Correspondence

End of tenure letter

Published 10 April 2026

House of Lords
London
SW1A 0PW

20 March 2026

To:

Rt. Hon. Dan Jarvis MBE MP
Minister or State for Security
Home Office
2 Marsham Street
London
SW1P 4DF

By email

Dear Security Minister,

My term as Interim Independent Prevent Commissioner (IPC) will shortly be at an end. I have taken the opportunity to reflect on the progress made over this period and on the foundations now in place – and still to be established – for the permanent holder of that post.

I originally accepted appointment in January 2025 for a 6-month period, at the request of the then Home Secretary. That time was spent intensively researching and preparing my report “Lessons for Prevent”, published in July 2025, which identified numerous lessons learned and to be learned from the prior handling by Prevent of those who perpetrated the fatal attacks on Sir David Amess (2021) and the Southport dance class (2024).  I am grateful to the Home Office and other departments for engaging with me on the subject of my 10 specific recommendations, and look forward to receiving a formal response to them in due course.

Since July 2025 I have agreed to extend my appointment four times – until autumn 2025, the end of December, the end of January 2026 and finally the end of March. This sequence of short extensions was not as anyone would have planned it but seems to have been a consequence of delays in running (and then successfully re-running) a competition to find a permanent IPC.

I have taken the opportunity during this period to orient the activities of my small Office. As you know, I inherited from the Commission for Countering Extremism (CCE) a Standards and Compliance Unit (StaCU), established in February 2024, to investigate complaints concerning Prevent. Its first annual report was published by the CCE in May 2025. While a complaints mechanism was of assistance in identifying systemic and sustained breaches of the Prevent Duty, StaCU’s ability to respond decisively to individual complaints was limited by its lack of statutory powers, in particular to compel the provision of documents and information, to require cooperation (including from public authorities unfamiliar with the counter-terrorism world) and to impose sanctions. The consequence was a diversion of time and effort into complaints which were not formally adjudicated upon and which often ended up being declared out of scope or referred to other organisations. This was the cause of some dissatisfaction, including among complainants, and despite the best efforts of all concerned I am frankly doubtful whether StaCU fulfilled its intended aim of promoting public confidence in Prevent.

Without removing or diminishing the important investigatory capabilities of my Office, I have chosen as IPC to initiate a different model based on the long-standing and successful precedent of the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation (IRTL). Complaints continue to be welcomed by the IPC, including through the portal on my website. They are valuable for identifying areas of concern and possible non-compliance, and for suggesting themes and providing evidence for thematic reviews. Some complaints will continue to be investigated individually, but only when the IPC considers that this is a priority. My aim is that the IPC’s time and that of their Office can be concentrated on the most important and topical concerns about Prevent, as they appear from the IPC’s whole range of contacts (including within police and public authorities) and not simply from those cases which have been the subject of formal complaints. It is also envisaged that the IPC will in future be asked to conduct Prevent Learning Reviews in response to particular incidents, sometimes as a matter of great urgency. That is a further point favouring maximum flexibility in the use of resources.

I am conscious that my extensive recommendations of last July are still being digested; that the Southport Inquiry will soon be reporting, no doubt with recommendations of its own; and that my successor as IPC will soon be in place, no doubt with their own priorities. Investigative work has however begun in a number of areas which I have identified as important. These include the retention and use of Prevent data; the function and operation of police-led partnerships; and improving the quality of referrals to Prevent, not least by seeking to reduce the pressure on police and local authority resources caused by inappropriate referrals. Each of those themes reflects complaints and concerns communicated to me and to my Office and requires detailed examination not only of guidance and training but of practice on the ground, around the country.

Contacts have also been established or maintained with other oversight bodies and with a wide range of NGOs and other bodies, including a number which have been strongly critical of Prevent in the past. Prevent depends more than any other aspect of CONTEST on trust (whether on the part of civil society organisations, potential referrers or Channel subjects who are not required to submit to interventions) and I believe that the best way to build this trust is for the IPC to remain open to examining substantiated concerns from whatever quarter, to follow the evidence wherever it may lead and to express their conclusions frankly and publicly.

I am also convinced of the value of transparency. I have given evidence to the Home Affairs Select Committee, participated in a debate in extremism in the House of Lords, spoken to media when requested, attended and commented on Channel training sessions and addressed academic and vocational conferences in Leeds, Oxford and London. Coverage of Prevent in the past has often been unjustifiably negative, and it was encouraging that the decision to allow a TV journalist to interview an intervention provider and attend Channel training, as recommended in Lessons for Prevent, bore fruit last November in a fair-minded and generally positive 10-minute film for Channel 4 News. In the same spirit of openness, I am minded to publish this letter on the website of my Office to mark the transition from the interim to a permanent IPC.

The regular publication of data has, I believe, helped to improve perceptions of Prevent over the past decade, though work remains to be done in categorising and presenting some of those data in a manner that can be readily understood by media and public. Having observed how increased openness helped transform public perceptions of investigatory powers in the last decade, I believe that such openness is the best way of promoting trust in Prevent, both by giving credit for its successes and by calling it out where it falls short.

I conclude by a renewed plea for statutory recognition and powers for the IPC. Whilst it is true that the IRTL’s statutory powers are limited by comparison with the Australian and Irish versions of the post, the IRTL is at least acknowledged in legislation, and the counter-terrorism apparatus has over the years acquired the habit of compliance with the IRTL’s requests. Prevent is delivered by a far wider range of government departments and local authorities than is Pursue, and the IPC is unfamiliar to many of them. The experience of both StaCU and of the IPC to date is that while active obstructiveness is rare, appropriate statutory powers would help the IPC’s task to be performed more effectively and with greater speed.

May I finally thank you personally, the Home Secretary and your officials for your unfailing practical support and your absolute respect for my independence. I look forward to the appointment of the first permanent IPC, and to the impact that I am sure the IPC and their Office will have in providing effective and independent oversight of Prevent.

Yours sincerely,

David Anderson

(Lord Anderson of Ipswich KBE KC)