Five years on from 7/7: Prevent programme: 'Failed strategy bred suspicion and alienation'

Ratna Lachman, director of organisation JUST West Yorkshire, has echoed criticisms made by a cross-party committee of MPs of the multi-million pound Prevent programme, saying that solely focusing on Muslims has stigmatised an entire community.

Ms Lachman, based in Bradford, was among several critics who gave evidence to a Commons committee in March which was highly critical of Prevent.

She, among others, has questioned the very basis of the programme, that assisting community groups can help isolate and root out extremism and prevent young people being radicalised.

" The presumption that funded projects can identify extremists is erroneous," she said.

"They (terrorists] don't have notices on their heads.

"The assumption that people come out and say they are extremists and terrorists is rubbish."

Ms Lachman claims handing Prevent money to small community organisations and local authorities has led to accusations of "spying" and "driven a wedge" through the trust that existed between Muslims and public bodies.

But she added: "As funding for black and minority ethnic organisations has dried up, accepting Prevent monies is the only way they can provide essential services to deprived communities and groups."

The programme is, she claimed, shrouded in secrecy, with little accountability or transparency.

"It has made people suspicious of each other and organisations. That's the poison that they have sowed; they have torn communities apart."

Similar conclusions were reached by the Select Committee whose report said that the Prevent programme "has stigmatised and alienated those it is most important to engage, and tainted many positive community cohesion projects".

The report said the single focus on Muslims has been unhelpful as it was "stigmating, potentially alienating, and fails to address the fact that no section of a population exists in isolation from others".

Community representatives told MPs they felt Prevent had been used to "spy" on Muslim communities – a claim the authorities have denied.

"However, despite rebuttals, the allegations of spying retain

widespread credibility within certain sections of the Muslim community," the report said.

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

The report said the Government had become pre-occupied with the religious basis for radicalisation, when the evidence seemed to indicate that politics and social and economic factors were more important.

It was also critical of what was seen as an attempt by Government to engineer a "moderate" form of Islam, with Prevent funding only given to those who supported this view.

"We do not think it is the job of Government to intervene in theological matters, but we are also concerned that local authorities have been left with too much responsibility for deciding how engagement and project funding should be managed."

Another witness who gave evidence to the committee, Arun Kundnani, of the Institute of Race Relations, argued the scheme's work has been counter-productive.

He said the atmosphere promoted by Prevent is one in which to make criticisms of the Government is to risk losing funding, while those organisations who say the right things get the money.

In a report published in October entitled 'Spooked! - How not to prevent violent extremism', Kundnani argued the emphasis of Prevent on depoliticising young people and restricting radical dissent is counter-productive because it strengthened those people who argued that democracy is pointless.

"The Government claims Prevent is 'communities-led' but Prevent funding has not been driven by a decision-making process in which local agencies identify their own needs and access central government funds accordingly.

"Rather, local authorities have been pressured to accept Prevent funding in direct proportion to the number of Muslims in their area – in effect, constructing the Muslim population as a 'suspect community'."