While much discussion has centred on the UN call to suspend Prevent, little has been said about reparations – this year, it’s time to put the subject on the table.
As we enter a new year with a new government and new proposals to be announced for Prevent, it is vital to reflect on Prevent’s decade-long legacy as a statutory duty, specifically what these potential changes—or the lack thereof—mean for those already harmed by Prevent.
This reflection gains urgency as we await the UK Government’s response to the UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination’s (CERD) recommendation to not only suspend Prevent, but to also consider reparations for those harmed by it.
While much discussion has centred on the call to suspend Prevent, little has been said about reparations – for example, how do we define ‘harm’ and – importantly – how can it be compensated?
Prevent Watch’s extensive case library documenting the harms of Prevent through the voices of those most impacted by it provide a firm start.
The UN call for reparations
The UN CERD’s recommendation for reparations provides an important shift in focus to recognize that Prevent involves associated harms that require reparation.
It places culpability on those responsible, specifically those in Government who have marketed, supported and embedded Prevent into policy and public services, while consistently denying its damaging effects.
Reparations are not merely about financial compensation, though that is a significant component. They also include measures to restore dignity, such as public apologies, the expunging of unwarranted referrals, and guarantees of non-repetition through robust safeguards.
Reparations must be rooted in the experiences and testimonies of those most directly affected.
Let’s start with children’s experiences
One provision that must be urgently implemented is the adherance to protections that already exist, such as the Police and Criminal Evidence Act (PACE) 1984, which mandates that children being questioned by police must have a responsible adult present.
The fact that Prevent is involved before any offence has been considered or committed creates a troubling scenario where police officers can circumvent normal criminal justice protocols, leaving children vulnerable to undue harm.
Prevent Watch has documented several cases where children have been questioned by counter-terrorism officers without the knowledge or consent of their parents and with no other adult present to support them or be a witness to what has been discussed.
This type of questioning of a child – despite no crime nor suspicion of a crime but merely for a child’s perceived beliefs and statements (taken out of context and under racial and religious bias) – has a lasting impact on a child and family.
The police are aware that PACE safeguards do not apply in instances of Prevent – they have explicitly stated so in response to complaints put forward by Prevent Watch clients.
Acknowledgement and transparency
Prevent has disproportionately targeted specific communities, fueling both individual and institutional discrimination.
It is therefore essential that accountability for Prevent begins with a simple public acknowledgment that harm has been done.
To date, transparency regarding the demographic characteristics – ethnicity, religion, etc – of those referred to Prevent has been lacking.
Organisations must continue to advocate and take action to ensure Prevent is transparent in its representation of the impact of Prevent.
We will continue to call out the deceptive representation of statistics by the Home Office.
Genuine transparency is necessary in order to gain a proper understanding of the impact of Prevent and its harms.
What compensation could look like
In the context of Prevent, reparations would acknowledge the harmful impact of the policy and hold the state accountable for redressing these abuses.
Financial compensation, access to free and effective mental health support, and other restorative measures would provide a pathway for victims to rebuild their lives.
Beyond individual relief, reparations would signal a commitment to learning from past mistakes.
Without accountability, future iterations of Prevent—or similar initiatives like the use of Channel intervention (the deradicalisation programme which is the end product of a Prevent referral)—risk repeating the same cycles of damage, division and distrust.
Using the past to move into a better future
Reparations are also essential for the UK to align with broader international human rights standards.
They is not a novel concept, and the UK has precedents for addressing harm caused by state policies: the Infected Blood scandal, Windrush scandal and the Post Office Horizon IT scandal each led to compensation schemes and public admissions of systemic failings.
Although the implementation of redress has been deeply flawed, they provide examples of the duty on government to address harms brought about by its own actions.
International advocacy remains vital, as the UK’s obligations under international human rights law provide a strong framework for demanding accountability.
Bodies like the UN have already taken a stand; but this is not enough.
Ensuring accountability for Prevent requires sustained pressure from civil society, victims, and allies.
Advocacy must center the voices of those directly impacted, challenging the narrative that Prevent is a protective measure.
In this effort and more broadly, Prevent Watch remains firm in our support and willingness to be part of the change we hope to see this year.
Related…
Read a summary of our submission to the United Nations Commission to End Racial Discrimination (2024)
Read the full final submission by Prevent Watch to the UN CERD
