THIS week, Parliament debated the government’s new Counter-Terrorism Bill. In that debate, some of us opposed the continuation of the divisive Prevent programme. This position should be taken up not only by the left as a whole but by the labour movement, by all those fighting for a less divided society. It should also be adopted by all of us who want to combat the scourge of terrorism, which increasingly has a far-right component as well as terrorists whose outlook is based on some distorted view of the ravages in the Middle East.

The stakes in any debate about terrorism and how to successfully combat it are extremely high. They involve the lives and liberties of us all. Children as well as adults have lost their lives in the terrible attacks that have taken place, such as the horrific Manchester Arena bombing. Police officers have been murdered, among them PC Keith Palmer. We were all shocked by the murder of a MP when Jo Cox was brutally taken from us. There have been many others and it is right that we remember them all.

The purpose of any counter-terror legislation should be to minimise the recurrence of these terrible incidents. This needs a cool head and careful consideration of the effectiveness of all measures — whether they actually help to minimise terror attacks or whether they are ineffective or even hinder our counter-terror efforts.

This is where the Prevent programme is open to question. The government had previously committed to a review of Prevent. But it ran into difficulties because the appointee who was asked to review the programme was an enthusiastic and very vocal advocate of it. The obvious conflict of interest and lack of impartiality was only acknowledged by ministers reluctantly and after some delay. There is still no sign of the review, despite the new legislation.

The government’s apparent unwillingness to establish an impartial review only strengthens the case against Prevent as it is currently constituted. It strongly suggests that the programme cannot stand up to impartial scrutiny. Some of us have drawn the unavoidable conclusion that this is the cause of the government’s difficulty.

This because the Prevent programme is not fit for purpose. It should be scrapped and a replacement found.

If we examine in detail the terrorist attacks that have been inflicted on our communities, we find that very few of the perpetrators have ever been in contact with Prevent. If the programme is conceived as a safety net, then it clearly has a great many holes. The actual terrorists who commit mayhem and murder on our streets are not being diverted by Prevent.

At the same time, as Home Office data shows, Prevent is casting a hugely wide net over people who have nothing to do with terrorism, who have no truck with terrorists and who have never had any intention of committing a terrorist act.

In 2017-18, over 7,300 people were referred to the Prevent programme. The overwhelming majority of these were incorrect referrals, which led either to people being signposted to very different programmes or simply no further action.

In fewer than one in five cases was there any discussion of these individuals at Channel panels. Even then, most people receive no Channel support. Presumably, the members of the panels feel that the individual referred is not suitable and does not require any support. Crucially, fewer than 400 people received Channel support in the same year.

This looks and feels like a trawling operation through the communities targeted. Yet when ministers are challenged on this issue, they frequently respond as if any critique of Prevent is an attempt to abolish our counter-terrorism efforts altogether. This is not true. We have heard ministers claim that Prevent is responsible for arrests. This is not the case.

As ministers know, Prevent is only one strand of the entire Contest strategy. The Pursue, Protect and Prepare legs of the strategy are all vital to countering terrorism. Serious consideration should be given to how each of these can be enhanced and made more effective.

But that is not the case with Prevent, which fails even on its own terms. It has not prevented terrorism. And it trawls through entire communities, catching thousands of innocent people in its net each year.

This matters to all of us, for our own safety. It also matters to the labour movement as such, given the way racism, anti-migrant campaigns and Islamophobia are all used to divide us.

Bringing people together, creating united communities and respecting other people’s different beliefs, backgrounds, ethnicities and sexualities is the way forward. It is also stony ground for terrorism. It is also key to promoting the unity of all working people.

Prevent, as currently constituted, should be scrapped. It constitutes a misdirection of resources to little positive effect and may even be counter-productive. It is a toxic brand.

I have no doubt that an effective form of anti-radicalisation programme can and should be constituted. It would involve communities themselves and rely on people’s intelligence, their sensitivity and the real concerns of the overwhelming majority of people in this country, who are opposed to all forms of terrorism and in all its guises.

The safety and security of us all in the fight against terrorism cannot be upheld by knee-jerk reactions, simplistic formulations or counter-productive programmes. Prevent is counter-productive. It fails to intercept the terrorists and snares the innocent.

The fight against terrorism is too serious to be taken lightly. If something isn’t working, we need to fix it. That’s why I think the time is right to scrap Prevent and start again, with an entirely new programme that works with communities instead of demonising them.

Diane Abbott is MP for Hackney North.