07 September 2007
Six years on from 9/11, the UK's anti-terrorism strategy is undergoing a major rethink, with a big emphasis on prevention. Philip Johnston asks whether the newly reorganised Home Office has finally got it right
In the two months since she became home secretary, Jacqui Smith has had something of a baptism of fire. Within 24 hours she was dealing with a full-scale terrorist alert. Since then, she has had to confront one of the country's periodic outbreaks of anguish about street crime, following the murder of Rhys Jones in Liverpool. In between, there have been concerns about unsustainably high levels of immigration and unacceptably low levels of deportations.
By all accounts, Smith has coped admirably, exhibiting none of the knee-jerk responses of some of her predecessors. As a result of the Whitehall restructuring that split the Home Office in two, she has also been fortunate to have been relieved of responsibilities for that most problematic of public services, the prisons.
These are early days, mind you. As previous occupants of the post have found, problems come out of a clear blue sky. But for Smith and the government as a whole, the biggest threat is that posed by Islamic terrorism. That is the principal reason why the Home Office was split in the first place. It is the reason why the government is embarked on a 'hearts and minds' offensive to boost the influence of moderate Muslims. It is why Prime Minister Gordon Brown is risking another bruising parliamentary battle over new counter-terrorist powers planned for the autumn. The big question is whether the government now has the right machinery in place to combat the threat.
As a result of the reorganisation, the Home Office has become a policing and security ministry, focusing on counter-terrorism, mass migration, identity cards and crime. But the main purpose of the split was to create a more streamlined counter-terrorism structure.
When then PM Tony Blair announced the changes in March this year, he said: 'In order to support the home secretary in his new role, an Office for Security and Counter-Terrorism will be established in the Home Office. This will report to the home secretary.' However, the OSCT is not exactly a new unit. A similarly titled office has been providing advice to ministers and developing policy for many years. According to the Home Office's own website: 'The OSCT has led the work on counter-terrorism in the UK for over 30 years, working closely with the police and security services.'
It has now been reinforced, with up to 150 Cabinet Office civil servants joining 300 Home Office counter-terrorism staff. It also has a new director general in the shape of Charles Farr, an experienced counter-terrorist official. The OSCT is in overall charge of Contest, the government's counter-terror strategy, and feeds into a committee that meets weekly, chaired by the home secretary. This, in turn, reports to another committee, meeting monthly, chaired by the prime minister. The government says that the OSCT is responsible for 'horizon-scanning, strategy, planning and programme management' of the terrorist threat.
Smith will rely heavily on Farr and his team for advice and direction in the fight against terrorism. Just before the summer recess, she told the Commons home affairs select committee: 'The aim is that it will bring a greater drive and more cohesion and strategic capacity across government in order to bring together the work that is necessary to fight terrorism. It will enable us to develop greater sophistication in the way in which we spend money… and it will ensure both better political accountability and more of an opportunity to plan strategically.'
She added: 'We have already seen some important work in terms of developing both the senior level structure and the accountability. It has enabled us to bring together the work that was already happening and be confident that we are going to be able to refresh some of the areas of our counter-terrorism work that I think need immediate work.'
But there is, arguably, a more important body now being established inside the Home Office. It is the somewhat sinister-sounding Research, Information and Communications Unit, which is reminiscent of the old Cold War outfits that once operated out of the Foreign Office, both to counter Soviet propaganda and spread a bit of our own.
Still in an embryonic state, it is bringing together staff from the Foreign Office and the Department for Communities and Local Government to conduct nothing less than 'the struggle for ideas and values'.
The government's emphasis is now heavily on prevention – one of the '4Ps' that summarise Contest's activities (the others are pursuit, preparation and protection). Trying to stop young Muslim men becoming radicalised and involved in extremist Islamism is the key here, as former jihadis such as Ed Hussain have been saying recently. The new buzz phrase, both here as well as overseas, is 'winning hearts and minds'.
Ministers have hitherto been reluctant to stress the moral basis of this approach. But defence of freedom of speech, and the rights of women, gay men and lesbians to be treated equally and properly, underpin this strategy. Smith has a good relationship with the Muslim groups in her constituency in the Midlands but she has noted that whenever she meets the local community leaders, there are no women among them. A struggle based on the inherent superiority of western values, however, must also uphold the liberties that risk being undermined by the fight against terrorism.
Since the September 11, 2001, attacks on the US, Britain, in common with other western democracies, has taken actions that would previously have been denounced as unacceptably illiberal, both domestically and overseas. There has been a significant toughening of anti-terror laws that were already in place to deal with the previous threat from Irish radicals.
The ancient protections of habeas corpus have been stretched to allow the authorities to detain people for longer periods without charge. The police can, and do, stop and search people whenever they want within areas designated under Section 44 of the Terrorism Act, without the usual requirement of suspecting that an offence might have been, or be about to be, committed. It is unlikely that David Blunkett would have won Cabinet support for an identity card when he was home secretary had it not been for September 11.
As John Reid observed before he left the same post, part of the hearts and minds battle 'is to understand that an essential part of the terrorists' purpose is to challenge and provoke us into abandoning our commitment to liberty and security: to undermine our legitimacy and our morale'.
But there are signs of a lack of coherence in the government's approach. After the July 7 attacks on London two years ago, the received wisdom held that talking to the self-styled leaders of the Muslim community, such as the Muslim Council of Britain, was the way to proceed. Then towards the end of last year, there was a change of policy: Ruth Kelly, then the communities and local government secretary, announced a strategy based around the Preventing Violent Extremism Pathfinder Fund, which will distribute £6m to 70 local authorities deemed potential extremist hot spots.
Under this approach, schools, police forces and religious leaders will be at the centre of plans to tackle extremists, with funds to 'isolate and defeat' extremism by training local imams and other influential local leaders in civil leadership. New 'forums against extremism' – regional bodies that meet regularly to discuss threats among the Muslim community – will follow. Eight have already been established.
Among the councils earmarked for the cash, which will be tied to Local Area Agreements, are Birmingham and Leeds, as well as Bradford and Burnley, where race riots in 2001 led to the election of Right-wing extremists in local elections. The London Borough of Barking and Dagenham, which faces challenges from the far-Right and radical Muslims, will also be targeted. Other beneficiaries include community projects, such as the Tottenham Hotspur Youth Forum in north London – which seeks to provide inspirational role models for young people vulnerable to the messages of violent extremism – and imam training in the Black Country.
For a while, this new strategy appeared to have sidelined the Muslim Council of Britain, which considered itself the representative body of most British Muslims. Kelly said funds would 'shift significantly towards those organisations that are taking a proactive leadership role in tackling extremism', the implication being that the MCB was not. This apparent snub caused dismay in the MCB, whose leaders warned that sidelining them would be 'both dangerous and counter-productive'.
However, since Gordon Brown's arrival in Number 10 and Hazel Blears' move to the DCLG, the MCB appears to be back in favour. This approach is causing some confusion. Paul Goodman, the Conservatives' communities spokesman, says: 'Only last year, Ruth Kelly said in a major speech that it was “not good enough” to pay lip service to extremism – and that “our strategy of funding and engagement must shift significantly towards those organisations that are taking a proactive leadership role in tackling extremists and defending our values”. This speech was briefed by the government as signalling the expulsion of the MCB from the top table.'
But, he adds: 'Less than a year later, it looks as though the MCB are back round that top table again.'
The DCLG says there has been no change in its 'engagement' strategy and it is prepared to work with any organisation committed to tackling terrorism.
As we approach next week's anniversary of September 11, it is timely to ask whether all these structural changes and strategic reforms will work or are just merely presentational tinkering. The fact is that the government has got this wrong before,
While there is a more urgent effort to combat the jihadi threat, images of open stable doors and bolting horses spring to mind. Many of these initiatives should have started after Ted Cantle's report into the riots in northern England in 2001 disclosed how communities in towns like Bradford and Oldham lived 'parallel lives'. It has taken a long time for the government to assess properly the nature of the threat.
The aim now is an ambitious one: it is to empower moderate Muslims to stand up to the fanatics in their midst, which is not an easy thing to achieve. As well as ensuring that mainstream voices are heard above those of the zealots, it will support non-violent theological teaching and build the capacity of institutions to recognise and challenge violent extremism. A fresh effort is to be made against the imams who foment radicalisation.
There is a new national co-ordinator against extremism heading a unit within the Metropolitan Police Counter-Terrorism Command. He liaises with a network of senior police and MI5 officers investigating Muslim radicals in the regions. Meanwhile, MI5 has moved part of its operations out of London for the first time (apart from Northern Ireland) and has set up a number of regional offices to improve co-ordination with local police. Another terrorism Bill is being planned for the autumn, possibly with a further attempt to secure Parliament's backing for a longer period of detention without trial.
PFsep2007
