STATEMENT
Groups troubled by appointment of Lord Carlile as Prevent reviewer

Joy Hyvarinen, head of advocacy at Index said: "The appointment of Lord Carlisle of Berriew is an extremely bad start to what was meant to be an independent review of the government's Prevent strategy. It is difficult to see how the review can proceed with any confidence in its independence. A review that lacks credibility will undermine confidence in the widely criticised Prevent even further. Index urges the government to reconsider this appointment and the way in which it was made, and to follow its own rules for public appointments in the future."

19 Aug 2019
BY INDEX ON CENSORSHIP

We are deeply troubled by the appointment of Lord Carlile as Independent Reviewer of Prevent. Not only has the government failed to follow its own Governance Code on Public Appointments, but Lord Carlile’s close ties with and publicly declared support for the Prevent strategy undermine the integrity and credibility of this review from the outset. 

In January 2019, following Parliament’s insistence on an independent review of Prevent, the government announced that such a review would occur. Proponents of the review have consistently called for it to be meaningfully independent and conducted by someone with no current or prior experience as a government-appointed reviewer. 

In June, the government assured Parliament that the appointments process would follow the Cabinet Office Governance Code on Public Appointments.(1) Yet the government has failed to follow that Code, including by failing to publicly advertise the position and publish information about the selection criteria. 

Lord Carlile cannot be considered impartial or independent. He has been a member of the Home Office’s Prevent Oversight Board (2) charged with “driving delivery” (3) of Prevent, and has declared his “considered and strong support” for the Prevent strategy.(4) In May this year, he told a public audience that “the appointment of a Prevent reviewer [is] completely unnecessary, based on fictitious or complete lack of evidence”.(5) Indeed, it seems that Lord Carlile himself doubts his ability to be impartial about Prevent, telling the House of Lords in 2018: “I admit I played a part in [Prevent], so I may be somewhat biased towards it […] and I accept the accusation of apparent bias as a possibility. However, I believe that Prevent has demonstrated that it has been successful”.(6) 

There seems to be little purpose in an “independent review” whose outcome is pre-ordained by Lord Carlile’s self-declared partiality. His appointment to this vitally important position shatters the credibility of the review from the outset. The review should be comprehensive and wide-ranging in scope and not one that starts with the premise that Prevent should be continued and/or expanded. 

We call upon the government to urgently rethink this appointment and ensure that the review is led by a genuinely independent person who inspires confidence in affected communities, with a willingness to go where the evidence may lead. 

Liberty

Index on Censorship

Defend Digital Me

Medact

CAGE

Maslaha

MEND

The Runnymede Trust

JUST Yorkshire

Open Society Justice Initiative 

  1. Response to Lord Anderson of Ipswich (HL16344), 27 June 2019, available at https://www.parliament.uk/business/publications/written-questions-answers-statements/written- question/Lords/2019-06-13/HL16344/.
  2. House of Lords, 17 December 2018, Hansard column 1637, https://hansard.parliament.uk/lords/2018-12- 17/debates/A45EE86B-0D09-472D-BF99-D64DDF9D5D20/Counter-TerrorismAndBorderSecurityBill (“I happen to be a member of the Prevent oversight board”); Joint Committee on Human Rights, Oral evidence: Legislative Scrutiny: Counter-extremism Bill, HC 647 9 March 2016, available at http://data.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/committeeevidence.svc/evidencedocument/human-rights- committee/countering-extremism/oral/30366.html.
  3. Response to Lord Carlisle of Berriew (HL 4388), 18 January 2017, available at https://www.parliament.uk/business/publications/written-questions-answers-statements/written- question/Lords/2017-01-09/HL4388/.
  4. Prevent Strategy, HMSO June 2011, CM8092, page 4.
  5. Remarks at the Open Government Partnership Global Summit, Ottawa, 31May 2019, plenary session. Available on YouTube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xp9epxiKVy0 at 2hrs 51mins 45secs.
  6. House of Lords, 17 December 2018, Hansard column 1625, available at https://hansard.parliament.uk/lords/2018-12-17/debates/A45EE86B-0D09-472D-BF99-D64DDF9D5D20/Counter- TerrorismAndBorderSecurityBill 

Index on Censorship CEO Jodie Ginsberg to step down in 2020

Jodie Ginsberg to join Internews Europe as CEO Index on Censorship chief executive Jodie Ginsberg will step down in early 2020 after five and a half years in the role, Index said on Wednesday. The board, chaired by Trevor Phillips since 2018, will launch the search for a new chief executive shortly. Since joining in 2014, […]

Index calls on Arron Banks to drop SLAPP lawsuit against Carole Cadwalladr

We, the undersigned organisations, welcome today’s judgment on meaning in the case of Arron Banks vs Carole Cadwalladr. The judgment clarified the context of the comments that form the basis of this lawsuit, and noted that aspects of the claimant’s argument were “far-fetched and divorced from the specific context in which those words were used”. […]

Index calls on governments to ensure encrypted tools are available to public

Index joined 52 other civil society organisations as well as private companies and security researchers in calling on governments to allow technology companies to offer strong encryption tools such as Signal or WhatsApp to the public.

Index calls the re-arrest of novelist Ahmet Altan “arbitrary and cruel”

Turkish authorities re-arrested the internationally known Turkish novelist Ahmet Altan just one week after his release from more than three years in detention. Index on Censorship and 24 other NGOs say that his re-arrest, on 12 November, was an extraordinarily low blow in a case that has been marked by political interference and arbitrariness from […]

Comments are closed.