Prevent scheme needs to 'rapidly' adapt to online world, review finds after failures in Southport case

Sky News

3 days ago

The Prevent scheme needs to "rapidly" adapt to the online world "where so much radicalisation takes place", an independent review has found.
The anti-extremism programme has been under increased scrutiny after two recent terror incidents involving Southport attacker Axel Rudakubana and Sir David Amess's killer Ali Harbi Ali damaged its reputation.
Lord Anderson KC was appointed as the new independent commissioner for Prevent in January and the long-awaited report into the scheme was published on Wednesday, outlining 10 recommendations to improve the programme.
His recommendations can be summarised into five major themes, including adapting to the online world and applying Prevent to people who have no fixed ideology but "a fascination with extreme violence or mass casualty attacks".
4:22
Lord Anderson recommended that "all feasible and right-compliant avenues should be explored as a matter of priority to enable evidence of online activity to be more effectively used".
The online behaviours of self-radicalised extremists were "increasingly difficult to detect and interpret".
This is because the average age of a person referred to Prevent is now 16, and 40% are aged 11-15, making them "digital natives", Lord Anderson told the Home Affairs select committee on Tuesday.
"Wider decisions loom on how Prevent can be better tailored to the online world inhabited by so many of its subjects; how best to deal with those whose ideology amounts to little more than a fascination with extreme violence; and whether Prevent should ultimately be embedded in a more general violence reduction strategy," the report concluded.
What is anti-terrorism programme Prevent?
The aim of Prevent is to "stop people from becoming terrorists or supporting terrorism".
The government-led, multi-agency scheme also helps to rehabilitate and disengage those who are already involved in terrorism, and safeguard communities from threats.
Referrals to Prevent lead to a "gateway assessment", made by specialist police officers to determine whether there are "reasonable grounds" to suspect the person is "susceptible to becoming a terrorist or supporting terrorism".
The individual will then receive tailored support to reduce their susceptibility to being radicalised into terrorism, if appropriate.
The Prevent programme has three main aims:
• To tackle the ideological causes of terrorism;
• Intervene early to support people susceptible to radicalisation;
• Enable people who have already engaged in terrorism to disengage and rehabilitate.
Additionally, Lord Anderson said he believed Prevent "could work as part of a comprehensive violence prevention and safeguarding strategy" in the longer term.
The report recommended that a Cabinet Office task force be set up to explore the possibility of formally connecting Prevent to a broader violence prevention and safeguarding system, as latest figures on Prevent referrals for 2023-24 included in the report show 36% of 6,921 cases were made up of concerns of vulnerability but no ideology or counter-terror risk.
The review was launched following the killings by Rudakubana and Ali.
Rudakubana, then 17, killed Alice da Silva Aguiar, nine, Bebe King, six, and Elsie Dot Stancombe, seven, in the attack at the Hart Space in Southport, Merseyside, on 29 July last year.
He pleaded guilty to three counts of murder and 10 counts of attempted murder in January and was sentenced to a minimum of 52 years in jail, with the judge saying it's "highly likely" he will never be released.
It was revealed that Rudakubana, now 18, was referred to the government anti-extremism scheme - known as Prevent - three times before the murders due to a fixation with violence.
Each time his case was assessed, he was not deemed a terrorism risk, and he has never been subject to a counterterrorism police investigation or declared a subject of interest to MI5.
Prevent report puts it simply - too many people slip through the net
Social Affairs correspondent
@BeckyJohnsonSky
Prevent failed - and people died.
This is the latest report to highlight the fatal errors made in assessing the risk posed by the Southport attacker and the man who murdered the MP Sir David Amess. Families of the victims are understandably demanding answers.
Relatives of the three young girls murdered in Southport last summer are urging the government and the authorities to "do more than simply paying lip service".
The report acknowledges that Prevent "lacks teeth". Put simply, too many people slip through the net.
Many will be surprised that the Home Office needs to be told that Prevent needs to adapt to the online world.
Radicalisation online is not new. We have known for years that worrying numbers of people are viewing graphic content online, disappearing down rabbit holes guided by social media algorithms.
Human error plays a part: the murderer of Sir David Amess was "exited" from the programme after he convinced a case worker he did not pose a danger.
But in the case of Axel Rudakubana who carried out the Southport murders, three referrals to Prevent led to no action being taken because, despite an obsession with mass killings, he was assessed to not subscribe to one particular ideology.
The author of this report is clear that was the wrong decision. The nature of terrorism has changed, he says. It's harder to tell if someone has a terrorist ideology or something else.
However, he warns the authorities should stop "fussing about" that - and instead put the safety of the public first.
Chris Walker, representing the three bereaved families in the Southport Inquiry, said: "We note the findings of the report pointing to the failings of Prevent in the Southport case, in particular that referrals to other agencies who could have intervened with the defendant were not followed through with. Given the disturbing and violent behaviour exhibited, opportunities to intervene were then lost.
"We now turn to the inquiry in establishing the key decisions that were made in this case, who made them and how, if they had not been made, would the results have been different.
"We have been clear from the start of the Inquiry process that, as representatives of the bereaved families, real change needs to come in order to prevent other families going through what my clients face."
Islamic State (ISIS) supporter Ali was referred to Prevent years before he stabbed Conservative MP Sir David Amess to death during a constituency surgery at a church hall in Leigh-on-Sea in October 2021.
His case had been closed five years before, after just one meeting for coffee at a McDonald's to deal with his interpretation of "haram" (forbidden under Islamic law), as well as texts and calls with an "intervention provider".
Despite Prevent policy and guidance at the time being "mostly followed", his case was "exited too quickly", security minister Dan Jarvis told the House of Commons in January.
Lord Anderson said lessons "must continue to be learned" from the failure to stop both killers.
"Prevent failed to provide what might have helped them. Whether different decisions might have spared their victims will never be known: both attacks came years later, and many imponderables intervened," he said.
"But wrong decisions were taken; more should have been done; and from these failures, lessons must continue to be learned."
Home Secretary Yvette Cooper vowed to "immediately act" on Lord Anderson's findings.
She said in a written statement that officials would clarify Prevent thresholds in guidance for frontline workers, who have a duty to refer individuals to Prevent, so they understand that those fascinated with extreme violence or mass casualty attacks should be referred to the counter-terror programme.
This work would be completed by the end of September, Ms Cooper added.
Sir David's family were left "deeply upset" and "frankly offended" by the way Lord Anderson's report had been handled by the Home Office, said Radd Seiger, the adviser and spokesman for the family.
He said the family were given "next to no notice" of the timing or advance sight of the report published on Wednesday, but received a "dismissive" letter from the home secretary, which he said was designed to "protect the government following its failings" and not support them.