Is PREVENT fit for purpose?

The horrific attack in Southport, carried out by Axel Rudakubana, has left the nation in shock. In response, Yvette Cooper has called for an independent inquiry into the case and appointed Lord David Anderson KC as the interim Prevent Commissioner to urgently assess the areas where significant failings occurred.

PREVENT is a referral process designed for professionals working with young people and adults who may be vulnerable to harming themselves or others due to radical political or religious beliefs. Alarmingly, Rudakubana was referred to PREVENT three times. Despite openly admitting to carrying a knife regularly, he was never escalated to a Prevent Channel Panel.

As an Education Leader and Designated Safeguarding Lead, this is deeply concerning. A PREVENT referral is one of the few mechanisms we have to address serious concerns about a student being radicalized, and it must be both robust and effective. This case raises serious questions about the system’s ability to intervene before tragedies occur.

Beyond PREVENT, this incident also highlights a broader systemic failure. How did a deeply troubled young person with complex needs—already known to multiple agencies, including children’s services and the police—fall through the cracks? The uncomfortable truth is that public services are increasingly overwhelmed and under-resourced, unable to meet the growing demands of individuals and society.

After working in safeguarding for two decades, I have seen firsthand how stretched these services have become. While the independent inquiry will undoubtedly uncover multiple failings, the key question is: will its recommendations lead to real, meaningful change? That remains to be seen.