
Yet the Government has permitted local authorities to use associated
Prevent funding such as the Area Based Grant as part of community
cohesion, sustainable communities and safer neighbourhood agendas.
Initially when the Preventing Violent Extremism Pathfinder Fund
(PVEPF) was launched in October 2006 its aim was to "support
priority local authorities in developing programmes of activity
to tackle violence at the local level". By altering the administration
process of PVE-PF payments this means that such monies are no
longer ring-fenced to focussing solely on preventing extremism.
The Government also concedes that some local authorities in receipt
of Prevent funding have in some areas chosen not to use the term
Prevent or Preventing Violent extremism when delivering specific
interventions.
30. The Mayor is concerned that Prevent's
focus on Islamic-based extremism is having a perverse outcome,
in that it is having negative effect on some sections of the Muslim
community who feel stigmatised by association with violent extremism.
This not only undermines the relationship with the community on
whose support delivery of Prevent agenda depends, but also the
Government's community cohesion agenda. The Mayor would welcome
a full debate on whether and how the Government should and could
integrate the Prevent and community cohesion policy areas.
October 2009
| 
