Communities and Local Government

• Corporate
• Newsroom
• Speeches, statements and articles
• National Prevent Conference

www.communities.gov.uk

National Prevent Conference

Date of speech	8 December 2009
Location	Birmingham
Event summary	Speech by Communities Secretary John Denham at the National Prevent Conference.

---

Draft text of the speech - may differ from the delivered version.

I want to do several things this morning.

I want to thank you for all your work to establish and implement the Prevent programme.

I want to reinforce the importance of Prevent. Its importance in keeping our country free from terrorism. And its importance in ensuring that our own people - young people in particular - are not drawn into support for or involvement in violent extremism.

I want to address some of the criticisms, controversies and lack of clarity which have been made of Prevent and which have unnecessarily limited effectiveness. We have to deal with this criticism effectively, honestly and openly, if we want Prevent itself to be fully effective.

A lot has been achieved in the past year.

But Prevent is very new - and some aspects remain controversial.

It has been criticised within some parts of Muslim communities. Criticised by parts of the civil liberties lobby. Criticised by those who say it is supporting the very forces that are part of the problem. Criticised both by those who say it is too soft, and by those who say it is too hard. Of course, criticism itself is never a reason to do something.

Shahid Malik, one of my Ministerial colleagues has been touring the country having an honest dialogue with many of you about these issues.

They are also being looked at through the current Select Committee, and I very much welcome that process too.
 
The success of Prevent depends on its effectiveness. That depends on public support, on consent. On openness and understanding.

So where we have heard constructive criticism, we are willing to listen and to change in order to become more effective. And we recognise that if Prevent is enveloped by suspicion or misunderstanding it simply will not work.

Government takes seriously than this work to preserve the safety and security of its citizens. CONTEST is one of the most comprehensive and wide ranging approaches to tackling terrorism in the world.

And those efforts are clearly paying off. We have seen over a dozen plots disrupted and more than 200 people convicted for terrorism related incidents since 9/11.

But we continue to face a real and serious threat from terrorists in this country - including from 'home grown' terrorists. Think of the case of Nicky Reilly. Or Mohammed Hamid and Attila Ahmet, who were convicted of providing terrorism training.
 
But let me start by repeating something which Alan Johnson and I said last August. Something on which the whole Government is agreed. And something which cannot be repeated often enough.

While Al Qa'ida inspired terrorism is a serious problem which needs to be tackled it must never been seen as the defining issue for British Muslims; or for the Government's relationship with Muslim communities nationally or locally; or for public agencies like the police or for the media.

I know, and you know, that the typical Muslim family - like families across the country - is much more concerned about jobs, housing and education than they are about violent extremism. And for the vast majority of Muslims, as for members of other faiths, their faith is a source of comfort, inspiration and strong values - not a call to violence.

So this Government will continue to work with the Muslim community as we work with all communities - taking in all the issues which matter to them.

We share pride in the progress which has been made in areas like education where British Bangladeshi and British Pakistani pupils have made huge strides. Participation in higher education for Bangladeshi and Pakistani students is higher than the average.

We're united with the community in standing up to racism and discrimination, with new laws to tackle racial and religious hatred, and are introducing new protection for freedom of religion in the Equalities Bill. And we enabled London to have five fully Sharia compliant banks and shaira compliant financial instruments.

We welcome and celebrate the contribution that Muslims make to our society - whether in business or public services, in education or charities, in sport or the arts.

We are ensuring that Muslim voices are heard in Government through groups like the National Muslim Women's Advisory Group and the Young Muslims Advisory Group. Sadiq Khan has become the first Asian and first Muslim to attend Cabinet. And Mohammad Sarwar is the first Muslim to chair a Select Committee.

We work with the community on issues of common concern: continuing low employment rates, particularly among women; the numbers of Pakistani or Bangladeshi children who grow up in poverty and poor housing; and on issues of mutual interest like international development and aid, climate change and poverty around the world.

The aim of Prevent is simple. It is to ensure that our fellow citizens do not commit acts of terrorism against Britain or British people. And that we all abide by and respect British counter terrorism laws.

Finding and catching the people who are already committed to acts of violence is not the job of Prevent - it is the job of the police and of the security services. To that end, we have doubled the size of the Security Service, increased the number of police personnel dedicated to counter-terrorism by over 70 percent, and by 2011, we will be spending £3.5bn a year on countering terrorism.

Prevent's role is different, but no less important. It has two tasks.

The first is to ensure Muslim communities have the resilience to tackle the small minority who would create the space for violent extremism; and are able to not only oppose but actively challenge those who seek to legitimise violence here.

This does not mean we believe that Muslim communities are 'the problem' or that tolerance or acceptance of violent extremism is widespread. Far from it.

Prevent, as we have designed it, can only work because the vast majority of Muslims oppose violent extremism. Prevent is all about bringing the power of that majority to bear on the minority who would give the tacit support of verbal justification which can create the space in which terrorists recruit and act.

We need to ensure, though, that there are no places in any community - including on the internet - where the idea that violence against this country or its people may be legitimate goes unchallenged.

Obviously, the detail of the Prevent strategy reflects its particular focus on Al Qa'ida inspired terrorism.

But the thinking behind Prevent reflects our understanding and study of many different terrorist campaigns in many different parts of the world - including our own experience in Northern Ireland.

Wherever you look in the world, sustained terrorist campaigns have a number of features in common.

They will have a cause - an ideology, a national liberation struggle, resistance to oppression. But plenty of people have ideologies, or believe in liberation or fighting oppression without adopting the indiscriminate murder of civilians which lies at the heart of terrorism. Having a passionate belief in a cause does not make you a terrorist.

What sets terrorists apart from other people who may share that analysis, or sense of grievance is a willingness to use - even to celebrate - violence as a strategy to pursue those aims.

But terrorists cannot be effective unless they have space within the wider community to operate and recruit.

If they are able to make arguments for violence here which are left unchallenged even if they are not supported. If silence can be interpreted as acquiescence or tacit acceptance.

7/7 reminded us that left unchallenged, words can lead to deeds with catastrophic consequences. And ensuring there is no space for those arguments has been at the heart of every successful campaign against terrorism across the world. That is the first job of Prevent.

And the second job for Prevent is to ensure that no one - particularly young people - is drawn into supporting violent extremism.

We need to be confident that those who might feel passionately about events at home or abroad are not beguiled by the arguments that violence is justified - that they hear alternative points of view.

And we must ensure that where vulnerable young people are identified there should be well designed programmes to support them and help to move in a different direction before their lives and those of other people are ruined forever.

I believe that, put like that, there are few people who can or will oppose the aims of Prevent. Or who would not want it to be fully effective.

But Prevent has its critics. And it still needs to win active support from those who are currently reluctant to participate. There are fears and confusions about Prevent and what it is really trying to achieve.

Prevent cannot work as a Government programme imposed on Muslim communities. They need to feel ownership of the community based parts of prevent and work as full partners in it.

So we all need to have the confidence to address concerns about Prevent directly, honestly and openly. That is what I want to do today.

And in doing so, I want to make it clear that the Government will not row back or dilute our commitment to Prevent but is looking at how best to strengthen that work to make it most effective.

First, Prevent is what it says. About preventing violent extremism. It is a crime prevention programme - aiming to ensure that our fellow citizens do not commit act of violence against Britain or British people overseas and that people abide by British law. And that is all.

Prevent is not about changing anyone's views on the international issues and conflicts which concern British Muslims, British Jews and British citizens of all backgrounds.

It is not the job of Prevent to demand that everyone agrees with or takes a particular view on the Government's foreign policy.

However, Prevent unequivocally says there is no legitimate reason, no matter how passionately you feel, to use concerns about any international issues to justify terrorist activity here. And it challenges directly the small minority who believe that conflict elsewhere justifies violence here.

Second, Prevent should not and must not stigmatise or demonise Muslim communities.

It is important that local Muslim communities do not feel that are being singled out if other forms of extremism are a threat in the area.

The threat from Al Qa'ida inspired terrorism remains the greatest threat - in terms of number of plots and the ambitions for death and destruction that are expressed. But Government and our whole society must oppose extremism wherever it exists.

We are currently seeing some revival in Irish republican terrorism. Successful prosecutions have jailed animal rights terrorists. There have been prosecutions of white supremacists who have planned acts of violence. There has been a wider rise in support for racist organisations and groups that have run provocative and divisive demonstrations.

Since the Summer, we have seen the police and local authorities working constructively with community leader and ordinary citizens. Other communities - including the Jewish community - were prepared to stand up and be counted.

These extremists were trying to provoke confrontation and conflict with young Muslims. They largely failed.

Although these local responses were not organised under the banner of Prevent, almost always the same people, the same partnerships were involved.

We are already working across Government to tackle hate crime, including that from far-right extremism. We are supporting areas where we know far-right organisations are mobilising. Through the Home Office led 'Channel' programme and the new Connecting Communities programme, we are tackling head on the issues - real and perceived - which if left neglected can prove fertile territory for extremism and those who would divide our communities.

So I want to make it clear today: any area facing far right or racist extremist problems which divide communities should have a strategy for addressing those problems. And those areas should be resourced for that work.

I can confirm that we will be investing a further five million pounds in cohesion - and will ensure that all authorities at risk of far right or racist extremism will share in these funds.

Thirdly, the number of people at this conference shows the depth and breadth of support for Prevent. But we haven't yet engaged everyone we would like to engage.

Because there have been suspicions or concerns about the programme, some people have not become involved. Others have had misgivings about doing so and are worried about being seen to be part of this work.

Perhaps the most important concern, and one which has received a lot of recent publicity, is so-called information gathering. The fear that by joining a Prevent activity, the organisers or the participants are opening themselves up to covert surveillance, intelligence gathering and the collection of files on the Muslim communities.

I want to be very clear. We must have complete openness and transparency.

There should not be any information gathering or information sharing about the community aspects of Prevent work which cannot be openly acknowledged with all members of the partnership and the wider community.

It is important to have robust information sharing processes which help to prevent criminal activity by vulnerable individuals.

But without trust and openness it will be difficult for local partnerships to function effectively.

There are, in any case, only a limited number of purposes where information gathering can be lawfully justified. They are the same as for any other type of crime prevention.

Whether we are talking about drugs, knife crime, theft or any other type of crime we all recognise that it is better to step in early before someone has established criminal behaviour.

I don't think this is controversial. It is widely accepted that different agencies have protocols for sharing information about those at risk. And obviously, we would not expect agencies to disclose any information which might jeopardise the investigation or arrest of those planning to commit crimes - any more than you would in other areas.

It is a proper role of statutory agencies to identify individuals who may be at risk of drifting into violent crime - and in the case of Prevent, those specifically at risk of being drawn into violent extremist crime. And to ensure that the community is able to offer a positive response and support to them.

But this cannot be a secret or covert activity which is not openly discussed.

I recognise that even this promise of openness begs a number of questions. Identifying someone at risk in any circumstances is not easy. It is even more complex in this area where the 'risk factors' are still not well understood.

So we cannot take that trust for granted - we have to build it.

We have only relatively recently begun to tackle the problem of gun and knife crime amongst young black people effectively.

Some years ago, the level of trust between the Black community and the police was so poor that joint working and cooperation was difficult, even when most victims were young Black people.

But over time, that relationship has been transformed. And with growing community leadership, and trust between community and the police, our efforts to tackle violent crime are paying off.

We need to develop that same level of trust on this issue.

Fourth, we have recognised that the label originally attached to the funding - preventing violent extremism - was seen by some as stigmatising for Muslim communities as a whole and in particular for those who participated in the Prevent work.

So last August, Alan Johnson and I wrote to Prevent partners to encourage local partnerships to move away, if they wanted, from titles, labels and language which created unnecessary obstacles to participation.

We also responded to the perception that Prevent money could only be spent on and in the Muslim communities.

Partnerships that had interpreted the guidance in this way argued that their work was weakened if they were unable to promote cross-community activities designed to strengthen resilience.

So we made it clear that cross-community activities could form a legitimate part of Prevent activities. We invested a further £7.5m to help construct some of these broader programmes.

Fifth: by no means all Prevent partners would claim particular knowledge or expertise in understanding the issues at stake.

There are obvious dangers of accidentally stigmatising or misunderstanding quite normal or legitimate behaviour; or of confusing someone's views on an international issue with their vulnerability to violent extremism. And local partners shouldn't shy away from the very difficult discussions on controversial topics which can be held in a safe space.

All the more reason, therefore, for Prevent partners to discuss these issues openly and to share an understanding of how to respond appropriately.

In this way, we can build support for our fundamental aims of protecting young people.

Prevent must only involve those who are unambiguously opposed to violent extremism against Britain and British people and who uphold British laws. We clearly need to understand the threat from organisations which do not explicitly promote violent extremism in the UK but who, by their use of language and ideology, provide space for such violence.

There are organisations which meet the test of opposing violent extremism which, nonetheless, hold views on other social or religious issues, or on international issues, which are controversial within and outside the Muslim communities of this country. There are widely differing views on whether or how to engage with them.

These are difficult judgements. I acknowledge that. Ones which need to be considered carefully at local and national level.

And sixth, there are questions about what types of activities are effective as well as who we are working with. The test, the only test, is whether the activities we promote make Prevent more or less effective in promoting its core aim.

We cannot just assume that certain types of projects or activities build resilience. We need as good an understanding as we can of the strengths and weaknesses in each area.

Local strategies need to set out, and local partners need to be clear how the activities they fund are intended to address these vulnerabilities and weaknesses, and enhance and make the most of their strengths.

We want to make sure you have the support you need to develop your assessments, strategy, and action plans. You can access this support through the Government Offices, the IDeA and ACPO. There is a growing body of good practice - and also considerable resources available within the Muslim communities for tackling theological and ideological issues. And we are also working more intensively to offer direct support to those authorities which most need it.

I acknowledge that the judgements you have to make are not easy. I would like to stress how important it is that the debate about these questions is as explicit and as open as possible. And also to recognise the importance of sharing advice and good practice. Between CLG, the Home Office and local partnerships, and between partnerships themselves.

Prevent is a devolved programme, enabling you to tailor it to your local circumstances. But few challenges are unique to one area, and the ability to learn from each other is crucial.

I would like to conclude with some thoughts on the relationship between Prevent and community cohesion.

I was in at the beginning of the debate about community cohesion. It was the Cantle report examining the northern riots, which I commissioned at the Home Office, which first pushed the term 'community cohesion' to the front of public policy debate.
Obviously, those riots had no connection with Al Qa'ida inspired terrorism or violent extremism. The riots, and the majority of the drafting of the Cantle report, happened before 9/11.

Even if Al Qa'ida had never existed, even if there had been no London bombings, we would still have needed to address the issue of community cohesion.

In many ways, community cohesion - building a strong society with shared values and a strong sense of shared identity - is a broader and more ambitious aim, involving every part of every community equally, not just the Muslim communities. Prevent needs to remain focussed on preventing crime. And there are aspects of Prevent which are not part of our cohesion strategy.

On the other hand, Prevent will self-evidently be more successful and long lasting if people in the Muslim community feel that this is a good place to grow up and be a Muslim in.

So in practice, there is considerable common ground between Prevent and the promotion of community cohesion. But it is unlikely there will be complete overlap.

For today's purposes, it is not enough to assume that projects which promote community cohesion will also automatically build the resilience necessary to counter Al Qa'ida inspired violence.

Prevent is undoubtedly a complex agenda. But we cannot afford to allow that complexity to become an excuse for opaqueness.

It makes it even more important that we are as open, transparent and clear about the aims and work of Prevent. Both to support you in making what can be very sensitive judgements. And to make sure that those who support we need most have the trust and confidence they need to be partners in this work.

That is the way which we can ensure that Prevent will work effectively. I hope that what I have said today has been able to clarify the work Government is doing in this area.

Thank you very much.