Prevent accused of treating terrorism like a mental illness rather than a threat in official report

Islamic extremists are being treated as victims rather than the public being protected from the threat they pose, an official review into the Government's anti-radicalisation programme will warn.

The report into Prevent, due to be published on Wednesday, is expected to find that officials have been too focused on addressing the “personal vulnerabilities” of extremists, with terrorism treated as a mental illness.

William Shawcross, the review author and former chairman of the Charity Commission, is set to say this “mischaracterisation” of radicalisation has meant officials have failed to tackle the ideological beliefs behind Islamist extremism with “potentially serious consequences”.

Seven of the 13 terror attacks in the past six years including the murder of MP David Amess, the stabbing of three friends in a Reading park and the bombing of Liverpool Women’s Hospital have been carried out by extremists who had been referred to Prevent.

“Prevent is a crucial pillar of the UK’s counter-terrorism architecture, yet it has increasingly come to be seen as synonymous with safeguarding (ie an emphasis on protecting those referred into Prevent from harm and addressing their personal vulnerabilities),” says a draft of the review seen by The Telegraph.

'Bestows status of victimhood'

“Whilst safeguarding rightly sits as an element of Prevent work, the programme’s core focus must shift to protecting the public from those inclined to pose a security threat.

“Prevent too often bestows a status of victimhood on all who come into contact with it, confusing practitioners and officials as to Prevent’s fundamental purpose.”

The review – commissioned more than three years ago by then home secretary Priti Patel – will recommend an overhaul of the programme to return it to its “core mission” of stopping people from becoming terrorists.

It will say Prevent is “out of kilter” by putting too much focus on Right-wing extremists at the expense of the bigger threat from Islamist terrorism, partly because of a fear of being accused of “being racist, anti-Muslim or culturally-insensitive”.

Suella Braverman, the Home Secretary, will make a statement to the Commons and is expected to accept all the recommendations including refocusing Prevent on extremists’ dangerous ideology rather than their mental health.

The draft report states that in some cases vulnerable people who did not necessarily pose a risk of terrorism have been referred to Prevent to get the mental health support they need.

It recommends Prevent advisory boards should include experts on the “ideological drivers of terrorism” to counter the “mischaracterisation” of “radicalisation as an illness”.

“Recent attacks, inquests and inquiries have highlighted the dreadful dangers of underestimating the motivating force of ideology,” said the draft.

“Treating terrorism as a mental illness, or a social deficiency that can be placated by social services, might make acts of extreme violence seem more intelligible to some – yet ultimately this approach fails to grasp the inherently ideological nature of radicalisation and terrorism.”

Prevent officials are expected to be criticised for a “culture of timidity” in countering the concerted campaigns by some Islamist groups to undermine and delegitimise the programme, including by stirring up grievance and mistrust.

Some Muslim communities had been discouraged from engaging with Prevent, while some Muslims working in Prevent had suffered intimidation and even death threats.

The Government is expected to back demands by Mr Shawcross to tackle the “disinformation and demonisation” around Prevent and protect front-line staff.

'Disturbed' by anti-Semitism

It is understood Mr Shawcross was “disturbed” by the level of anti-Semitism among extremists referred to the Channel programme, which is part of Prevent.

“Individuals discussed at Channel panels tended to harbour violent and fanatical beliefs about Jews, often expressing an intent to kill, assault or blow up members of the Jewish community. Prevent must better understand and tackle anti-Semitism where it is relevant to its work,” said the draft.

The review is expected to confirm taxpayers’ money has been handed by Prevent to groups promoting Islamist extremism, as revealed in December by The Telegraph.

Key figures in organisations funded from the £40 million Prevent budget are alleged to have supported the Taliban, defended militant Islamist groups banned in the UK and hosted hate preachers, according to the report.

The review is expected to say that these “unacceptable” cases undermined Prevent’s ability to “effectively undertake counter-radicalisation” work.

Currently, a legal “Prevent duty” requires public bodies to prevent people from being drawn into extremism, including by raising the alarm with appropriate authorities where necessary.

Mr Shawcross insisted that programme has a "noble ambition" and said that the "caricature" of the scheme as a "thinly veiled means of persecuting British Muslims" was untrue and "an insult to all those in the Prevent network doing such diligent work to stop individuals from being radicalised into terrorism".

He heard "time and again about how Prevent saves lives, helps tackle the causes of radicalisation, prevents individuals from potentially carrying out an act of terrorism, and assists others to disengage from extremism".

Mr Shawcross said the duty “works well” and was “especially effective in schools”. He recommended that the Government considered extending the duty to immigration officials and Job Centre staff.

The Home Office said the review would ensure we “better protect people from being drawn into poisonous and dangerous ideologies”.