The government should expand its counter-terrorism scheme to tackle the rise in the number of children fixated with extreme violence but without ideology, a top civil servant has said. Kate Dixon, director of pupil wellbeing and safety at the Department for Education, told the Southport inquiry today the existing “prevent” system was “not working for education settings”. Schools and other public bodies have a duty to refer individuals they believe are at risk of radicalisation or terrorism to prevent. The Southport inquiry was ordered in January 2025 after Axel Rudakubana was found guilty of murdering Bebe King, six, Alice da Silva Aguiar, nine and Elsie Dot Stancombe, seven, at a Taylor Swift-themed holiday club in July 2024. Rudakubana was also found guilty of the attempted murder of 10 others. Former prime minister Keir Starmer said at the time the country had “failed in its duty” to protect the girls, after it was revealed Rudakubana had been referred three times to the prevent programme, as well as other police, youth justice, social and mental health services. A government review in February 2025 found the prevent scheme “prematurely” closed its case on the killer. While he had interest in terrorist attacks and school shootings, there was no evidence of a fixed ideology or motivation. ‘Exploring the next option’ The children’s commissioner Rachel de Souza found in August that 65 per cent of referrals made by education settings were closed and returned, with 93 per cent of cases not reaching a panel stage. Giving evidence to the ongoing inquiry this week, Dixon said: “It’s not working for education settings, it’s not working for children…we are collectively exploring, knowing that that’s not working, what the next best option is.” Dixon said the prevent duty was “a lot more clear cut” when first introduced in 2015. However, young people are now presenting with more “fluid” ideologies. Figures from 2024-25 showed 71 per cent of children referred had “no clear ideology”. “I think that isn’t working [for] the world now, so that’s why we’re looking for a new way.” Dixon continued: “I would advocate for an expanded prevent system. I think for my sector, that would work best, because what they’re seeing is a blurring of these boundaries. “I’m not naive in that it would come with huge costs and the need to think about legislation et cetera, but that’s my view. An alternative could be made to work.” Dixon added that if it was agreed an expansion was needed, the programme “would need some kind of rebrand”. Updates to key guidance The DfE is also looking to update its statutory keeping children safe in education guidance for schools to provide a greater focus on violence-fixated individuals. Dixon said the “assumption” was this would be a technical update, which would be released “fairly soon”. She was also asked about the new relationships, sex and health curriculum and why it did not cover extreme violence. Dixon said the increase in the number of violence-fixated individuals was “recent but quite worrying” and that teachers “probably don’t have the confidence” to handle the subject in schools. She said she would ask her department what the “next opportunity” would be to update the guidance, but that introducing new resources on the DfE’s educate against hate resource would be “another and quicker option”. Dixon also said prevent materials were updated to give “greater understanding on neurodivergence” last month. She stressed this was “not a link and causation”, but that there has been an “overlap in these cohorts”. ‘More can be done’ The inquiry also heard from Lee Owston, national director of education at Ofsted. Owston said he thought there was “more that can be done” to make it clear to schools “how they can spot and look out for signs and symptoms” among at-risk individuals. “If they are aware of that, then they can do a better job in terms of referring the right individuals through the right pathway.” Owston was also asked whether Ofsted would be best place to inspect potential new pathways introduced in Prevent. He answered that he would “always want to understand whether it’s inspectable” and whether it could be done within the two-day timeframe of a school inspection. Owston also disagreed with a suggestion that mainstream schools would be best-placed as the lead in safeguarding partnerships for violence-fixated individuals. He said headteachers “do not have experience of a system leadership” and are instead “leaders of an individual institution” and “educators first and foremost”. “More so than ever before in England’s education history of recent time, I would describe children’s journeys through education as more fragmented than it has ever been before. “So we cannot be assured an individual child will spend six years in a primary school, every five years in one secondary school…so I think having one school as the lead wouldn’t necessarily work, particularly for the most vulnerable.” The inquiry continues.