Split over terror indicator

• Increase image
• View all images

More than a third of councils whose areas are at the greatest risk of producing violent extremists have defied government pressure to prioritise the issue in their local area agreement.

The Office for Security & Counter Terrorism (OSCT), part of the Home Office, has drawn up a secret 'heat map' of 30 areas deemed prone to Muslim extremism. But LGC has learned 12 of these areas will not adopt a controversial anti-extremism indicator as one of the 35 priorities in their LAA.

The revelation highlights the schism that has developed between central and local government over the issue, with councils claiming Whitehall's approach risks alienating Muslim communities.

The Home Office has been pushing the take-up of National Indicator 35: Building Resilience to Violent Extremism by the 30 areas in their LAA.

The indicator measures councils' effectiveness at understanding and engaging with Muslim communities. According to a report to members of the Local Government Association's safer communities board, civil servants said they were pushing for take-up of the indicator because "ministers need to have confidence that councils are delivering substantial activity" in preventing violent extremism.

But councils, which have until tomorrow to submit final drafts of their LAAs, fear "the sole focus on Muslim communities could alienate communities, undermining cohesion work", the report stated.

Nick Johnson, director of policy at the Institute for Community Cohesion, said the indicator was inappropriate for certain areas.

"In some cases there will be a legitimate concern that councils aren't appreciating the nature of the problem in their areas," he said. "But in others, a public focus on Muslim communities is likely to be counterproductive and could undermine the work they are doing. I would expect the latter applies more often than the former."

A group of 14 councils are taking part in a joint Audit Commission/Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary exercise to identify "what works, what doesn't and what looks promising" in tackling extremism — in some cases as an alternative to adopting the indicator.

But according to the report, this project has also "caused consternation from chief executives and the LGA" for appearing "closer to a compulsory inspection than a collaborative project".

A Home Office spokeswoman refused to confirm the list of high-risk areas existed while a council source conceded the list probably "shouldn't have been mentioned in the LGA papers".