By John O'Connell, Deputy Research Director at the TaxPayers’ Alliance
A few weeks back on ConHome, Paul Goodman outlined the story behind the government’s decision to axe Preventing Violent Extremism grants. This morning, the TaxPayers’ Alliance released research showing that the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) also distribute funds through Prevent. We had long advocated the abolition of the DCLG grants – since our report on the issue in September 2009 – and were happy with the government’s announcements, and our research shows that FCO money has also gone to dubious projects.
Both the Home Office and DCLG believe that Prevent is “flawed, ineffective and counter-productive”. Is the Foreign Office programme any different? Our research suggests not. One of the projects was a “mobile cinema for justice”, administered by an American charity called the International Research and Exchanges Board. They have a £38 million budget of their own, yet the Foreign Office funded this £22,000 project. As is often the case with public sector grant-giving (see this on RDAs, for example) other public bodies also received money from the FCO. The British Council got £200 million of taxpayers’ money in 2008-09 but the FCO topped this up with nearly £1 million more to carry out Prevent projects in the same year. The BBC’s billions were bolstered by £200,000 for a “Woman’s Hour” media project in Afghanistan. Surely the World Service could have paid for this out of the money that is already given to them by the FCO?
In the response to the TPA, the FCO chose to redact some information, mainly on what country organisations were based in or even the names of some. These kinds of exemptions are understandable if national security is likely to be affected, but information was redacted from the grant given to the BBC. They made a radio or TV programme in Afghanistan – how secret could it be? The result is that taxpayers have unnecessarily limited information on how their money is spent.
With most Government departments agreeing that this strategy is unsuccessful, it would be good to see a joined-up decision on Prevent. The debate over cuts has too often been clouded by talk of shifting functions or resources around. If it’s not a good idea, then don’t do it.
