By Chaminda Jayanetti

A cross-party group of MPs has called for an investigation into allegations of spying under the government's Preventing Violent Extremism programme, which it criticised as “ineffective and counterproductive”.

In a largely critical report published this morning, the Communities and Local Government Select Committee stopped short of calling for the programme, also known as Prevent, to be axed, but recommended changes to how it is implemented, and called for an independent investigation into claims the programme is a cover for police to spy on Muslims' political and religious views.

The Prevent programme funds local projects – until recently only among Muslim communities – with an aim to counter radicalisation and violent extremism.

Spying

Many Muslim organisations have criticised Prevent for acting as a cover for police to spy on Muslims’ political and religious views – allegations strengthened by reports published last year published by the Guardian and the Institute of Race Relations (IRR).

The IRR report detailed numerous anonymously reported instances where police officers had asked Prevent-funded project workers for details of Muslims’ viewpoints, although the government strongly denied all allegations of spying.

As the committee received conflicting evidence regarding the allegations of spying, it was unable to take a conclusive view on the matter. However, its report did call for an independent investigation, saying: “We cannot ignore the volume of evidence we have seen and heard which demonstrates a continuing lack of trust of the programme amongst those delivering and receiving services.

“If the Government wants to improve confidence in the Prevent programme, it should commission an independent investigation into the allegations made.”

Community work and counter-terrorism

The report accused Prevent of wasting money on “unfocused or irrelevant projects” amidst poor monitoring of expenditure, adding that finding credible organisations to carry out Prevent work “is being undermined in Muslim communities due to the perceived direct connection to counter-terrorism work.”

The committee warned that many community organisations were unwilling to become involved in the programme because of concerns that they would be roped into counter-terrorism operations.

“Attempts to combine capacity building and community cohesion work with counter-terrorism interventions have been both ineffective and counterproductive,” said the report.

“All community cohesion work and work focusing on shared values should be decoupled from the Prevent agenda and brought under [the Department for Communities and Local Government’s] broader responsibilities for cohesion and integration.”

The committee had received testimonies from a number of witnesses who expressed concerns that Prevent was proving counterproductive to community relations. Leicester City Council’s Sheila Lock told the committee: “[Prevent] has been unhelpful and at times even detrimental to the strong levels of community cohesion the city has worked so hard to achieve.”

The committee said that all initiatives clearly targeted at crime prevention, including the controversial Channel programme, should be brought under the remit of the Home Office as part of its general policing programmes, to help maintain a dividing line between community cohesion and counter-terrorism.

Causes of radicalisation

The committee accepted there were a variety of reasons why people would become drawn to violent extremism, including anger at British foreign policy and deprivation.

Anti-extremism think tank the Quilliam Foundation told the committee that “the government should recognise that violent extremism is always preceded by political and religious extremism,” and that all Prevent work should be targeted as such.

However, the committee sided with many critics who said the government had overplayed the role of religious doctrine: “We believe there has been an excessive concentration on the theological basis of radicalisation in the Prevent programme. Engagement with preventative work should also focus on political and socio-economic challenges.

“Holding extreme views is not illegal and Prevent should clearly focus on violent extremism. Extending Prevent interventions to those holding extreme views should only take place where there is a risk that an individual’s adherence to an extremist ideology may predispose them to violence.”

The committee criticised to government for trying to "engineer" a moderate form of Islam by dabbling in theology.

Perfect partners

A difficult area for the government to handle is choosing which organisations to work with in delivering Prevent programmes. The committee criticised the government for interfering in theological matters: “The Government’s current approach to engagement with Muslim organisations has given the impression that there are ‘good’ and ‘bad’ forms of Islam – some endorsed by the Government, others not.

“There is widespread criticism of the Government’s failure to engage with more ‘radical’ voices which do not promote violent extremism. The Government should engage with those who demonstrate a desire to promote greater understanding, cohesion and integration. No organisation – unless proscribed – should be excluded from debate and discussions.”

However, the committee accepted that many organisations that took part in the Prevent programme lost credibility in the eyes of Muslim communities through their apparent ‘endorsement’ by the government.

Reaction

The Department for Communities and Local Government changed much of its approach to Prevent after John Denham became secretary of state last summer, with more funding for cross-community projects and less focus on theological issues.

A spokesperson for the department expressed disappointment that these changes were not reflected in the final report, and added that an inquiry into spying allegations was not needed after an internal inquiry by the Home Office found no evidence to support the claims.

Shadow communities secretary Caroline Spelman told the BBC that the report confirmed Conservative criticisms that Prevent had wasted public money, and said the Tories would review the scheme. The Liberal Democrats’ Chris Huhne attacked Prevent for alienating and marginalising Muslim communities.

The IRR’s Arun Kundnani, who gave evidence to the committee, welcomed the report and called for an inquiry into human rights issues raised by Prevent, and in particular the Channel programme:

“Whatever its effectiveness, there remains a human rights problem with the Channel programme. The programme relies on being able to identify individuals who are not terrorists but might be at some point in the future. But how do you identify tomorrow's terrorists today?

“In practice, it appears that being a young Muslim male with ‘extreme’ religious or political opinions marks you out as being a ‘pre-terrorist’. But should the police be gathering intelligence on what opinions people happen to have, given that there is no crime involved in, say, happening to agree with the Taliban?”