One of the most surprising things to come out of today’s independent review of Prevent, the government’s flagship counter-terrorism programme, is how much of its activities have nothing to do with terrorism.
The scheme was created by politicians to stop people from being radicalised into terrorism. Yet according to William Shawcross’s landmark review, the reality is that the programme spends much of its time and energy focused on subjects outside of terrorism.
When broken down, the referrals to Prevent of course comprise people drawn to jihadist and neo-Nazi worldviews. But there was another, somewhat inexplicable category that few outside of the programme could find out very much about, labelled: Mixed, Unclear, Unstable, Ideology. Unclear? I’ll say. Recently, that category had become the one housing more than half of everyone being referred into Prevent.
This year, for the first time, there has been some clarity about this group as the Home Office has provided statistics on what is included in this bracket of referrals. Many of the people in that category are now recorded by Prevent as ‘vulnerability present but no ideology or CT [counter-terrorism] risk’.
Using Prevent to do middle-of-the-road youth work is the equivalent of deploying the SAS to collect the bins
Which begs the obvious question. What are people with ‘no CT risk’ doing in a counter-terrorism scheme? Not only that, but how is it that, according to the most recent figures from Prevent, this group accounts for the largest number of individuals going through the system?
The Prevent review details the fact that many of the people in the category have mental health and ‘neurodevelopmental issues’ or suffer from personal and domestic difficulties. But in turn, this leads to the siphoning off of resources intended to go towards disrupting those beginning to become involved in terrorism.
Shawcross states that Prevent is carrying the burden for mental health and social services. This partly explains why so many of those being put through Prevent are teenagers. Say you’re a teacher with a troubled kid in the classroom and you don’t know what to do about them. Referring them to Prevent will get them fast-tracked to mental health support. There is no requirement to demonstrate that they have any inclination towards terrorism at all, as long as you can frame them as having a ‘vulnerability’.
Prevent is meant to be part of our national security apparatus. Using it to do middle-of-the-road youth work is the equivalent of deploying the SAS to collect the bins.
We’ve learned that Prevent’s community projects include sporting clubs, theatre groups, and education workshops. The projects outline their aims as ‘promoting tolerance, interfaith or community dialogue, or reducing feelings of isolation or marginalisation’. Some focus on ‘social problems, such as drug abuse or unemployment’. Descriptions for these projects talk of ‘supporting disadvantaged young people and families’ or ‘delivering community engagement, employment support, and more general activities’.
That’s one approach. Keep as many people as possible busy with ‘general activities’ and – fingers crossed – perhaps none of them will go on to become terrorists.
The evaluations of these taxpayer-funded schemes show that many of them are not only ineffective, but even counterproductive. For example, the Prevent review talks of an online magazine for Muslim girls that is supposed to counter Islamist extremism. Unfortunately, on closer inspection, it didn’t contain any content countering Islamist ideology. It’s laughable.
At least it is until you read some of the cases Shawcross writes about where the authorities got it wrong.
There was Hashem Abedi, the Manchester Arena bomber’s brother, whose phone was found full of violent Islamic State content when he arrived at a UK airport. Yet he was sent on his way without further question. Then there was a man who took hostages at a synagogue. He had threatened to kill Jews and was referred to Prevent several times – yet not considered a threat. And Ali Harbi Ali, who murdered Sir David Amess in 2021, had scoffed that he knew to nod and say yes to whatever Prevent said and that they would leave him alone. He was right.
There is one persistent question that keeps needling anyone inclined to pick up a copy of this review. How is it that, after a series of pretty tough-talking home secretaries, this is what we have in way of a counter-terrorism scheme?
Eventually, it starts to feel like there are only two possible conclusions: that ministers don’t really mean the things they say – or that some time ago, they lost the power to get officials to take any real notice of their opinions and recommendations.
On countering terrorism, the rhetoric from politicians boldly surges ahead. But behind them, the drab machinery of state is quietly peddling in the opposite direction.
Comments