Review of Prevent counter-extremism programme misses deadline – almost three years after it began
Exclusive: Reviewer William Shawcross requests extension ‘to give Prevent the consideration it deserves’
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.The review of a government scheme aiming to stop people being drawn into terrorism has been delayed again, almost three years after it began.
A report on the Prevent programme, which has been accused of both over-reach and ineffectiveness by different groups, was due to be published by the end of this year.
The Independent has been told that the 31 December deadline will be missed, and that the document will not be laid in parliament until February at the earliest.
An official terms of reference said the recommendations were to be submitted to Priti Patel by 30 September, in time for the home secretary to respond to each recommendation by the end of the year.
William Shawcross, who is leading the review, said he was still working on the report and had been granted an extension “to give Prevent the consideration it deserves”.
“My review will set out recommendations for how the government should develop its approach to engage with and support people vulnerable to being drawn into terrorism over the next five years, as the threat evolves,” he added.
“I have made good progress in collating and analysing a large body of evidence. However, there remains more work to be done before I am satisfied.”
Ministers announced that Prevent would be independently reviewed in January 2019, following years of accusations that it was stigmatising Muslims and stifling free speech in schools and universities.
Recent terror attacks sparked renewed concerns about the programme’s ability to stop people being drawn towards violence.
Several terrorists, including those who launched the 2017 Parsons Green bombing, and the Reading and Streatham stabbings last year, had previously been referred to Prevent over suspected radicalisation, as had several extremists jailed for plotting attacks.
The review has been beset by delays and controversies, with the first leader appointed stepping down amid legal action over alleged bias, and a new boycott announced by human rights groups in February over Mr Shawcross’s previous remarks.
Charities including Amnesty International and Liberty said the appointment undermined the review’s credibility, which the Home Office denies, and announced that they would be backing a “People’s Review of Prevent” instead.
In a joint statement, its co-chairs, Professor John Holmwood and Dr Layla Aitlhadj, said: “The failure to meet a deadline that was a legislative commitment reveals the disorder at the heart of government and its disregard for democratic processes.”
Dr Halima Begum, chief executive of the Runnymede Trust – which is also part of the alternative review – said she was concerned its recommendations would “extend the role of security services into the pre-crime space”.
She added: “We remain concerned about how objective and impartial the review is, and the very real possibility it’s going to reinforce structural Islamophobia.”
Natasha Arnpriester, of the Open Society Justice Initiative, said: “It is troubling that the release of critical information regarding a strategy that continues to negatively impact UK communities every day has been postponed.”
A legal requirement known as the “Prevent duty” for institutions including schools, the NHS and councils to report suspected extremists was introduced in 2015, sparking fresh accusations of state-sanctioned spying.
The government later refused calls for change from the Home Affairs Committee, the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation, the Joint Committee on Human Rights, MPs and charities.
Participation in both the Prevent and Channel programmes is voluntary, and some officials have questioned whether the process should be compulsory after several of those referred went on to attempt terror attacks.
Prevent officials have denied that the programme disproportionately targets Muslims, and say the figures on referrals show it deals with a wide range of ideologies.
Counter-terrorism police view the scheme as a vital “safeguarding” measure that can allow early intervention before young people commit criminal offences resulting in prosecution.
Out of 4,915 referrals to Prevent in the year to March 2021, more than half were for individuals with a mixed, unstable or unclear ideology.
A quarter of referrals were due to concerns over Islamist radicalisation and 22 per cent related to right-wing radicalisation.
The largest age group was children and young people aged 20 and under, including 969 under the age of 15.
Of those referred to Prevent, 21 per cent were found to “require no further action” after assessment, and half were passed on to other services, such as education, housing and mental health, for alternative support.
A further 27 per cent were considered by the Channel counter-radicalisation scheme, which sees people paired with “intervention providers”.
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments