Written evidence submitted by Naz Shah MP

[Note: Naz Shah MP is a member of the Home Affairs Committee. This paper responds to supplementary evidence submitted by Inspire following their oral evidence to the Committee on 17 November 2015.]

In a submission to the Home Affairs select committee by Inspire, a number of unsubstantiated allegations were made to which I respond as follows:

1. Independence

Inspire challenged my contention about their 'independence'.

Two points I wish to highlight here:

(a) Inspire claim to have been founded in 2009; no exact date is offered, merely the year, so it could have been at any time during those 12 months, it is not certain when. Some clarity over the exact date of founding would be worth seeking because of overlapping conflicts.

Inspire are listed in the TaxPayers’ Alliance report (2009) as having received funding from two London Boroughs for delivering Muslim Women’s leadership training. The funds received were £10,000 and £13,000 from Hounslow and Redbridge Councils respectively. The funds were released in the period 2008-09 and Inspire on their website list these two events are having been 'organised by Inspire'.

The date of the Redbridge training programme was September 2008.

The date of the Hounslow training programme was October 2008.

Inspire, by its own admission, was established in 2009. So who and what received the money from the London Boroughs in 2008?

The question is important because during this period (2008-09) Tahmina Saleem, a former employee of Inspire, was employed by Redbridge Council as its Prevent programme co-ordinator and Sabin Malik (Sara Khan's sister) was employed by Hounslow Council as Principal Community Cohesion Officer.

Coming back to the question of 'when' in 2009 Inspire was established: the question is pertinent in light of a major conference hosted by Inspire in January 2009 at the London Muslim Centre and at which one of the keynote speakers was Sabin Malik, sister of Sara Khan. Malik at the time was employed by Hounslow Council in the post of Principal Community Cohesion Officer.

So we have the problem of Inspire not legally existing in 2008 but providing training programmes in two London Boroughs where the sister of one (future) Director was employed and a (future) employee was employed, both on policy programmes related to Prevent. By any admission, this raises serious questions about the organisation's claims to "independence".

A related concern is that another Inspire Director, Kalsoom Bashir, at the time she joined the organisation (January 2011) was employed by Bristol City Council as the local authority's 'Prevent Lead Officer'. Again, this raises serious questions about the organisation's independence when its employees and directors are steeped in the institutional framework of Prevent (local authorities) while soliciting funds for the "delivery" of Prevent programmes in communities.

(b) The second point relates more directly to conflict of interest and concerns Sara Khan's sister who is employed in the Office for Security and Counter Terrorism. There are concerns that will inevitably rise about nepotism, transparency and independence when an organisation receiving financial support from the Home Office and championed by the Home Secretary has a close family member employed in that same Government department. Concerns about conflicts of interest are a legitimate area of inquiry for Members of the Committee and our Inquiry into Countering Extremism.

2. Evidence of impact

On the questions put to Inspire about evidence on the impact of their counter-extremism work, I asked for evidence pre-2011 because in 2011 the Government published a revised Prevent Strategy following a review commissioned by the Home Secretary and overseen by the former Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation, Lord Carlile of Berriew.

It is important to make a distinction, in programme evaluation, between the Prevent Strategy prior to 2011 and the revised Strategy, from June 2011.

Inspire claim to have been established in 2009 (I have already rehearsed inconsistencies with this account above) and since the organisation did receive Prevent funding prior to the revised Strategy, I asked about programme evaluation from this period.

Inspire in their further submission state they "have not or ever received core funding directly from the Home Office".

I believe this is a misleading statement intended to obscure Inspire's actual receipt of Prevent funding.

It is the case that Prevent funding is disbursed by local councils and delivered through a number of funding streams including the Pathfinder Fund (2006-08), Area Based Grants (2008-2011) and the Community Leadership Fund administered by the Department of Communities and Local Government.

Funding directly from the Home Office is not how the majority of funds dispensed under the Preventing Violent Extremism programme or the later revised Prevent Strategy have been distributed. These monies were allocated to local authorities who in turn have funded a number of programmes and initiatives. By her own admission, Inspire's Director, Sara Khan, said the organisation receives money from "councils and schools ... with funds they obtain from Prevent." (The Guardian, 28 Oct 2015).

On the questions about impact itself, I make the following observations:

(a) There is considerable detail provided by Inspire about campaigns, media statements and various speaking engagements but there is little evidence of "impact" which is what my questions were concerned with. I am also perturbed by the scant evidence provided; evaluations from two events, in 2012 and 2013, though Inspire has been established since 2009. I would expect to have received far more evidence from evaluations across a range of programmes/events evidencing "impact" from Inspire's work between 2009-2011.

(b) In relation to the two programmes delivered, in Leeds and Wandsworth, Inspire have provided some detail about participant feedback although in respect of the Leeds event, it seems to me that much of what is detailed in the submission is Inspire's review of the event and not participant feedback. In respect of both events, we are provided with no details about the number of women who attended the programmes, their age, level of education, employment status etc. These details are significant to enable an assessment of who benefitted from the programmes delivered by Inspire. This is the essence of demonstrating "impact" and yet Inspire have provided scant information about this.

Questions about the effectiveness of programmes funded as part of delivering the Prevent strategy have been a constant concern with many MPs representing areas with large Muslim populations regularly hearing constituents’ complain about what they perceive to be a waste of public resources. My constituents are concerned about who gets Prevent funding and the lack of credentials, as they see it, of those paid to deliver counter-extremism programmes. I am not sure the evidence provided by Inspire will allay any of those fears in the slightest.

3. "Personal" attack on Inspire             

Inspire have suggested that my questions to them in the evidence session were a "personal attack" on Inspire. This is sanctimonious nonsense.

Inspire were invited to provide evidence to a select committee inquiry about Countering Extremism. It is inevitable that questions about the organisation’s work, its effectiveness, its funding, its alliances etc will be probed. These do not constitute "personal attacks". They are reflective of the role my colleagues and I on the select committee perform scrutinising work and holding those receiving public funds accountable to the British public whom we represent.

Secondly, my comment about Inspire being “amongst the most loathed organisations within Muslim communities" derives from my many encounters with Muslims living in my constituency and those residing in near and farther constituencies. I have heard firsthand from many British Muslims disdainful views of Inspire. It is my responsibility as an elected Member of Parliament to relay the views of my constituents and others and I am proud to do so.

Thirdly, Inspire take issue with questions raised about the effectiveness of those who have received funding, directly or indirectly, for Prevent delivery and the scale of the problem we now face in light of the numbers of young Muslims who are both referred to the authorities as being "vulnerable to radicalisation" and those who have travelled to Iraq/Syria in the last two years. These are legitimate questions which Members of Parliament, responsible for the oversight of Government policy, are minded to ask.

It is perfectly reasonable to inquire about who has received funding to date and how effective their activities have been when we are faced with a greater problem than before. These are questions that deserve thoughtful, evidenced answers and I will not demur from exercising my duty as a Member of the select committee and as an MP from seeking answers to questions so often asked by my constituents and British Muslims more widely. I would kindly suggest that should Inspire not wish for public scrutiny and accountability of their work, they should not avail themselves of public funds.

4. Personal attack on me

With no effort to conceal the irony, Inspire make personal attacks on me after criticising me for making "personal" attacks on them! Let me reiterate that it is my responsibility as a Member of Parliament and as a Member of the Home Affairs Select Committee to engage in dutiful oversight of government policy. As part of our inquiry into Countering Extremism we have invited a number of individuals and organisations to give evidence to the committee. These individuals and organisations will have faced a range of questions by Members and have conducted themselves with composure and professionalism in responding to our questions. The one exception is Inspire which has resorted to ad hominem attacks in retaliation for my perfectly legitimate probing of their work. This is entirely unprofessional.

I cannot answer for the allegations against MEND (though I know they have published an extensive rebuttal on their website to all allegations).

Moreover, I can see no evidence of "lies" which MEND are alleged to have circulated and a submission lacking in substantiation of such serious claims raises important questions about Inspire's professionalism as an organisation. I reiterate that concern here.

I am deeply troubled by the claims about "Islamists" and an "anti-Prevent" lobby. This is language that we heard in an evidence session from another organisation. As a Member of Parliament I will offer only this observation: Prevent is a strategy that has been condemned as "toxic" and ineffective. It is of little surprise to me that organisations, whether faith based or otherwise, have challenged an approach that they perceive as stigmatising Muslim communities and alienating British Muslim youth. It is in the proud traditions of our democracy that a vibrant civil society is willing and able to challenge those Government policies they regard as counter-productive. It is the very essence of what we celebrate of our "British values" and what these mean in practice.

Naz Shah MP

4