PREVENT: RESPONSE TO RECENT MEDIA COVERAGE

Background
On Saturday 17th October, The Guardian published several articles on the Prevent strand of CONTEST- the Governments Counter Terrorism Strategy. The articles claimed that the Prevent strategy is being used to gather intelligence about innocent people who are not suspected of involvement in terrorism and provided some material alleged to support this claim. This included an interview with the Quilliam Foundation (a recipient of HMG funding in connection with Prevent). The article also drew on information in a publication called Spooked! How not to prevent violent extremism written by Arun Kundnani and, published by the Institute of Race Relations earlier this month. The Government has written to Arun Kundnani seeking evidence to support the allegations made in his report and we will circulate the governments detailed response to the report. This fact sheet provides: - The text of the Home Secretarys letter to The Guardian on 20th October; - key points to make in response; - a more detailed point-by-point rebuttal of the claims made in The Guardian - the text of a letter from the Director of Prevent in OSCT to the Quilliam Foundation - The Home Secretarys letter to i-Engage (in a separate attachment as a PDF)

Home Secretarys response to The Guardian

In an initial response to The Guardian on Tuesday 20th October, the Home Secretary said: Your article was wilfully misleading. Prevent is categorically not about spying and assertions to the contrary damage the good partnership work undertaken at community level. Our guidance is clear on this point and we will investigate fully where there is any suggestion that practitioners have not been following it correctly. Where necessary, we will issue a reminder to all local partners that there is a clear legal framework within which they must operate and that any information shared has to be necessary, proportionate and lawful. Any insinuation that Prevent is a cover for the government, or indeed anyone else, to spy on people is completely untrue. Prevent is about protecting vulnerable individuals and addressing the root causes of radicalisation. Prevent can only be successful in addressing the longer term threat by working together with communities to develop and sustain trust and mutual respect. It is disappointing that your article could potentially do much to damage that.

Key Points
The purpose of Prevent has never been to spy on innocent people or to collect intelligence. The purpose, objectives, and programmes for Prevent have been set out repeatedly in public documents and are on the Home Office website. The aim of the programme is to stop people being drawn into terrorist activity and violent extremism. Preventative work of this kind depends on partnerships between local authorities, third sector organisations and the police. The success of these partnerships at times depends on the sharing of information about people. However, as with all information sharing, there are strict legal processes and guidelines in place to govern this information sharing process: information sharing has to be necessary, proportionate and of course lawful. Information sharing in this area follows principles used for information sharing in other forms of preventative work and is governed by the same legislation. The security services are not a partner in any local Prevent projects. Prevent projects are not set up to indiscriminately acquire or share secret intelligence. The Government will investigate fully all suggestions that practitioners have not followed this guidance correctly. There is no evidence that this has happened.

Detail: A point-by-point rebuttal to The Guardian claims Prevent is gathering intelligence about innocent people.

This is not true. Prevent was not designed to gather intelligence, nor has this become its purpose: the Home Secretary has already made clear that the media reporting was wilfully misleading on this point. Like any other area of preventative work our strategy does require the sharing of some information held by Prevent partners at a local level in specific and well defined areas. This applies in particular to work with vulnerable individuals. This sharing is governed by legislation and Information Sharing Agreements (ISAs) which exist for other areas of crime prevention. Having them is good practice and is intended to ensure conformity with the law. To characterise them as a charter for spying is factually wrong. The Guardian claims that Information Sharing Agreements (ISAs) are used to facilitate highly intrusive intelligence gathering. We reject this claim which we believe fundamentally misunderstands how information sharing works in all preventative activity. The Government will investigate fully where there is any suggestion that this guidance has not been followed correctly or that information has been shared for anything other than the right reasons. To date, there is no evidence that this has happened. Our detailed guidance on information sharing in the context of Prevent is (available on our website) with a full explanation of relevant legislation.

ISAs for Prevent permit or encourage the collection and sharing of information about political and religious views, sexuality and mental health.

The headline statement in The Guardian (Data on politics, sexual activity and religion gathered by government) is wrong. The Islington ISA referred to in the article was public and legal but has not so far been used to share any information between partners. The definition of sensitive data used within

it simply replicates that in the Data Protection Act. The Government will investigate fully all suggestions that practitioners have not followed Government guidance correctly. To date, there is no evidence that this has happened. Information Sharing Agreements are not specific to Prevent. They are formal documents agreed by ISA partners that outline the legal procedural aspects of information exchange between organisations including conditions for having access and restrictions on the use of information. They can be put in place for reasons of public protection or safeguarding vulnerable individuals. Like the two ISAs mentioned in the Guardian article, they can be published on local government websites. ISAs provide a framework of trust between professionals delivering services. This is essential to enable public sector agencies to meet both their statutory obligations and the needs and expectations of the people who they serve. Even where an ISA is in place, information can only be shared where it is necessary and proportionate to do so. ISAs do not allow signatories to gather or hold information to which they have no right; nor does an ISA mean that personal information should be shared systematically and without restriction between partners. They cannot exempt partners from their own legal frameworks and the principles of the Data Protection Act. These safeguards apply equally to ISAs dealing with personal information related to the Prevent agenda. It would only be lawful to even consider sharing information about a persons political or religious views if they indicated that the person concerned was being drawn into terrorism or violent extremism. No document we have ever issued on Prevent has suggested information should be shared on other political or religious views. It is highly unlikely that it would ever be necessary or proportionate to share information about someones sexuality in connection with Prevent. No document we have ever issued on Prevent has suggested information should be shared in this area. We do not envisage circumstances where information collected or shared in connection with Prevent will be stored for longer than the six years stipulated under the Management of Police Information Procedures. If we have any evidence that information is not being stored legitimately, we will look into this.

In the Midlands, funding for a mental health project to help Muslims was linked to information about individuals being passed to the authorities.

This is not true. No mental health project has been given funding which was made conditional on the provision of information.

In a college in northern England, a student who attended a meeting about Gaza was reported by one lecturer as a potential extremist. He was found not to be.

We are not aware of this case. No one would be considered to be an extremist simply on the basis of attending a meeting on Gaza. No part of Prevent requires teachers or anyone else to report people who have expressed views about Gaza. No instructions or advice has ever been issued to that effect.

A nine-year-old schoolboy in east London, who was referred to the authorities after allegedly showing signs of extremism the youngest case known in Britain. He was "deprogrammed" according to a source with knowledge of the case.

We do not wish to talk in detail about any specific cases and on the basis of the details here we are unsure which (if any) case is being referred to. There have been instances where statutory partners have highlighted young people whose views and /or actions may have suggested they are at risk of being drawn into violent extremism. Great care would always be taken not to over-react to such referrals. But, equally, they would not be ignored. We do not recognise the pejorative and simplistic term deprogramming. We would not use it and have not used it in connection with any part of our Prevent work.

London alleged it was being pressured by the Metropolitan police to provide names and details of Muslim youngsters, as a condition of funding. None of the young Muslims have any known terrorist history.

The Police have no knowledge of such information being requested. Prevent funding is not conditional upon compulsory information sharing of the kind inferred here. The actions described here would be unacceptable. Without more specific information we cannot investigate further.

In one London borough, those working with youngsters were told to add information to databases they hold to highlight which youths were Muslim. They were also asked to provide information, to be shared with the police, about which streets and areas Muslim youngsters could be found on.

The Police have no knowledge of such information being requested Prevent funding is not conditional upon information sharing and, if true, the actions described here would be unacceptable.

In Birmingham the programme manager for Prevent is in fact a senior counterterrorism police officer. Paul Marriott has been seconded to work in the equalities division of Britain's biggest council.

Chief Inspector Paul Marriott has been seconded to support Birmingham Councils work on Prevent. Although the post falls under the remit of the Counter Terrorism Unit, Chief Inspector Marriotts background is not in that field. Prevent depends upon people with a range of experiences and knowledge working together to common, agreed and publicly stated aims and objectives. We have always been open about who is involved in Prevent and the police certainly have a key part to play. The presence of police officers in Prevent programmes does not make the purpose of those programmes to be for intelligence gathering.

In Blackburn, at least 80 people were reported to the authorities for showing signs of extremism. They were referred to the Channel project, part of Prevent.

Channel operates in Lancashire, however this figure is completely inaccurate.

We are well aware of the risk of over reporting of people believed to be at risk of being drawn into violent extremism and local partners work carefully to ensure that risk is minimised. Equally, It is right that any private citizen or public official who has concerns about individuals turning to terrorism should be able to report their concerns.

A youth project manager alleges his refusal to provide intelligence, led to the police spreading false rumours and trying to smear him and his organisation.

We do not have enough information to investigate this. We believe it is unlikely. If this has happened then the individual concerned should complain to the Independent Police Complaints Commission. It should be clear that this has nothing to do with Prevent strategy or policy.

In another London borough, wardens on council estates were told to inform on people whom they suspected could be susceptible to radicalisation.

We are not aware of any such cases. It is right and proper that any private citizen or public official who has concerns about individuals turning to terrorism should be able to report that. Prevent depends on communities, police and local authorities working together, but we do not recognise this anecdote.

Prevent is trying to turn community, religious and voluntary groups into information or intelligence providers. The provision of funding is explicitly linked to sharing information with law enforcement agencies.

Both these claims are wrong. It is not the purpose of Prevent to turn community, religious and voluntary groups into intelligence or information providers. This is nowhere stated in published or unpublished documents as a Prevent objective. Prevent funding for community, religious and other voluntary groups is not conditional on information. This is nowhere stated in published or unpublished documents as a Prevent objective or requirement.

OSCT is widely regarded in Whitehall as being an intelligence agency.

This statement is false. We have not previously heard this allegation and we are unsure to whom The Guardian has been talking in Whitehall. OSCT is not an intelligence agency nor is it widely regarded as such. It does not have legal status as an agency. It does not collect intelligence. It does not engage in spying. It is not covert. It employees people of varying backgrounds, skills and knowledge to ensure an effective counter terrorist strategy for this country. This is considerably more wide reaching than Prevent.

The Security Service (MI5) are involved in the delivery of Prevent.

This is factually wrong. The Security Service is not involved in the day to day delivery of local Prevent activity. The Security Service and the Joint Terrorism Analysis Centre provide intelligence and analysis which informs Prevent work eg about the plans and intentions of Al Qaida and other organisations, its policy on radicalisation and recruitment, its other activities in the UK etc. The Governments published counter-terrorism strategy sets out clearly and openly the roles and responsibilities of Government departments, including the intelligence and security services.

Groups have refused Prevent funding.

A very wide range of groups are involved in Prevent work at a local level; at a national level our Community Leadership Fund (managed from the Department of Communities and Local Government) was 5 times over-subscribed. Some groups may decide not to apply for funding. We entirely respect that decision but would be disappointed if it was influenced by the kind of sensationalist misreporting recently seen in The Guardian.

Groups are informing on other groups they dislike.

We are not aware of the specific incident referred to in this Guardian article. Local authorities and their partners generally work with a wide range of community groups and partners and would listen to their views. No part of the Prevent strategy encourages groups to inform on one another. This pejorative term is not used in the Prevent strategy.

Prevent is about religious affiliation, not suspicious behaviour.

This is untrue. The focus of Prevent is people who may be drawn into the world of violent extremism. Prevent is not focused on religious affiliations or matters of faith.

The Text of the letter from Director of Prevent in OSCT to the Quilliam Foundation:

Debbie Gupta Director Prevent/RICU Office for Security and Counter-Terrorism th 6 Floor, Peel Building, Home Office 2 Marsham Street, London, England, SW1P 4DF Tel: + 44 (0)20 7035 4652 debbie.gupta@homeoffice.gsi.gov.uk

22 October 2009

Ed Husain Quilliam Foundation PO Box 60380 London WC1A 9AZ

Dear Ed As you know, articles in The Guardian on Saturday 17 October claimed that our strategy for preventing people from being drawn into violent extremism is being used to gather intelligence about innocent people who are not suspected of involvement in terrorism. To support this claim, The Guardian used an interview with you in which you suggest that, in the course of our Prevent work, we do indeed gather intelligence on people not committing terrorist offences. Indeed, you argue this is morally justified where that intelligence stops people being killed or committing terrorist offences. The Guardian paraphrases your remarks to mean that Prevent was created to increase the security services knowledge of extremism in Britain. I recognise that your comments may have been taken out of context (though your videocast on the Guardian website left little room for doubt). I also know that Quilliam has since issued a statement making clear that you do not support indiscriminate spying on British Muslims nor a police state. Indeed, you say that Prevent practioners and other British citizens should share any evidence of mass spying on Muslims and that information should be used to hold the Government to account.

But I would like to emphasise in the strongest terms that Prevent is not a means for the intelligence services to spy on innocent people. We do not agree with the statement you made about this issue. It is factually incorrect for the Guardian to claim that this strategy that this strategy was created to increase Security Service knowledge of extremism. It was not. As recently as 12 October, at an Eid reception hosted by the Foreign and Commonwealth office, the Home Secretary said: I know that there have been some ill-informed criticisms of our Prevent strategy recently that its simply about intelligence gathering, or that its only objective is to stigmatise the Muslim community. This is nonsense we would make no headway at all in tackling violent extremism if it were true. We have always been completely open about the aims, objectives and programmes of Prevent. Delivering the Prevent Strategy: An updated guide for local partners was published in August and sets out the guidelines and legal requirements underpinning the handling of data and information that we expect delivery partners to follow. Where there is evidence to suggest that the guidance is not being followed, we will investigate fully. We fund a wide range of organisations to help us deliver Prevent. Many do not agree with all aspects of Government policy; and we do not fully share the perspectives of all those with whom we work. That is absolutely right and proper in a healthy democracy. What we do all agree on is the importance of Prevent, and the recognition that working together with communities on the basis of trust and mutual respect is critical to Prevents success. As such, I would ask that in future, you speak with more care and accuracy, and do not reinforce inaccurate and unhelpful claims about Prevent. I feel strongly that I must put our position on the record. I very much hope we will have an opportunity to discuss this further when we meet.

Debbie Gupta