🙏 Prevent: Learning Review

• The session was focused on the publication of a Prevent learning review concerning the murder of Sir David Amess on October 15, 2021, by Ali Harbi Ali, who was convicted and sentenced to a whole-life term.
• Sir David Amess, a long-serving MP known for his dedication and cross-party respect, was remembered fondly by Members of Parliament. His legacy includes securing city status for Southend.
• The perpetrator, Ali Harbi Ali, had previously been involved with the Prevent programme from 2014 to 2016. The review found several issues with how his case was handled, leading to his early exit from the programme.
• The review identified six key issues: inadequate addressing of vulnerabilities, poor record keeping, unclear responsibilities between police and local authorities, outdated vulnerability assessment tools, lack of school involvement in risk assessment, and miscommunication with intervention providers.
• Following the review, four recommendations were implemented to strengthen the Prevent programme, including a new national referral form, improved training for police, updated vulnerability assessment tools, and unchanged data retention periods.
• The Home Secretary has appointed a new independent Prevent commissioner, Lord Anderson, to review the programme’s handling of the case involving Sir David Amess’s murderer and ensure the implementation of the review’s recommendations.
• Additional concerns were raised about local policing and MPs’ security. Essex police are reviewing their handling of the case, and ongoing efforts are in place to improve MPs’ safety following the murder.
• The session also touched on systemic issues with Prevent, including its focus on Islamist extremism and the handling of cases involving mental health, prompting discussions on a potential broader inquiry.
• The government reiterated its commitment to defending democracy and ensuring the safety of elected representatives through continued work on the defending democracy taskforce and other cross-departmental efforts.

The session exhibits a moderate level of disagreement, primarily focused on constructive criticism and calls for further action rather than outright opposition. While there is significant shared sentiment and respect for Sir David Amess, some disagreements and concerns are expressed regarding the effectiveness of the Prevent programme and the need for broader inquiries into systemic issues. Below are examples and explanations of the disagreements present in the session:

1. Chris Philp (Conservative): He raises concerns about the effectiveness of the Prevent programme and the disparity between Islamist terrorist attacks and Prevent’s focus. He suggests that a more formal inquiry is needed to address systemic issues within Prevent and potential links with mental health services. This indicates a disagreement on the sufficiency of current governmental responses and a call for more comprehensive action.

   • Example: Chris Philp states, “While I welcome the fact that the report has been published, and that the new Prevent commissioner will conduct a further review, there are still questions relating to this case and others that perhaps merit a more formal inquiry to ensure that we get to the bottom of it.”

2. Lisa Smart (Liberal Democrat): She questions whether Prevent is the best approach to counter-terrorism and emphasizes the need for community engagement. She also calls for statutory footing for the Prevent commissioner’s role and a wider remit to enhance the programme’s effectiveness, suggesting a disagreement on how the programme should be structured and managed.

   • Example: Lisa Smart mentions, “The Liberal Democrats have long raised questions about whether Prevent is best placed to deliver that… I urge the Minister again to put the role on a statutory footing.”

3. Mr Mark Francois (Conservative): He expresses regret over the ‘sub-optimal’ handling by Prevent and suggests that the errors leading to Sir David’s murder could be investigated under a broader inquiry into the Southport case. This indicates a disagreement on the scope of the current investigations and the need for more accountability.

   • Example: Mark Francois notes, “I regret to hear that Prevent may have acted sub-optimally—that is an appalling Whitehall euphemism for errors that may have contributed to the death of an MP in the line of duty… I understand that the Amess family, rightfully seeking answers, have asked if the errors that may have occurred in Sir David’s case, and that almost certainly occurred in Southport, could be looked into in more detail under the auspices of the Southport inquiry.”

4. Nick Timothy (Conservative): He highlights the need for a focused approach on Islamist extremism, which might be seen as a disagreement with the current scope of the Prevent programme’s priorities.

   • Example: Nick Timothy says, “Does he agree that as the major terror threat that we face, Islamist extremism should always be Prevent’s top priority?”

5. Mr Andrew Snowden (Conservative): He suggests taking a strategic, broader look at Prevent rather than case-by-case reviews, indicating a disagreement on the approach to addressing the programme’s weaknesses.

   • Example: Andrew Snowden proposes, “I would just like to ask the Minister, as he goes forward, looking at this issue, Southport and others, to step back and ask whether Prevent is serving its intended purpose and offering value for money, whether it is keeping the public safe from terrorism, and whether it is time to take a broader, more strategic look, rather than a case-by-case look.”

Overall, while there is clear disagreement on certain operational and strategic aspects of the Prevent programme, the tone and approach remain relatively collaborative with a focus on improvement and learning from past events, resulting in a moderate disagreement rating of 2 out of 5.