William Shawcross has published his much-delayed review of Prevent, the UK official counter-terror scheme for those at risk of becoming radicalised. Anything said about Prevent is politically contentious; and Shawcross made 34 recommendations. Some have more to do with private security than others.
Higher education staff responsible for authorising on-campus events with external speakers should be provided with training on how to manage and assess risk, one asked. Where necessary this should include conducting effective due diligence checks (of event speakers), and guidance on how to balance statutory obligations under the Prevent Duty with the legal requirement to protect freedom of speech. In prisons, staff must adopt a ‘precautionary policy’ when assessing the risk of ideologically-driven offenders, Shawcross urged (so that dishonest terrorists don’t pull the wool over staff’s eyes).
While accepting this, the Government in its response said ‘we already take a precautionary stance to addressing extremist behaviour among offenders’. As for training, Shawcross asked for ‘new training and induction package for all government and public sector staff working in counter-extremism and counter-terrorism’, and that Prevent, Channel, and public sector staff subject to the Prevent Duty should get clear guidance on how and when to make appropriate referral decisions. The Government replied that ‘a more informed and muscular approach is needed to tackle the hesitancy and cultural timidity among some parts of the public sector when considering referrals into Prevent’. The ‘timidity’ may be due to the difference between someone being a ‘passive risk’ (who may be radicalised by others) and an ‘active risk’ (maybe plotting to do something), yet bothy might be tarred with the same brush? Shawcross acknowledged that ‘chronic’ radicalisers may operate below the ‘terrorism threshold’, which may in any case change due to the ‘terrorism threat picture’.
Shawcross quoted the case of the SIA-badged teenage officer on duty at the Manchester Arena (pictured) in May 2017, who felt someone was suspicious shortly before the suicide bomb detonation, who told the Arena Inquiry that “I was scared of being wrong and being branded a racist if I got it wrong and would have got into trouble. It made me hesitant.” Shawcross added: “Greater confidence in being able to identify and openly challenge potential Islamist extremists is essential if lives are to be saved, as could have happened at the Manchester Arena.” During his review, started in 2021, Shawcross said he ‘heard such fears expressed often’.
Shawcross did find much to praise; such work in schools for example has been ‘successfully embedded within safeguarding work’. Shawcross asked that Prevent return, or stay true, to its ‘core focus’ or ‘core mission’, to ‘protecting the public from those inclined to pose a security threat. Prevent must not overlook the reality that most would-be terrorists pose a threat on account of their own agency and ideological fervour. Prevent too often bestows a status of victimhood on all who come into contact with it, confusing practitioners and officials as to Prevent’s fundamental purpose.’ Muslims working in Prevent have suffered intimidation and even death threats, Shawcross found. Shawcross wrote that ‘we should be proud of Prevent and the proportionate and humane response that it represents. It is a careful and patient attempt to persuade individuals away from the ideas and beliefs that fuel violence.’ Hence he asked the authorities to ‘encourage referrals from friends, family and community’.
More in the April print edition of Professional Security Magazine.
For William Shawcross’s review of Prevent and how the UK Government response, visit https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/independent-review-of-prevents-report-and-government-response.
