What is the anti-terror Prevent programme and why is it controversial?

The terror attack in Manchester has thrown the spotlight on the government's anti-radicalisation programme after it emerged that the security services missed a number of opportunities to prevent the atrocity.

The aim of the government's Prevent strategy is to safeguard vulnerable individuals who are at risk of radicalisation and relies on intelligence coming from community leaders.

Over the past five years, Salman Abedi, the suicide bomber who killed 22 people at the Manchester Arena on May 22, was repeatedly flagged to the authorities over his extremist views. 

The lapses have raised questions about the efficacy of the counter-radicalisation programme, but Amber Rudd, the Home Secretary, said there would be an "uplift" in Prevent as she praised the programme's "good work".

What is Prevent?

The government introduced Prevent in 2003, but it wasn't made public for some years. It is one of the four Ps that make up Contest - the government's post 9/11 counter-terror strategy: Prepare for attacks, Protect the public, Pursue the attackers and Prevent their radicalisation to start with. It is intended to stop vulnerable people becoming radicalised, joining extremist groups and carrying out terrorists activities. 

The programme was expanded greatly in the wake of the 2005 London bombings, with almost £80 million spent on 1,000 schemes in the six years after the attacks. 

Over the years the programme has evolved as the terror threat changed. While al-Qaeda was considered the main threat at first, now the policy  is aimed at combating Islamic State and the pull of militants in Syria.

The cash has gone into a broad range of areas.  In 2010, it emerged that CCTV cameras in Muslim areas of Birmingham - 72 of them hidden - were partly funded by Home Office counter-terrorism funding.

Last year, the Guardian reported that one component of Prevent has been a covert propaganda campaign that aims to bring about “attitudinal and behavioural change” among young British Muslims.

What is Prevent?

In February this year, it was reported that the programme could be expanded to fight the danger of radicalisation among young children.

Under plans being drafted by the Department for Education, children as young as four could be given anti-radicalisation lessons in order to shield them from beheading videos and terror propaganda posted on the internet.

Why has it been criticised?

Prevent has been criticised as being counter-productive with some suggesting it puts people off sharing information with the police.

Harun Khan, the then deputy head of the Muslim Council of Britain, told the BBC in 2014 that Prevent was alienating the very people it was intended to reach. "Most young people are seeing [Prevent] as a target on them and the institutions they associate with," Mr Khan said.

In the wake of the Manchester Arena attack, Andy Burnham, Greater Manchester's metro mayor, said there was a need for a "fundamental review" of Prevent, which he said had led to members of Britain's Muslim community feeling "picked on".

The Prevent brand is now "toxic" in parts of the Muslim community, he said.

In April last year, a United Nations special rapporteur warned that the programme might stifle healthy discussion and debate, an accusation repeated three months later by Rights Watch UK.

In October, a study by the Open Society Justice Initiative, a US-based NGO, found that the strategy was badly flawed, potentially counterproductive and risked trampling on the basic rights of young Muslims.

Kings College London (KCL) sparked an outcry earlier this year after it admitted that student and staff emails can be “monitored and recorded”, under the Government’s Prevent strategy, in a bid to root out potential extremists. 

Could it have stopped Manchester attack?

Despite the fears that the programme deters Muslims from sharing information, it appears this was not the case with Salman Abedi. 

The Telegraph spoke to one community leader who said Abedi was reported two years ago “because he thought he was involved in extremism and terrorism”.

Two friends of Abedi also became so worried about his views that they separately telephoned the police counter-terrorism hotline five years ago and again last year. “They had been worried that ‘he was supporting terrorism’ and had expressed the view that ‘being a suicide bomber was ok’,” a source told the BBC.

Timeline | How events unfolded at Manchester Arena

Akram Ramadan, 49, part of the close-knit Libyan community in south Manchester, said Abedi had been banned from Didsbury Mosque after he had confronted the Imam who was delivering an anti-extremist sermon. A well-placed source at Didsbury Mosque confirmed it had contacted the Home Office’s Prevent anti-radicalisation programme as a result.

Has it been successful?

Defending the Prevent programme after the Manchester attack, Ms Rudd said it had helped stop 150 people - including 50 children - from leaving Britain to fight in Syria in the last year alone.

"There's really strong evidence of Prevent initiatives helping families, saving children's lives and stopping radicalisation," she told Question Time.

"Prevent is saving lives, it is doing good work."

In an indication of the level of counter-terrorism activity, a senior Whitehall source revealed that 18 plots had been foiled since 2013 in Britain, including five in just nine weeks since the Westminster attack in March this year. It was not known if the Prevent programme contributed to preventing those attacks.

The Government’s former terror watchdog said in the days after the Manchester attack that the Prevent anti-terror programme needs to be “strengthened”.

David Anderson, who stepped down from the role of independent reviewer of terrorism legislation in February, said the suicide bombing was likely to “focus minds” on the importance of Prevent.

He admitted some communities find the programme to be “unpalatable” but he said they need to accept they have a role to play in combating terror.