YOUNGSTERS at risk of radicalisation should be given the same support and protection as those prone to sexual exploitation and grooming.

Home Office minister Ben Wallace MP made the comments in response to the serious case review into the Deghayes jihadi brothers which was released on Thursday.

He also said the case, which he described as “tragic”, proved why the government’s Prevent Duty statutory programme was needed and should silence its critics who consider it “heavy handed”.

Mr Wallace said that prior to its introduction, anti-radicalisation measures were “patchy”, allowing teens like the Deghayes to slip through the cracks.

The government’s Channel and Prevent anti-radicalisation programmes were in their infancy between 2012 and 2014 which the serious case review investigated.

Many staff were still trying to come to terms with training they were receiving into anti-radicalisation and what specific responsibilities it required from them.

A Channel Panel held in November 2013, deemed Abdullah Deghayes was not at risk of being drawn into terror offences. Three months later he was fighting in Syria.

Prior to the discovery the three Deghayes sons and two friends had gone to Syria in January 2014, Surrey and Sussex Special Branch said they were unaware of any children being vulnerable to radicalisation in Brighton and Hove, even where adult members of families had been identified as people of interest.

Mr Wallace said: “It might be hard to fathom now but even when local authorities became aware of an older brother travelling to Syria it failed to set off alarm bells; it was believed he had travelled their to undertake humanitarian work.

“Introducing the Duty in 2015 was all about providing a consistent approach to dealing with people at risk of radicalisation and ensuring front-line workers were not only able to recognise the signs of radicalisation but embed it into their existing safeguarding duties.”

Concerns identified at the time about Jaffar Deghayes’s “emotional outburst” against Americans, the conversion of school pupils to Islam and payment to attend a gym behind a place of worship, were considered in isolation rather than as part of a broader picture of radicalisation.

The review noted there was a lack of understanding at that time of the need to focus not just on individuals but on the links between people and wider safeguarding issues.

Those efforts were not helped by the skill of the Deghayes boy in hiding their planning for Syria, despite frequent contact with professionals.

Concerns raised by the boys’ school about the risk of radicalisation were not acted on by both community safety staff at the council and police involved with the Prevent programme, the report found.

The review criticised police staff on Prevent who failed to register the school’s information as intelligence or share it with other agencies.

Report authors were unable to contact the police employee, who had left the force, to find out whether the information was discussed further or why it was not considered to be relevant intelligence.

Mr Wallace said: “I would question whether critics of Prevent, who claim the Duty is heavy handed, would rather revert to a patchy system whereby warning signs were missed, departments were not joined-up, and as a result two young men were able to disappear from the radar only to end up dead in a war zone thousands of miles away.

“As a father of three, I would rather teachers erred on the side of caution when it comes to protecting the well being of children in their schools.”

However community concerns over the programme remain.

During the review process, community leaders in Brighton and Hove raised similar concerns expressed elsewhere in the country about the Prevent programme.

They spoke of their frustration with the methods used which are not considered to be working, they said it was perceived as a tool to “spy” on Muslims and was not to be trusted.

Particular concerns were raised about the policy of arresting all those who return from Syria which they said deterred any returning young people from being able to admit they had made a mistake and could put them at even greater risk.

To read Mr Wallace’s full piece for The Argus, turn to page 11.