Understanding extremism in Scotland: stakeholder perceptions and views

5. Views on Prevent in Scotland

This section presents findings relating to participants’ views on Prevent in Scotland. It covers their views on the challenges associated with measuring the effectiveness of Prevent; aspects of Prevent that work well; current concerns with Prevent; and suggested areas for improvement.

As highlighted in the introduction to this report, participants in this research had varying degrees of knowledge and awareness of Prevent. Some were involved in Prevent delivery in Scotland (e.g., Prevent sector leads and Multi-Agency CONTEST Group chairs) and therefore had a strong understanding of how Prevent is enacted in Scotland. Others were not involved in the delivery of Prevent, but had wider interest in the policy or extremism more broadly (e.g., third sector organisations).

Throughout this section, therefore, it has been specified where a view was offered only by participants involved in Prevent delivery and when a view was offered only by participants not involved in Prevent delivery. Where this is not specified, the view was offered by participants both involved and not involved in Prevent delivery.

5.1. Measuring the effectiveness of Prevent

The purpose of Prevent as set out in CONTEST (Home Office, 2018) is to ‘safeguard and support vulnerable people to stop them from becoming terrorists or support terrorism’. The objectives of Prevent are to:

• Tackle the causes of radicalisation and respond to the ideological challenge of terrorism;
• Safeguard and support those most at risk of radicalisation through early intervention, identifying them and offering support;
• Enable those who have already engaged in terrorism to disengage and rehabilitate.

While the focus of these objectives is on terrorism, the Prevent duty guidance for Scotland (Home Office, 2021a) highlights the links between terrorism and extremism. For example, the guidance states that ‘terrorist groups often draw on extremist ideology, developed by extremist organisations’ and that ‘being drawn into terrorism includes not just violent extremism but also non-violent extremism, which can create an atmosphere conducive to terrorism and can popularise views which terrorists exploit’. Given that the focus of this wider research programme is on improving understanding of extremism in Scotland, participants were asked to reflect on whether they feel that Prevent is effective in addressing extremism in Scotland.

A key theme that emerged in these discussions was the view that it is difficult to establish the effectiveness of Prevent, with many highlighting the inherent challenges in evaluating programmes that are preventative in nature. For example, some discussed how it is difficult to determine whether an individual disengaging from extremism following Prevent support did so as a direct result of Prevent intervention, or whether this was due to other factors.

‘We can’t measure prevention really. If people leave Prevent and don’t do anything again, do we see that or success, or do we actually not know if it was the interventions that made a difference? Their life could have been made better by something else, a new relationship or whatever it may be. Measuring Prevent is really difficult.’ (Police sector participant)

Some also had a perception that there are low levels of terrorist activity in Scotland, which they felt could indicate that Prevent is meeting its objectives. However, they also discussed the difficulties with determining whether this is due to Prevent or due to other reasons, such as demographic or cultural factors.

Further, some participants involved in Prevent delivery specifically commented that they do not feel there are adequate monitoring and evaluation processes in place for Prevent in Scotland. For example, a participant representing the local authority sector discussed there being a lack of assurance that different local authorities in Scotland are working to the same standard when it comes to Prevent.

‘The other thing is around assurance, how do you get assurance around how effective Prevent is. You can measure that you’ve got all the bits of the strategy in place, but that’s not a measure of how effective [Prevent] is. I think what we’ve not got is really good intelligence around the different variations between different areas in Scotland and it would be good to get that actually and the assurance that everyone’s working to that common standard.’ (Local authority sector participant)

Many participants therefore felt that at present, there is a lack of evidence regarding the impact of Prevent in Scotland. Despite this, participants highlighted aspects of Prevent delivery in Scotland that they considered to be working well, as well as discussing potential areas for improvement. These will be covered in detail below.

5.2. Aspects of Prevent that work well

Within Scotland, Prevent has been more closely aligned to areas of policy that promote community cohesion and integration than those that focus more on security and justice related aspects of countering terrorism, and is grounded in early intervention and safeguarding (Home Office, 2021d). Participants who were aware of this approach were supportive of it.

‘The focus [in Scotland] has very much always been on safeguarding. The idea that Prevent is about identifying vulnerable people and giving them the support and the interventions that they need in order to have better outcomes in life and to be less vulnerable is something that most people can readily accept and endorse. I think that the alignment of Prevent with that wider safeguarding agenda is one of its strengths.’ (Local authority sector participant)

Those representing sectors with an obligation to fulfil the Prevent duty also felt that the alignment of Prevent with other safeguarding procedures was helpful for conveying to practitioners within these sectors that a key aim of Prevent is to offer support to individuals that may be vulnerable, rather than being a punitive counter-terrorism measure.

The PMAP Duty Guidance (Home Office, 2021d) was also viewed as a positive development by participants involved in Prevent delivery in Scotland. This guidance sets out the process for holding PMAPs, a key part of Prevent which involves using a multi-agency approach to assess the nature and extent of an individual’s vulnerability and develop an appropriate support plan (Home Office, 2021d). These participants felt that the guidance had provided greater clarity around processes and responsibilities for those involved in PMAPs. In particular, some felt that the guidance had improved local delivery of Prevent by more clearly setting out the role of local authorities in coordinating and supporting the process.

Participants involved in Prevent were also supportive of the multi-agency delivery of Prevent. As outlined in the PMAP Duty Guidance (Home Office, 2021d), a range of agencies can be involved in supporting vulnerable individuals as part of Prevent, such as the police, education, social care services, health sector services, children and youth services and community justice services. Participants felt that this was helpful for ensuring that individuals involved are able to access a holistic, bespoke package of support which is tailored to their needs.

‘The multi-agency panels that are convened, I think that’s a really good holistic way of addressing the problem, and means that an individual is getting bespoke care. When an individual has been identified as having some sort of problem, you’ve got a group of people that are collectively in a very good position to support that.’ (Health sector participant)

These participants also felt that relationships between the agencies involved in Prevent are generally positive. For example, some commented that there is good communication and sharing of information between partners.

‘I think there’s quite good communication, information-sharing between all the different partners in Scotland. I think because geographically we are quite small, and because it’s dedicated teams of people that tend to deal with [Prevent] then you get to build up some really good relationships amongst the different organisations, so you know who to go to quickly if there’s a problem.’ (Prisons sector participant)

Finally, those involved in Prevent delivery commented that the tools and resources offered by Prevent are useful, including the training and Intervention Providers (IPs). IPs are specialists who are commissioned to increase ideological or theological understanding, and to challenge extremist ideas and fixated thinking among individuals referred to Prevent^[9].

5.3. Current concerns with Prevent in Scotland

Prevent policy

Though many participants could point to aspects of Prevent in Scotland that work well, they also highlighted a number of concerns with Prevent. Many of these related to the policy more broadly, rather than to specific aspects of its enactment in Scotland.

Notably, many felt that Prevent has a negative reputation, with various reasons for this discussed. Firstly, some participants who are not involved in Prevent delivery in Scotland (particularly those representing faith and belief organisations) held the view that Prevent has unfairly stigmatised and targeted Muslim communities. There was a perception that across the UK as a whole, Muslims are erroneously referred to Prevent, such as for displaying signs of increased religiosity.

‘The Muslim community have felt marginalised, targeted and victimised by the Prevent legislation [...] People who are [making referrals to Prevent] have little understanding of the Muslim faith, terminology, the culture, so people are reporting on other people just because they’re praying five times a day or somebody has put a veil on.’ (Faith and belief organisation participant)

Some participants not involved in Prevent delivery also felt that Prevent has created risks of discrimination, and had a view that the referral process can encourage frontline practitioners to act on their conscious or unconscious bias and to engage in racial profiling.

‘[A teacher] could take a strategy like Prevent and think “Oh, I’ve got a Muslim in my classroom. I’m going to watch them really intently and if they say one word out of line, I’m going to report them”.’ (Faith and belief organisation participant)

Some of these participants also had a perception that Prevent involves an element of spying, surveillance and informing on others, including some who felt that referrals are made to Prevent maliciously, to target particular individuals or groups. An alleged example of this taking place in Scotland was described by one participant.

‘There was a case in Scotland, I don’t know how far it actually went but somebody reported an Imam to Prevent and said “Oh he’s an extremist, he’s a radical” because they had a land dispute with him [...] so there’s misuse of the policy as well.’ (Faith and belief organisation participant)

However, not all participants held the above views about Prevent themselves. Some framed this discussion in terms of views about Prevent they feel are held by others, but commented that they themselves are unsure of the extent to which these perceptions are rooted in evidence. Regardless, many participants (including those involved in Prevent delivery in Scotland) felt that these perceptions had damaged Prevent’s reputation. This is reflected in the literature; for example, Finch and McKendrick (2019) discuss criticisms that have been levelled at Prevent, and note that these criticisms have led Prevent to be described as a ‘toxic’ policy by a range of academics. Some participants felt that this reputation had reduced the credibility of Prevent, which has led to a lack of buy-in from Scottish communities and sectors.

‘I mean we’ve almost re-positioned Prevent in Scotland as a more supportive, long-lasting intervention, but I’m not sure the toxicity that’s associated, or that’s perceived around Prevent at a UK level has been helpful to us.’ (Local authority sector participant)

There was also a view among some participants that Prevent has been ‘imposed’ on Scotland by the UK Government, and that there has been a resultant lack of scope to adapt or modify the policy to make it more appropriate for implementation in Scotland. For example, one participant felt that the UK Government is focused more on Islamist extremism than other types of extremism, but that this approach is not suitable for Scotland, where the proportion of the population that is Muslim is much smaller than in other parts of the UK.

‘I think the challenge we have is because Prevent is not actually… it’s a reserved matter. Some of the [UK] government views around Prevent suggest it should be focusing on Islamic terrorists when in actual fact that isn’t the demographic we have in Scotland.’ (Police sector participant)

Some participants involved in Prevent delivery also felt that Prevent is overly complex and disproportionate in light of their view that levels of extremism are low in Scotland.

‘You have this very, very heavy-handed complex mechanism and reporting structure and actually very, very few cases and instances that surface […] it feels like a great big steam hammer to crack a very small walnut.’ (Education sector participant)

Finally, some participants not involved in Prevent delivery also highlighted examples of terror incidents carried out by individuals known to Prevent, such as Usman Khan who carried out the Fishmongers’ Hall attack on London Bridge in 2019, as evidence that the policy is ineffective.

Prevent in Scotland

As well as concerns with Prevent more broadly, specific concerns with its enactment in Scotland were also highlighted. These concerns were raised by those involved in Prevent delivery, including Prevent sector leads and Multi-Agency CONTEST chairs. Firstly, some felt that cooperation between partners involved in Prevent in Scotland could be improved. In particular, some commented that there is less buy-in to Prevent from some sectors in comparison with others.

‘There needs to be more buy-in across the board. There’s some agencies and organisations who you can tell are absolutely 100% on board, and there’s others who are not interested, because they have other priorities and this is a big add-on for them.’ (Police sector participant)

Some participants representing the police sector also commented that other sectors tend to view the PMAP process erroneously as being police-led rather than as a process that is led by local authorities (Home Office, 2021d), and is reliant on the involvement of national, regional and local partners across multiple sectors.

Relatedly, although some participants felt that information-sharing between partners involved in Prevent worked well, some felt that it was not always reciprocal. In particular, some felt that there is not always a two-way flow of information between sectors and Police Scotland when a referral is made, for example to advise whether the case had been adopted by Prevent and what support was being offered to the individual. However, it was acknowledged that this information may be of a sensitive nature, making it challenging to share widely.

‘One of the things that might actually help would be having some kind of information-sharing protocol with Police Scotland. At the moment, their approach to information-sharing is “you provide us with information and we say thank you very much”. There is no two-way flow. There’s structural resistance to providing any two-way flow of information. If you make a referral you don’t get any comeback.’ (Education sector participant)

‘I think we could be more open with how we share [...] sometimes sectors might highlight a concern but never actually hear what happens with it once they’ve done it. Obviously there are sometimes sensitivities around about it, but I do think if people think that there’s purpose in what they’re doing, feel they’re being heard and listened to and something happens because of it we’d encourage referrals.’ (Police sector participant)

Meanwhile, other participants representing the police sector discussed a challenge being that Police Scotland are reliant on partners sharing information with them about vulnerable individuals, but that this might not be forthcoming if awareness of Prevent is low.

‘[In Prevent] a lot of our flows of intelligence come from partners, whether it’s education, health [...] so we’re reliant on the quality of that, which is outwith our control. It also depends on those partners being aware of Prevent, and of the issues that we’re interested in.’ (Police sector participant)

Some participants also felt that at present there is not enough resource and funding dedicated to Prevent in Scotland, which makes it difficult for sectors to contribute at the level required. In particular, those representing sectors with a statutory obligation to fulfil the Prevent duty discussed current monetary and resource strains on the public sector, and how these make it difficult to engage fully in Prevent alongside other responsibilities.

‘Professionals have what they would say is a day job and a caseload which is enormous and Prevent is effectively, an overhead to that and we don’t get funding for Prevent [...] [The local authority sector] is the sector that, in some respects, is under most pressure financially and will be, for the next few years. Therefore, [it] will be increasingly focused into dealing with the caseload of confirmed vulnerable people, rather than resourcing Prevent.’ (Local authority sector participant)

Some also had a perception that greater resource had been dedicated to Prevent in England and Wales than in Scotland. For example, one participant mentioned how there are centrally-funded Prevent coordinators in England and Wales – roles which do not currently exist in Scotland.

Training for Prevent in Scotland was also discussed. At present, the main training on Prevent is the Home Office eLearning training, which covers three main areas: Prevent Awareness, Prevent Referrals, and PMAP/Channel Awareness (Channel being the equivalent process to PMAP in England and Wales). Other Scotland-specific training is also available, such as training on delivering PMAPs for PMAP chairs and deputies.

Many participants felt that the existing training resources are broadly useful. However, although some Scotland-specific training is available, there was a perception that the available training is directed more at those involved in Prevent in England and Wales, and does not cover how Prevent operates in Scotland sufficiently. Some also felt that the content of existing training could be improved. For example, it was suggested that there is not enough practical guidance on the types of behaviours to look out for when an individual may be susceptible to extremism, or on different ideologies or types of extremism and their underlying motivations.

Some participants also had a sense that the Home Office eLearning training may be completed once as a ‘tick box’ exercise, but that it may not always be refreshed. It was felt that this could be problematic in areas or sectors where referral numbers are low, as those not involved in Prevent on a regular basis may fall out of practice.

‘In some authorities there may be no cases, in some there may be one every few years… so keeping it relevant I think is the key bit, and reminding ourselves of how we approach it. Some will see nothing from one training event to another, there will be no instances, and I think that can lead to a bit of complacency.’ (Local authority sector participant)

Some participants were also critical of the fact that the focus of Prevent in Scotland is largely on the second objective outlined in CONTEST (Home Office, 2018): ‘safeguarding and supporting those most at risk of radicalisation through early intervention, identifying them and offering support’. It was felt that less work is carried out in relation to the first objective: ‘tackling the causes of radicalisation and responding to the ideological challenge of terrorism’. For example, some felt that wider community engagement work to challenge harmful ideologies and promote integration and cohesion would be beneficial, such as campaigns or work with schools, third sector organisations and faith groups. However, there was a view that this does not take place at present, or that any work that has been carried out in this space has been ‘piecemeal’ or ‘sporadic’.

‘They’re responding to referrals but I don’t see any proactive work on a Scotland-wide basis to reduce extremism. On a case-by-case, individual basis I think they’re doing an excellent job, but it’s that bigger picture, that drive, you know how we engage in schools, campaigns, linking with education. I don’t think we’ve had anything like that in Scotland.’ (Police sector participant)

‘Tackling the causes, community level Prevent stuff, what’s Prevent doing that’s based in Scotland? I don’t think it does anything. They don’t commission projects, they don’t work with the third sector, they don’t work with faith groups. It’s a massive gap.’ (Other private/third sector participant)

Some felt that work of this nature was carried out to a greater extent in other parts of the UK. However, it was acknowledged that this may be a result of resource constraints in Scotland.

Finally, as discussed above, some also felt that there is a lack of data and evidence surrounding the impact and effectiveness of Prevent delivery in Scotland, which makes it difficult to determine how well Prevent is working. For example, one participant discussed the use of Counter Terrorism Local Profiles (CTLPs)^[10] in England and Wales. CTLPs are documents that outline the threat from terrorism-related activity within specific areas, and are used to develop understanding of risk and vulnerability. The participant felt that CTLPs provide those involved in Prevent delivery at a local level with a greater understanding of the level of risk, but noted that they are not currently used in Scotland. However, while CTLPs are not used in Scotland Annual Overview Products (AOPs) are produced, which aim to provide specific context of relevance to the delivery of the four Ps of the CONTEST strategy (Prevent, Pursue, Protect and Prepare) in the West, North and East of Scotland respectively.

5.4. Areas for improvement

The reputation of Prevent

Alongside highlighting these criticisms of Prevent, participants also made suggestions as to how Prevent delivery could be improved in Scotland. When it came to the reputation of Prevent, some participants not involved in Prevent delivery felt that this could be difficult to change. A few participants representing faith and belief organisations felt that the policy is unworkable in its current form. As discussed above, these participants felt that Prevent’s reputation precludes buy-in from communities, particularly Muslim communities. However, without this buy-in participants felt that Prevent was unlikely to be successful in meeting its objectives. These participants felt that it would be necessary to either ‘rebrand’ Prevent or to replace it entirely with an alternative approach, though it was acknowledged that the power to do this is currently reserved to the UK Government.

‘You need to find some way of presenting Prevent as not targeting a particular community because that’s what gave it a bad name. It may be that it needs to be reinvented, maybe it needs to be rebadged or renamed and so on to make it sound completely different.’ (Faith and belief organisation participant)

‘If a major section of the community, the demographic who are affected by this policy don’t want to engage with it, what are you going to do? This policy needs to go and it has to start from scratch [...] it’s just toxic.’ (Faith and belief organisation participant)

While some felt that it could be difficult to change Prevent’s reputation, others had suggestions for ways in which this could be improved. Firstly, some felt that it would be useful to raise awareness of the positioning of Prevent in Scotland. As noted above, in Scotland Prevent has been more closely aligned with areas of policy that promote community cohesion and integration than those which focus on countering terrorism, and is grounded in early intervention and safeguarding. However, some participants felt that this is not widely known. In particular, it was felt that due to the involvement of the police, Prevent is viewed by some as a law enforcement tool which could lead to criminal investigation or a criminal record, making them hesitant to engage with Prevent or make a referral. Improving understanding of the fact that Prevent operates in a pre-criminal space, and is focused on providing support and redirection to vulnerable individuals, was therefore viewed as something that could be beneficial.

‘This is a non-criminal, early intervention, but because the police are involved… that puts people off.’ (Police sector participant)

Relatedly, some participants felt that it would be helpful to increase transparency around how Prevent is delivered in Scotland. These participants felt that a further reason some may be hesitant to engage with Prevent or to make a referral is because they do not have a clear understanding of what happens to an individual when they are referred. Increasing understanding of, for example, how referrals are made, the initial gateway assessment undertaken by police, and the PMAP process, was therefore viewed as something that could be beneficial for rebutting these perspectives.

‘I think a lot more needs to be done to educate what Prevent is about [...] what are the warning signs, how people are being identified, what does Prevent actually do. There’s still a lot of misunderstanding around it, there’s still a lot of nervousness that it’s somehow targeting individual communities.’ (Faith and belief organisation participant)

Some participants suggested that one way to do this could be to make case studies publicly available in Scotland, as has been done elsewhere in the UK (Home Office, 2021e). It was felt that these would not only enhance understanding of the Prevent process but would also represent an opportunity to provide ‘success stories’ of those who have been provided with support to enable them to disengage from extremism, and that this could increase support for the approach.

‘I think it would be helpful for there to be stories of people who have benefitted from [Prevent], people that have been quite extreme and then have come out the other side and want to talk about their experience. So if they had been recruited to some extremist group and then rehabilitated, for want of a better word [...] I think if there’s a personal story behind it people would engage with it a lot more, understand what’s happening and why it’s being done.’ (Faith and belief organisation participant)

Some felt that this could help to overcome the challenges with demonstrating the effectiveness of Prevent as discussed above.

‘Prevent measurements are really difficult to achieve [...] I think we need to look at a qualitative narrative as opposed to quantitative narratives.’ (Police sector participant)

Finally, the perceived lack of wider community engagement work which takes place in relation to Prevent in Scotland was highlighted as an area for improvement. Many felt that Prevent’s reputation could be improved if there was greater grassroots engagement with communities, third sector organisations and faith groups, support of projects and initiatives to encourage community cohesion and integration, and events and workshops, with the purpose of raising awareness of Prevent and challenging extremism at a local level.

Prevent delivery

As well as the above suggestions aimed at improving the reputation of Prevent, other suggestions were discussed by participants involved in Prevent delivery in Scotland which specifically related to the enactment of the policy. Firstly, as highlighted above, it was felt that improvements could be made to Prevent-related training. Many participants commented that it would be helpful if more Scotland-specific training was available, and if more practical guidance for frontline practitioners was incorporated into the training, such as on extremist behaviours and ideologies. One participant suggested that a ‘tiered’ approach to training, with different content depending on the practitioner’s role and level of engagement with the public, would be useful.

‘It’s got to be a tiered approach [to training]. Not everybody needs to know it in depth and detail, but the people that are likely to come across vulnerable people, frontline facing, they need to know what it is when they’re going in a house, what they’re looking out for.’ (Police sector participant)

It was also felt that encouragement to undertake training more regularly or for ‘refreshers’ to be available would be helpful, so that the key messages conveyed by Prevent training remain at the forefront of practitioners’ minds even when they aren’t dealing with large numbers of referrals.

Some also felt that improving information flows between partners would be beneficial. This was discussed both in terms of the police sharing more information with other statutory sectors involved in Prevent delivery, and in terms of improving awareness of Prevent among other statutory partners so greater information is shared with police about individuals that may be vulnerable to extremism.

Having additional resource dedicated to Prevent delivery in Scotland was also raised, though many acknowledged that this would be challenging in the current economic climate.

Intervention Providers (IPs) were also mentioned, with some commenting that more IPs, which are more affordable and accessible and that cover a wider range of ideologies than are addressed currently, would be helpful.

‘If we look at the IPs, there are more for Islamist and extreme right-wing than there would be for the mixed, unstable ideology. Probably because they are more mainstream.’ (Police sector participant)

‘We’re low on IPs in Scotland. It would be great to have more accessible, easily deployed, cheaper to use IPs, where we don’t need to rely on somebody coming up from Birmingham or the south coast.’ (Police sector participant)

Finally, there was support for greater collection and use of data and evidence within the implementation of Prevent to improve understanding of how Prevent is working in Scotland.

5.5. Summary

Many participants discussed difficulties with determining the effectiveness of Prevent in Scotland. Despite this, some aspects of Prevent delivery in Scotland that work well were highlighted. These included the alignment of Prevent with safeguarding; the PMAP guidance; existing tools and resources such as training and IPs; and the multi-agency delivery of Prevent.

However, critiques of Prevent were also raised. Some of these related to the policy more broadly rather than being specific to its delivery in Scotland, including Prevent having a negative reputation. Others related to the delivery of Prevent in Scotland in particular, including concerns around information-sharing between partners; resources and funding; training; the lack of work to ‘tackle the causes’ of extremism; and the lack of data and evidence surrounding the impact of Prevent in Scotland.

Key suggestions for improvement highlighted by participants included raising awareness of the positioning of Prevent as a policy that supports community cohesion and integration Scotland; increasing transparency around how the policy is delivered; carrying out greater community engagement work; and improving training, information flows and use of data and evidence.