🤝 Community Engagement Principles and Extremism Definition

• Government’s Approach to Extremism: The Minister, Alex Norris, emphasized that the government prioritizes national security and views the threat of extremism seriously. The approach to countering extremism is now led by the Home Office, moving away from the previous government’s strategy where the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG) took a significant role.

• Counter-Extremism Review: The Home Office is currently conducting a rapid review of extremism, including Islamist and far-right extremism, with a focus on the impact of online material. Early findings were shared in December, and a further update on the counter-extremism strategy is expected soon.

• Community Recovery and Cohesion: A new cross-Government communities recovery steering group has been established to address the underlying causes of community divisions, especially following the Southport tragedy. The government has allocated £50 million to support impacted areas.

• Previous Definitions and Policies: The previous government’s definitions of extremism and non-engagement principles, announced by Michael Gove, have been set aside by the current government. This shift has caused confusion among some MPs about the clarity and implementation of these policies.

• Transparency and Engagement: There were calls for greater transparency from the government regarding its policies on extremism and its engagement with community organizations. The Minister responded by promising to provide information about the steering group and emphasized the importance of engaging with communities.

• Consultation and Language: There was a call for broader consultation on any new definitions of extremism and a plea for careful use of language to avoid fueling tensions or inadvertently supporting extremist narratives.

• Inter-Faith Efforts: The government is committed to supporting inter-faith work to foster community cohesion, with the Faith Minister actively engaging with various faith communities.

• Online Threats: Concerns were raised about the role of the internet and the dark web in radicalization, with a question on whether the Online Safety Act 2023 adequately addresses these platforms.

• Police and Public Services: Discussions touched on the need for well-resourced public services and effective police powers to address extremism, especially in light of recent events such as the Southport tragedy. There was mention of the Prevent program and the importance of its recommendations.

• Political Responsibility: There were comments on the need for political parties to be careful about their language and associations to prevent fueling extremism, with specific references to controversial remarks and political donations.

The session shows a moderate level of disagreement, primarily centered around the government’s approach to defining and addressing extremism, as well as the transparency and engagement processes. Here are the key examples and reasons for this rating:

1. Disagreement on Policy Approach: David Simmonds questions the government’s adherence to the previous administration’s definitions and non-engagement principles regarding extremism. Alex Norris responds by acknowledging a change in approach, indicating that while the problem is commonly understood, the new government has chosen a different, Home Office-led strategy, which Simmonds seemed to question the robustness of.

2. Transparency Issues: Simmonds presses Norris for more transparency regarding the government’s current policy on extremism definitions and engagement principles. Norris defends the new government’s approach but commits to being as open as possible, suggesting a tension around the level of transparency.

3. Characterization of Previous Process: Norris challenges Simmonds’s view that the previous government’s process was ‘robust’, asserting that it was not used effectively. This represents a direct disagreement on the effectiveness and execution of past policies.

4. Engagement with Specific Groups: There is a notable disagreement over engagement with the Muslim Council of Britain (MCB). Sir Gavin Williamson seeks assurance that the government will not re-engage with the MCB, which Norris evades by not confirming or denying engagements, leading to visible frustration among some members.

5. Language and Conflation: There are concerns raised about the conflation of extremism with other issues like child sexual exploitation, indicating discomfort and disagreement over the implications of such language on community cohesion.

6. Consultation and Community Engagement: Vikki Slade and Florence Eshalomi emphasize the importance of community consultation and concerns about the lack thereof in past and current government strategies, which Norris agrees with but primarily focuses on future intentions rather than addressing past shortcomings.

While significant disagreements are evident, the session also shows a willingness to engage in dialogue and some level of agreement on the broader issue of tackling extremism. The disagreements are focused primarily on the methods and transparency of policy-making, rather than the overarching goal itself, leading to a rating of 3.