Wednesday’s meeting of the Resources and Public Realm
Scrutiny Committee is to discuss a report on the implementation of the
controversial Prevent duty in Brent. However the report is framed in such
a way as to undermine any effective scrutiny. It appears to actually discourage
any action on the part of the Committee:
This report is submitted to the committee not as a result of seeking any specific recommendations, but as a direct request from the Committee.
Having stated that it sets out what the report is NOT
about:
This report aims to provide an overview of Prevent programme delivery in the borough of Brent. The report will outline how Brent Council are meeting their statutory obligations to deliver the Prevent duty, alongside the aims of the broader Prevent Strategy.Whilst the Government published a Counter – Extremism Strategy in October 2015, this will not be covered by the report. Counter – Extremism work is complimentary (sic) to the aims of the Prevent strategy, but is not currently supported by a statutory duty to deliver it.Counter – Extremism work is distinct from Prevent programme delivery and does not form an active part of Prevent work.The report will concentrate on the implementation of the Prevent duty and related programmes, and not specific project work funded by the Home Office at a community level.
The result is that the report is purely descriptive of the
processes involved with no evaluation and no data. There are hints at the
more controversial issues but these are not explored:
High quality and consistent training helps Brent to guard against misguided Channel referrals; in particular where there might be a limited understanding of cultural norms and practices. It is our priority whilst trying to successfully deliver the Prevent programme, not to conflate practices that may be regarded as highly observant or extreme, as indicators which actually do not pose a violently extreme, counter – terrorism risk.To ensure professionals possess confidence in assessing this area, Brent Council centrally commissioned ‘In depth Extremist Ideology Training’ to provide wider context and a firmer understanding of the triggers and drivers that solidify terrorist ideologies.Brent’s Strategic Prevent Coordinator is currently developing a training module that sits between WRAP and the In Depth Extremist Ideology Training to help frontline staff assess for themselves when a case might be better suited to Early Help, Universal Services, the Channel Programme or wider Social Care support
Despite earlier assurances that Prevent is not aimed at
the Muslim community the report states:
The Government has stated that the greatest
threat to the UK and its interests comes from Al-Qaida, its affiliates and
like-minded groups, for example, ISIS /ISIL. Brent’s main concerns currently
come from this strand. These organisations have based their rhetoric on alleged
Islamic principles. The borough of Brent has a large Muslim community; this
community may feel particularly marginalized as Prevent objectives are
addressed.
The possible marginalisation of the Muslim community is
not explored in the report but again surely something that the Scrutiny
Committee would want to discuss. Evidence of community concern, about the
Prevent Strategy, as demonstrated at the October ‘Time to Talk About Extremism’
event LINK is not included in the
report. In fact the voice of the community most affected by Prevent is
completely absent from the report, but surely must not be absent from the actual
Scrutiny meeting.
1. How many
initial referrals were made under Prevent through schools, further education
and health?
2. What was
the age, ethnicity and religious profile of these referrals?
3. For how
many of these referrals was no further action taken or referred to other agencies?
4. How many
initial referrals were carried through to the Channel process?
5. How many
individuals refused Channel referral?
6. What
happened to these individuals?
7. How many
Channel referrals were deemed successful in terms of diverting the individuals
away from involvement in extremist groups?
8. What was
the breakdown in the nature of the referrals (e.g. right-wing extremism,
Islamic extremism, animal rights extremism, Northern Ireland extremist groups)
9. Who are the
community groups chosen to advise the Prevent Delivery Group, how were they
chosen and what steps have been taken to ensure they are representative of the
community?
10. What
impact has the Prevent Strategy made on the relationship of trust between
schools and parents and students and their teachers?
11. What impact
has the Prevent Strategy made on the ability of students to debate
controversial issues in schools and college without fear of referral?
12. Please tell us more about 'In depth Extremist Ideology Training'.
Clearly some of these issues would be best addressed by
seeking ‘expert witnesses’ to come forward and be examined by the Committee in
the manner of Parliamentary Select Committees.
Full report HERE
