The United Nations and the Prevent strategy
Our submissions to UN Committees and Rapporteurs, and the recommendations that came from them
Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (2026)
Our Submission on
the UK goverment's progress on CERD's recommendations
The full submission in Word format is available here.
The submission is also available on the UN website here.
This submission responds to the UK Government’s response to the Committee’s 2024 recommendations regarding the Prevent duty.
Briefly, the Committee called on the UK to:
- suspend the Prevent duty
- introduce robust safeguards to ensure that these measures do not result, in purpose or effect, in profiling or discrimination
- introduce independent monitoring mechanisms and access to remedies for those harmed by Prevent.
Our central concern is that the UK Government has not meaningfully engaged with the substance of these findings or recommendations.
Failure to Acknowledge Discrimination
The UK Government’s response does not engage with the premise that Prevent is discriminatory and targets Muslims disproportionately.
The 2023 Independent Review of Prevent rejected the characterisation of Prevent as discriminatory and framed these concerns as part of an ‘Islamist’ campaign.
This approach continued in the 2024 Lessons for Prevent report by Lord David Anderson, KC, which presents concerns about discrimination as a ‘narrative’ advanced by ‘some individuals and groups’ that were subsequently ‘picked up by the UN’.
Nonetheless, the UK government’s own Equality Impact Assessment explicitly acknowledges that Muslims are overrepresented within Prevent and that it may disproportionately affect ethnic minorities, yet the government justifies this by referring to a perceived threat from ‘Islamist terrorism’, even though most referrals to Channel (42% in 2021-22) are for far-right concerns.
Prevent Watch recommends that the Committee require the State party to formally acknowledge the discriminatory and disproportionate impact of Prevent, as identified by the Committee, and to demonstrate how this is being assessed and addressed in practice.
Expansion of Prevent and the Entrenchment
of Discrimination
Instead of suspending Prevent, the UK government has expanded it.
Firstly, in the aftermath of the Southport attack, the UK government used the case to justify calls for stronger “Islamist” referrals, despite the perpetrator having no “Islamist” ideology.
Secondly, the government’s Social Cohesion Action Plan, Protecting What Matters strengthens Prevent in education, local government, and civil society by leveraging notions of integration and shared values based on the Conservative Party’s 2023 definition of ‘extremism’.
Prevent Watch submits that the Committee should be alert not only to the continued operation of Prevent, but to its transformation under the guise of social cohesion as well as security. The Committee should therefore call on the State party to halt further expansion and to demonstrate how current policies comply with its obligation to eliminate discriminatory impact.
Ineffective Remedial Measures
The primary mechanism cited by the UK as a safeguard against harm is the Standards and Compliance Unit, known as StaCU, which sits within and is funded by the Home Office.
However, in the government’s own words StaCU “works to ensure that Prevent is being delivered properly” – thus, it is not a safeguard for the public and those harmed by it, but a compliance mechanism that protects the policy itself.
Furthermore, the newly appointed Independent Commissioner of Prevent previously served as Deputy Assistant Commissioner for Counter Terrorism Policing and as Senior National Coordinator for Prevent, raising serious concerns about independence.. He also has no statutory powers to compel disclosure, order remedies, or require reparations.
Prevent Watch recommends that the Committee call on the State party to establish genuinely independent oversight of Prevent, with statutory powers, structural independence, and the remit necessary to investigate discriminatory impact, order reparations, and provide meaningful accountability to the communities most harmed.
Our full submission is available in Word format here.
It is also available on the UN website here.
The Response from
the Committee
The full report is available by following the links on this page.
The Committee considers the response by the State Party unsatisfactory and reiterates the recommendations included in paragraph 34 of its Concluding Observations. It requests the State Party to provide, in its next periodic report, information on measures taken to fully implement these recommendations. It also requests the State Party to include information on the measures adopted to:
(a) Suspend the Prevent duty, halt further expansion of the Prevent programme, and establish structured consultation mechanisms enabling meaningful participation by affected communities and civil society organisations in oversight and policy review processes;
(b) Ensure that, for as long as CONTEST strategy and Prevent programme remain in force, their implementation does not, in purpose or effect, result in profiling and discrimination against ethnic and ethno-religious minorities, including by systematically collecting and publishing annual disaggregated data on all Prevent referrals, in particular by ethnicity, national origin, religion, sex and age, and their intersection, and monitor evidence of over-referral of ethnic and ethno-religious minorities, correlated with information on the institutional settings in which such interventions and referrals occur, and set out what action will be taken where disproportionality is identified;
(c) Establish a fully independent oversight mechanism of Prevent, with statutory powers, and the remit necessary to receive complaints from individuals, families and civil society, to review referrals, to investigate discriminatory practices and impact, to collect disaggregated data on complaints received and their outcomes, and to provide meaningful accountability to individuals and communities most affected;
(d) Ensure that individuals affected by Prevent-related referrals have access to transparent information, effective complaints mechanisms, prompt remedies, and appropriate redress where discriminatory or inappropriate referrals occur;
(e) Establish a statutory right for individuals referred to Prevent, including children and their families and individuals referred in the past, to be informed of the referral, its grounds, the personal data recorded, the authorities with whom such data have been shared, the data retention period, the outcome of the referral, their right to challenge the accuracy or lawfulness of the processing of their personal data, and their right to request the erasure of, or restriction on the processing of, such data.
The full report is available by following the links on this page.
Read our Expert View on this milestone.
Special Rapporteur on the Right to a Safe Education (2025)
Our Submission to
the Special Rapporteur
The full submission in Word format is here under ‘Inputs Received: CSOs’. Simply click on our name. It answered key questions posed by the Special Rapporteur, which are summarised below:
Child, Gender and Disability Sensitivities Shortcomings
Indicators of “extremism” on Prevent referral forms include autism and traits associated with autism.
This has criminalised the condition, and children with autism have been disproportionately referred to Prevent.
Last year males accounted for 89% of referrals; Prevent is insensitive to normal belief testing and ideas formation in boys.
Security Personnel in Schools
Prevent is part of the broader securitisation of schools in the UK as it mandates educators to view students as security threats.
Children and young adults who support particular political causes are securitised at school by Prevent.
Children and young adults are most often interviewed at school by police officers acting for Prevent.
Data Privacy Issues
Online activities, such as a student’s search history, social media posts can be grounds for Prevent referrals.
Referrals are also routinely shared with children’s services and at least 10 police databases.
This Prevent-based data record can follow the child through their educational career to their detriment.
Lack of Mental Health Resources
Children can find the Prevent process traumatising, and there is no process to address this trauma.
For children with autism, the referral has led to stress-based reactions and increased anxiety.
Schools that are expected to provide for children with autism have instead intervened using Prevent.
Mistrust develops, causing both children and parents to self-censor, and/or refrain from reporting bullying and other abuse.
Balance of Security Measures and a
Non-intimidating Environment
This balance is out of sync thanks to Prevent, which has forced staff to adopt a national security-linked “safeguarding” approach that prioritises national security over schools as safe spaces.
Role of Oversight Bodies
Ofsted and the Department for Education (DfE) are integral to advancing Prevent since a school is evaluated based on their adherence to safeguarding policy, which includes Prevent.
Homeschooled children are viewed as more vulnerable to radicalisation, so these families face additional scrutiny based on unfounded perceptions of “risk”.
Statistics and How They are Used to Shape Policy
Each year, the Home Office statistics consistently show that the education sector accounts for the most Prevent referrals.
Instead of highlighting the disproportionate targeting of children, these figures are used to justify Prevent in schools.
Statistics obscure the harm inflicted on wrongly flagged students, and do not record race and ethnicity data.
Criminal Liability for Children and Accountability for Schools
While children suspected of crimes are afforded protections under PACE, these safeguards do not apply in Prevent cases.
Counter-terrorism officers are able to question children under Prevent without an adult or guardian present.
Officers have admitted to having done so because “no crime has been committed” and they are “not investigating a crime”.
We have documented at least half a dozen children from as young as eight who have been interrogated in this manner.
Our Recommendation
Prevent Watch strongly recommends that Prevent be removed as a duty upon educational institutions where it is causing significant harm to children and breaches their right to a safe education.
Find Prevent Watch’s full submission in Word format here under ‘Inputs Received: CSOs’.
Click on our name and download our full submission.
The Response from
the Special Rapporteur
Recommendation 75:
Counter-terrorism measures in schools can be problematic, too. For example, the Committee on the Rights of the Child recommended that the United Kingdom immediately end the targeting of specific groups of children, particularly children of Muslim or Asian descent, through the Prevent strategy, and institute mandatory teacher training.
As a matter of principle, requiring educators to identify signs of radicalisation based on vague and contested indicators, and the questioning of children by counter-terrorism officers at school without the presence of an adult of a guardian, including young children, does not maintain a proper balance between the fight against terrorism and children’s rights, including the right to a safe education.
Read the full report of the Special Rapporteur here.
Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (2024)
Our Submission to the CERD
As an introduction, we highlighted that Prevent:
- disproportionately targets certain racial and religious communities, particularly Muslims
- perpetuates racial discrimination within public institutions
- enables racial discrimination in broader society
- has resulted in concerns related to racism and discrimination being raised by six different UN Special Rapporteurs across five mandates since 2016
- has prompted the CERD in 2016 to recommend the UK undertake thorough Equality Impact Assessments to ensure the Prevent strategy’s compliance with the non-discrimination provisions of the ICERD.
Despite this, we stated that the UK government has:
- not followed any of these recommendations
- persistently evaded efforts to monitor Prevent referral data based on race and ethnicity, by citing exemptions of national security and law enforcement
- recently indicated in a response to FOI requests by Rights and Security International that individuals classified as “Asian” were subject to much more scrutiny than others
- not followed through on its commitment to ensure Equality Impact Assessments of the Prevent strategy.
Furthermore, for the purposes of civil society and human rights advocacy more broadly, we brought it to the UN’s attention that the National Police Chief’s Council (NPCC) have stated that the data on the ethnicity or race of individuals referred to Prevent is not consistently recorded.
This is because race and ethnicity information do not have to be included on a referral form.
This means that:
- the Prevent strategy is inherently opaque
- its opacity is a useful tool to mask its racism
- it is difficult for NGOs and rights bodies to accurately assess the true discriminatory harm of Prevent
- it is difficult to challenge Prevent adequately in relation to Equality Rights
We emphasised that the points we raised are all the more urgent when most Prevent referrals are of children and young people.
Click on the icon to download our full submission as a Word.doc:
The Response from the CERD
In its report, the Committee noted that Prevent:
- has created an atmosphere of suspicion towards Muslims
- has resulted in disproportionately high numbers of referrals of Muslims, in particular children
- has a lack of effective guarantees against discriminatory abuse
- has ensured a lack of adequate access to what personal information is recorded in police files
These concerns resulted in Recommendation 34:
The Committee recommends that the State party suspend the “Prevent duty” and adopt robust measures to guarantee that, for as long as these counter-terrorism strategies remain in force, they do not result, in purpose or effect, in profiling and discrimination against ethnic and ethno-religious minorities.
It further recommends that the State party ensure that there are effective and independent monitoring mechanisms, as well as sufficient safeguards, against the abuse of the existing measures and that the persons affected, including children and their families, have access to prompt and effective remedies and adequate reparations.
Read the full CERD report here.
UN Committee on the Rights of the Child (2023)
Our Submission to
the Committee
We highlighted the harms of the Prevent strategy for children, and its infringement on their rights, as summarised below:
Background and Evidence
Current statistics cited young people 15-20 as the largest proportion (30%) of Prevent referrals, and under 15s, 29%.
From 2021 to 2022, at least six children under the age of 14 were referred to counter terrorism for every school day in England.
When the Prevent Duty was enshrined in the CTSA 2015, it was done so via the co-option of the notion of “safeguarding”.
The notion of safeguarding children in education from extremism was publicly accepted after the Birmingham Trojan Horse affair.
This means that every sector that deals with children will involve someone who has undergone problematic Prevent training.
The result is that Prevent acts as both counter terrorism referral mechanism and, simultaneously, a “safeguarding” measure.
National security is part of the role of social workers, medical staff and teachers, eroding the trust required for public services.
A Prevent “interview” lacks the usual safeguards for children’s rights as ordained under PACE 1984.
Children have been asked leading questions in these interviews, producing heightened anxiety and taking answers out of context.
Some children have been traumatised by the Prevent process. We have noted mental health conditions arising and bed-wetting.
Infringement of children’s rights
Our submission provided detailed case evidence where each case proved how the Prevent strategy endangers several fundamental human rights under the European Charter of Human Rights, especially with respect to children.
These fundamental rights include:
- Right to non-discrimination (Article 2)
- Best interests of the child (Article 3)
- Parental guidance and the child’s evolving capacities (Article 5)
- The Child’s Opinion (Article 12)
- Freedom of expression (Article 13)
- Freedom of thought, conscience and religion (Article 14)
- Freedom of association (Article 15)
Our Concerns with the 2023 Independent Review of Prevent
Our submission detailed the problems with the independent reviewer of Prevent William Shawcross, as well as the boycott of the review and the resultant People’s Review of Prevent.
We noted that Shawcross continued to do the review and after a delay of almost two years, it was published in February 2023.
All 34 of his recommendations were accepted by the Home Secretary, despite problems with methodology and arguments.
The review recommends that individuals referred to Prevent are not seen as “victims” but as “agents”.
This laid the foundation for more Prevent referrals of children and further exacerbate several serious child protection issues.
Our Recommendations
Based on the extraordinary criminalisation of children, especially Muslim children, Prevent is discriminatory and racist.
Expressions and ideas viewed as genuinely harmful may be dealt with under schools’ bullying policies.
It is the right of children to express themselves, and indeed healthy expression is necessary for long-term social stability.
Where criminal intent, harm or risk of either is identified in any setting there are already procedures in place to deal with this.
It is necessary for children and parents to have trust of public bodies in order to work together in the best interests of children.
Currently, Prevent is eroding this trust.
We recommend that the Committee on the Rights of the Child ask that the Government of the United Kingdom withdraw the Prevent Duty from schools immediately by:
- Removing the Prevent Duty from those working in the education sector;
- Ceasing the retention of Prevent referral information together with the child’s safeguarding file at school which follows the child throughout into higher education; and
- Ceasing the retention of Prevent data on police databases, especially for those who require no further action and make the criteria for retention more transparent/open to scrutiny.
The Response
from
the Committee
21. The Committee is concerned that …
(b) Counter-terrorism measures do not enjoy public confidence owing to the lack of transparency and are widely perceived to have a discriminatory or stigmatizing effect on children, in particular Muslim children.
Recommendation 22 (b):
The Committee recommends that the State party strengthen the oversight mechanism, including regular independent reviews, to assess and ensure that the implementation of the counter-terrorism and counter-extremism measures, including the Prevent Strategy (2011), will not have a discriminatory or stigmatising impact on any group of children…
Read the full report of the Committee in English here.