In 2019, the UK government commissioned an Independent Review of its counter-terrorism strategy, Prevent. After a series of controversies and delays, the findings and recommendations, as well as the government’s response, were published in February 2023. We explain what this means for children’s rights, and what happens next.

As part of our work looking at how counter-terrorism measures in the UK violate children’s rights, CRIN has been closely monitoring the impact of the UK’s Prevent strategy. The strategy aims to stop “people becoming terrorists or supporting terrorism.” However, the reality is that the strategy discriminates against some children and violates their rights, rather than appropriately safeguarding young people.

Towards counter-terrorism measures that genuinely focuses on safeguarding children

CRIN has been working to get the UK government to adopt a human rights-compliant approach to counter-terrorism measures affecting children. Our report, ‘Preventing Safeguarding’, examines how the Prevent strategy infringes on the human rights of children. We are also a part of the Community Counter to Prevent, a coalition which is working together to challenge the Prevent programme, and we’ve been working to ensure that the Government is held accountable for the impact of Prevent through national and international monitoring mechanisms. 

CRIN, alongside a range of civil society organisations, also boycotted the Independent Review commissioned by the UK government in 2019, over the lack of impartiality and previous Islamophobic comments made by the commissioner, William Shawcross.

An inadequate Independent Review

The Independent Review of the Prevent strategy was meant to examine how the strategy is implemented at the local and national level, and the effectiveness of the duty that Prevent places on public services such as schools, childcare, criminal justice, health and social care, and the police, “to prevent people being drawn into terrorism”. However, there have been a series of delays in the process as a result of many controversies. After three years of delays, the Review was published in February 2023 alongside 34 recommendations, as well as a response from the Home Office. A wide range of human rights organisations have rejected the findings.

Shortcomings of the Prevent Review from a children’s rights perspective

Today, CRIN is publishing a briefing to set out the key issues raised by the Prevent Review, from a children’s rights perspective. It also explains how the Home Office has responded, what we can expect to happen next, and how we believe changes to Prevent, recommended by the Review, will impact the rights of children in the UK. Our findings show that the Prevent strategy does not respect and protect children’s rights, and the outcome of the Review doubles down on the most damaging aspects. 

What the changes to Prevent will mean for children

• Safeguarding and Prevent: The Review finds that labelling Prevent as a safeguarding mechanism is ‘working well.’ This overlooks the fact that Prevent is primarily concerned with securitisation measures rather than the welfare of children. Neither Prevent nor the Review take into consideration the best interests of children, which is essential to safeguarding. 

• Increased focus on “Islamist extremism”: A central theme throughout the Review and its recommendations is the claim that ‘Islamist terrorism is currently the largest terrorism threat facing the United Kingdom.’ This finding is not supported by evidence within the Review, will exacerbate the discriminatory impact of the Prevent strategy, and risks increasing the disproportionate impact on particular groups of children, particularly Muslim children and children from an Asian background. 

• Data and Privacy: We found that the Review overlooks many important privacy concerns. Although it considers whether the current six-year retention period for referral data is too long, there is no analysis of other important data considerations, such as sharing and consent procedures. This will deepen the negative consequences for children’s rights to privacy, by failing to ensure children’s information is properly protected when referred to Prevent. 

• Expanding the Scope of the Duty: The Review concludes that there is substantial positive evidence to justify expanding the use of the Prevent Strategy to other public sector organisations. It is particularly positive about the operation of Prevent in schools, even though we found significant evidence of how Prevent in schools is hampering children’s freedom of political and creative expression, due to fear of being referred to Prevent by teachers. Expanding the scope of the Prevent duty will exacerbate this effect on children’s rights to freedom of thought, expression and religion, by creating more opportunities for people to be unnecessarily exposed to Prevent.

• Ideological Bars: Throughout the Review, there is emphasis on refocusing the aims of Prevent to look specifically at a person's ideology. This will mean more people who have legitimate religious and political beliefs, particularly those relating to Islam, will be drawn into the view of Prevent unnecessarily. The associated recommendations risk infringing on the rights to freedom of expression and thought, particularly given the lack of clear terminology and oversight mechanisms.

• Perceptions and Misinformation: The Review labels a range of accurate and legitimate criticisms of Prevent as misinformation or a concerted effort to discourage people from cooperating. We are deeply concerned that this claim makes up such a large part of the Review, rather than a consideration and reflection on the criticisms, many of which are well-founded and substantiated .

Why we don’t say ‘Terrorism’, ‘Extremism’, or ‘Radicalisation’

In addition to the main findings, the language used to describe children and young people in the context of counter-terrorism is problematic. Many of the terms used are overly broad, are contested, or applied selectively to particular groups and acts. In our briefing we provide analysis of why some of these terms are problematic, and provide more accurate alternatives that can be used. 

Responses from Other Organisations

We are not alone in our concerns about the consequences of the Review. There are a broad range of civil society organisations with diverse and important perspectives on how Prevent will affect communities and individuals, and why it is so important that it does not go unchallenged. See: 

CAGE: Shawcross’ review of PREVENT exploits Muslim prejudice to expand state powers  

• Liberty: Liberty responds to Shawcross Review of Prevent

• Muslim engagement and development: MEND’s Response to the Accusations of William Shawcross in the ‘Independent’ Review of Prevent (Feb 2023)

• Runnymede Trust: Runnymede Trust response to the 'Independent Review of Prevent'

• Community Counter to Prevent: Statement in response to Shawcross Review to Prevent

• Amnesty International: UK Shawcross review of Prevent is 'deeply prejudiced and has no legitimacy'

• Open Rights Group: Open Rights Group responds to Shawcross Review of Prevent

• Muslim Council of Britain: Building Trust into an Effective Counter-Terrorism Strategy 

If you have been personally impacted by the Prevent scheme and need practical support, refer to Prevent Watch.

Learn more about CRIN’s project looking at how measures in the UK violate children’s rights in the name of ‘fighting terrorism’.