Is Prevent no longer fit for purpose?

Prevent, the government’s early intervention scheme to stop people becoming terrorists, is “no longer keeping the country safe”, the Independent Commission for Countering Terrorism has concluded.

“The evidence we had shows that the present approach to Prevent is not fit for purpose,” said the Commission chair Declan Morgan, former chief justice of Northern Ireland. It needs a “radical overhaul”.

In the meantime, Prevent referrals are piling up: rising from 6,922 to 8,778 in a year, to reach the highest level since records began in 2015.

The Week

Escape your echo chamber. Get the facts behind the news, plus analysis from multiple perspectives.

SUBSCRIBE & SAVE

Sign up for The Week's Free Newsletters

From our morning news briefing to a weekly Good News Newsletter, get the best of The Week delivered directly to your inbox.

From our morning news briefing to a weekly Good News Newsletter, get the best of The Week delivered directly to your inbox.

Sign up

What did the commentators say?

The Commission’s three-year review found that the kind of people presenting a terror threat have “morphed” from “groups such as al Qaeda or Islamic State to ‘self-initiated’ individuals with ‘complex, mixed, unclear or unstable ideologies’”, said Deborah Haynes on Sky News. It recommends “narrowing the definition of what constitutes terrorism to provide greater clarity”.

Prevent is “overwhelmed” by the number of referrals it now receives, said Ian Acheson in The Spectator. It has become a “repository” for troubled individuals who have been “failed by every other state agency”. It is “turning into a giant safeguarding creche, permanently distracted from its core aim” because it is “offsetting the failures of other institutions”.

One of Prevent’s key flaws is that it is “built on the assumption that violence stems from ideology”, and the principle that “if we detect and disrupt belief systems, we can stop attacks”, said Limor Simhony Philpott in UnHerd. But the terror landscape has shifted: what “binds” today’s radicalised young men is not ideology but “rage and contempt", and a desire “to cause harm – or, better yet, bring social collapse”. This “new reality poses a serious problem” for a scheme built on “spotting ideological markers” to identify those who pose a risk.

Southport killer Axel Rudakubana is a prime example of “this new kind of threat”. He was referred to Prevent three times (once aged 13 and twice aged 14) but, as he “didn't fit the mould of most extremists” and did not follow a “coherent political or religious cause”, he wasn’t identified as a risk, and his case was closed each time.

What next?

There is no “statutory underpinning” to the Commission’s review but officials are said to be engaging “positively” with the report, and are “open to adopting at least some of its recommendations”, said Rozina Sabur in The Telegraph.

The Southport attack shows that a change in focus is urgently needed, said Duncan Gardham in The Times. Rudakubana was not identified as a risk despite his possession of “247 pages of images showing extreme violence, torture and the slavery and mistreatment of women”. A reformed Prevent’s job must be “better equipped to deal with young men obsessed with violence and mass killings”.