Agenda item

Report of the Director of Public Protection and Licensing

6.1      The item was introduced by Mark Chalmers, Prevent Programme Manager.  He explained that Prevent was one strand of the Government’s national counter-terrorism strategy.  It encouraged individuals and communities to challenge extremism.  Prevent work was prioritised according to the risks in a specific area.  This meant that the work delivered in Westminster may be different to the rest of London or the UK.  Mr Chalmers said that in respect of the resident population the focus was on Islamic extremism and the far right.  However, there were a wide range of extremists who might use Westminster as a platform for protests or to promote their message.

6.2         Mr Chalmers advised that one of the core principles of the Programme was that it had to be responsive to local need.  It did focus on stopping people from becoming terrorists or supporting terrorism.  However, there was wider work involved as the vulnerabilities that lead people to extremism were similar to those that lead people to commit crime, gangs or financial or sexual exploitation.  Mr Chalmers referred to the Prevent parenting programme which is a thirteen week session and took into account the wider work.  Nine of the parenting programmes had been commissioned in 2016 and had been provided to 122 parents.  This year it was intended to provide eleven.  They were open to mothers and fathers but typically it was the mothers who had attended.  A strategy was being developed to encourage more fathers to attend, with possible options being a shorter programme, potentially delivered in a different way or held at a different time of day or day of the week.

6.3      Mr Chalmers stated that Prevent training also took place in educational institutions from Early Years to universities.  This included training to staff and policy advice.  Mr Chalmers provided information on safeguarding vulnerable individuals which is a multi-agency approach.  Training had been given to Council department staff, contractors and external partners.

6.4      The Committee asked a number of questions on this topic, including the following:

·           Was there adequate resourcing to deliver the Prevent Programme?  Mr Chalmers replied that for most of the last three and a half years he had been involved with the Programme there had only been two staff in place.  However, additional money had now been secured and there were now five people on the team.  He added that at the moment it was felt that there were adequate resources to deliver the Programme.

·           Concerns had been expressed about the Prevent Programme in other parts of the country.  Had concerns been expressed locally about the Programme?  Mr Chalmers replied that a few unions were opposed to the Programme nationally as were some community lobby groups.  There had not been significant opposition locally.  He advised that the Westminster team had taken the approach that it was necessary to be open and transparent about what they were trying to achieve.  The strategy was to support and safeguard some of the borough’s most vulnerable communities and individuals.  It was necessary for communities to have trust in the Westminster team.

·           In the event of a terrorist incident in the borough, was there a way of letting schools know?  Ms Sutton responded that there had been some learning from terrorist incidents such as Westminster Bridge.  Communication approaches were being made more robust.  This was from the Council’s Communications team and also the humanitarian assistance response.  A lot of work had been undertaken with the schools themselves, including in relation to future and forward planning.

·           Was the team able to get the message across to the vulnerable individuals who may be harder to reach?  Mr Chalmers replied that it was the case that these individuals were often the hardest to reach.  There was no one solution to solve this.  Contacts were established in a number of different ways.  These included that some of the primary schools had parents’ groups.  There was also word of mouth which would lead to more parents attending the parenting programme as the weeks progressed.  There was engagement with a variety of community groups.

·           Paragraph 3.6.4 referred to there being a series of pages on the Council website regarding the Prevent Programme.  More information was requested on this, including the level of interest and number of hits the website had received.  It was agreed that the Council’s IT and Communications departments would be contacted to find out if they were aware of the number of hits on the website.  The link to the Prevent Programme pages on the website would be included with the minutes of the meeting.  The link is https://www.westminster.gov.uk/prevent

·           Could anything be done to encourage a longer term funding strategy to fund the Prevent strategies?  Mr Chalmers referred to Home Office funding being year on year.  The point when the team might be notified of funding, including salaries, could be late in the financial year.  In Westminster there was a willingness to underwrite some of the funding.  Longer term funding would assist the Council to work with communities over the required time period.  The Committee considered that there should be longer term funding for the Prevent Programme.

·           Was the Prevent team liaising with faith groups?  Mr Chalmers replied that the team did liaise with the faith groups, including Regents Park Mosque and some of the larger faith institutions.  They were very supportive of the Programme and regularly hosted events.  There were potentially a number of smaller faith institutions the team needed to build stronger relationships with.  Mr Chalmers also made the point that there needed to be a focus on where vulnerable people were targeted by extremists outside of faith institutions, such as gyms or other unsupervised settings.

6.5      ACTION: The following action arose:

·           That information be supplied to the Committee on the relevant link to the Prevent pages on the Council website and the number of hits received.

6.6       RESOLVED: That (i) the Committee recommends that the Council lobbies the Home Office for a four year funding cycle for the Prevent Programme; and

            That (ii) the contents of the report be noted.