The cost of fine words

THE fight against home-grown Islamic extremism crosses cultures,faiths, cities and countries. As such, no one thought it would be easy. Yet it is alarming that five years on from the London suicide bombs, the success of that battle is in question.

Vast sums of money were spent, and approved, when public money was more readily available, with very mixed results. While there does appear to be a much higher level of engagement between young Muslims and the

rest of society, there is also a fear the cash has bred resentment, fuelled racism and been left in the hands of groups ill-equipped to tackle terrorism.

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

The suggestion that Labour's 200m spend in the Beeston area of Leeds – where three of the London bombers grew up – has created disharmony between ethnic groups is worrying. It adds weight to the belief that Ministers always erred on the side of controlling grants too loosely, rather than too tightly.

There appears to be confusion about the purpose of some of the

spending. There should be a clear dividing line between direct counter-terrorism work, which should be done by police, and trying to affect a cultural change, which can be done by community groups, once they have provided a clear set of proposals about what they are trying to achieve.

Much will surely be different in future, because the extremist threat continues to change just as the anti-terror police are forced to make savings.

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

The financing of community projects should continue, because there will

always be a threat of groups copying the actions of the 7/7 and 21/7 bombers, but there has to be more accountability over the way the money is spent. Indiscriminate hand-outs are wasteful and, as the Yorkshire Post reveals today, run the risk of being counter-productive.

Ministers in the new coalition Government will inevitably re-think how the money is spent. The unpredictable and devastating nature of Islamic extremism means there is no great case for slashing spending on programmes to counter it, but their aims must be more specific. The alternative, that of inaugurating a new generation of violent radicals, threatens our very way of life.