View PDF - United Kingdom Parliament

9 Oral Answers
26 OCTOBER 2009
Oral Answers
10
point. I am not saying that the Prevent strategy operates
perfectly, but we can point to areas of the country
where it has been extremely influential. It is not aimed
at one particular group of people: it is aimed at helping
Muslims within communities to argue effectively against
those who seek to radicalise the whole community and
at working with them to do that. Without that partnership,
it would not work at all.
Chris Huhne (Eastleigh) (LD): Does the Home Secretary
agree that spying on innocent Muslims could destroy
relationships within the community and between the
community and the police? What steps has he taken to
ensure that citizens’ rights to privacy are respected and
that surveillance under Prevent is proportional to the
threat?
Alan Johnson: Of course I agree with the hon. Gentleman.
Prevent has absolutely nothing to do with spying on
communities; spying on communities has absolutely
nothing to do with Prevent, full stop. The article carried
in one national newspaper, not picked up elsewhere,
refers to two areas—Waltham Forest and Islington—which
we are looking at very closely. We can find no evidence
that there is any substance in those allegations.
I agree that if Prevent were used to spy on communities,
it would be worthless. However, many people from
those communities would come to this Dispatch Box
and speak up for the policy if they could. Guidance,
which is very strictly adhered to, ensures that there is
the necessary proportionate response and that any use
of Prevent is in accordance with the guidelines that
we publish.
Mr. Crispin Blunt (Reigate) (Con): In 2007, the
Government announced an increase of more than
£100 million on Prevent and another £240 million on
counter-terrorism policing, among an overall counterterrorist,
security and intelligence expenditure of £3.5 billion,
which has rapidly increased. What are the Government
doing to review the effectiveness of all that expenditure,
as well as the Prevent programmes, some of which
critics believe have been counter-productive?
Alan Johnson: We review the programme all the time,
and various committees, including the Intelligence and
Security Committee, call us to account. It is right that
the Opposition Front Benchers should also call us to
account, but although many people attack Prevent as
being counter-productive, I hope that the hon. Gentleman
and his colleagues, who would be entitled on Privy
Council terms to know exactly what is being done
under Prevent and the whole Contest counter-terrorism
strategy, do not believe that.
Certainly Prevent would be counter-productive if the
newspaper story that was carried in one national paper
a couple of weeks ago were true. It is not—we can find
no evidence of that. Misrepresenting Prevent and
exaggerating issues under it is one thing, but we as calm
and rational politicians should ensure that we keep to
this important part of the strategy. Preventing young
people from becoming radicalised is probably the most
crucial part of our whole strategy.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington, North) (Lab): Will the
Home Secretary agree to meet me to discuss the Islington
experience, since he has just referred to it in answer to a
previous question? May I invite him to read the report
produced by the Institute of Race Relations called
“Spooked!—How not to prevent violent extremism”,
by Arun Kundnani? It is an interesting report and will
show him that other aspects of the Prevent agenda are
effectively stigmatising an entire community.
Alan Johnson: The answer to the first question is
yes—of course either I or a member of my ministerial
team will meet my hon. Friend to discuss the matter.
Secondly, he points to one particular contribution to
this debate, of which there are many. It is a valuable one,
but it is not in isolation and many other reports have
made points contrary to the ones in that report.
Policing
6. Bob Spink (Castle Point) (Ind): If he will take steps
to increase the proportion of their time which police
officers spend on the beat. [295130]
The Minister for Policing, Crime and Counter-Terrorism
(Mr. David Hanson): The policing Green Paper published
last July introduced measures to reduce bureaucracy
and free up police time, including scrapping a police
time sheet, releasing 260,000 police hours, and axing the
stop and account form, releasing an estimated 690,000
hours. Those measures and more help put more police
on the beat. We will review the matter still further in the
policing White Paper later this year.
Bob Spink: Will the right hon. Gentleman thank
Essex police for putting more beat bobbies in Castle
Point? We need them to counter disgraceful behaviour
by youths around a new school for children with emotional
and behavioural difficulties that has been placed on
Canvey Island, which is causing residents and businesses
absolute mayhem. Does he agree that EBD schools
should be located very carefully within communities?
This one should certainly have been moved to central
Essex—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I think that we have got the gist
of the question.
Mr. Hanson: If there are concerns about any issue at
any location, the first port of call should be to talk to
the local beat officers, as part of our neighbourhood
policing pledge, about what should happen at local
level. I do not know the circumstances, but I would be
happy to refer this exchange to the local chief constable
for examination. However, the hon. Gentleman should
raise the matter with the local forces, who are best
placed to deal with it under the policing pledge.
Dr. Tony Wright (Cannock Chase) (Lab): At the
weekend we changed the clocks, making it light at
6 o’clock in the morning and dark at 6 o’clock in the
evening. Does my right hon. Friend believe that that is
helpful or unhelpful to the criminal classes, and to
police on the beat?
Mr. Hanson: I think that ultimately the criminal
classes will try to find ways to undertake crime, and the
police will always find ways to stop them, whether it is
dark or light. However, I shall refer my hon. Friend’s