Issue - items at meetings - Prevent - New Statutory Duty

Report of the Director of Public Health (copy attached)

23.1    The Committee considered a report of the Director of Public Health detailing the new general statutory “Prevent Duty” for the local authority and other statutory partners created by the Counter Terrorism and Security Act 2015 which had come into force on 1 July 2015. The report sought to identify implications for the council’s work, risk management and actions needed to achieve compliance.

23.2    The report set out the strategy in the context of the Action Plan and the work of the Community Safety Partnership. The key priorities and actions required in order to achieve compliance were set out as were the priorities and performance indicators which were also reflected within the corporate plan.

23.3    The Chair, Councillor Daniel explained that notification had been received immediately prior to the meeting of proposed amendments/additional recommendations by the Green Group, seeking confirmation that the Members had had the opportunity to give them proper consideration. Councillor Horan sought confirmation that the work being undertaken would focus on all vulnerable groups, and would therefore have a broader focus than those currently highlighted in the media. The Chair was in agreement this was very important and it was confirmed that this was the approach used and that the Prevent Strategy addresses all forms of terrorism..

23.4    The following amendment was put by Councillor Littman on behalf of the Green Group and seconded by Councillor Gibson. It was proposed that four new recommendations, 2.5, 2.6, 2.7 and 2.8 be added and renumbered accordingly:

2.5 “The NCE is concerned to note the requirement to “create credible voices and community spokespeople.” This shows a total lack of respect for existing community spokespeople; and the rights of communities to organise their own representation. The requirement to “sustain trust and confidence” in communities may be impossible to achieve, if we do not show trust and confidence in those communities ourselves. Imposing spokespeople on communities shows neither trust nor confidence.

            2.6 The NCE is concerned to note the focus on acts of non-violent extremism; which would not be in themselves otherwise illegal. This risks the suppression of the right of freedom of speech.

            2.7 The NCE is concerned to note that the “us and them” nature of this extension of the Prevent agenda may foster feelings of “otherness” among sections of our community. It is well recognised that a feeling of “otherness” acts to significantly increase the danger of radicalisation.”

            2.8 The NCE is concerned to note that, as it stands, overall, this policy runs a serious risk of being counterproductive; driving criticism underground; fostering mistrust and lack of confidence in local and national authorities; and potentially increasing the susceptibility of some sections of the community to the radicalisation, which it is intended to counteract.”

23.5    The Prevent Coordinator, Nahida Shaikh explained that there it was intended to build on the cross cutting work carried out to date, utilising the strong community networks that already existed facilitating support to communities in having a voice. Ultimately, to have effective mechanisms in place around supporting young people, both these were also identified needs by communities. The Prevent Coordinator suggested that it would be more appropriate to replace reference to “creating” by the word “supporting”, as more accurately reflecting what was intended as referred to  in 3.14 (iii) in the report. The Prevent Coordinator also amplified on the work that had been undertaken to date, the consultation and inclusion which had been taken place and detailed how that would be carried forward in concert with communities.

23.6    Councillor Littman responded stating that on the basis of the further explanation given and details of the rationale for it, he was willing to remove paragraph 2.5 of the Green Group amendment, he did however wish for points 2.6 – 2.8 inclusive to remain in place as worded and for them to be re-numbered accordingly. Whilst accepting all that had been said, he was firmly of the view that it was very important for the approach adopted to be absolutely clear and unequivocal and was not counter productive. Councillor Littman acknowledged the work carried out over the last three years or so as a result of the strong links across communities. He was anxious that the duty created, could undermine what had been achieved, there was a danger that it could do “more harm than good”.

23.7    Councillor Gibson concurred with the concerns expressed by Councillor Littman reiterating his support for the Green Group proposed amendments/additions which he hoped would be supported by the Committee.

23.8    Councillor Hill responded in respect of the proposed amendments stating that whilst supporting the proposed change of wording which would result in the removal of paragraph 2.5 she had concerns regarding the other suggested amendments and was unable to support them. Councillor Hill stated that in some instances non violent action was illegal, incitement to racism for example, it was necessary to balance the need to support and the need to act. In Councillor Hill’s view 2.7 was an expression of opinion, she would be uncomfortable with expressing support for the policy whilst at the same time seeking additional assurances that it would work, that appeared contradictory.

23.9    Councillor Littman stated that whilst accepting in some instances non-violent action could be illegal, he firmly of the view that it was important not to act in a way which could result in alienation.

23.10  Councillor Simson concurred with all that had been said by Councillor Hill, considering that the existing policy and recommendations were not counter productive and did not need to be added too.

23.11  The proposed Green Group amendments were then formally voted on excluding proposed paragraph 2.5 which it was agreed would be deleted. The amendments were lost on a vote of two for and eight against by the ten members present at the meeting.

23.12  The Chair then put the substantive recommendations set out in the report to the vote. All Members present were in agreement that the reference to “create credible voices” should be replaced by “support credible voices”. On a vote of eight to two by the ten members present at the meeting the recommendations set out below were agreed.

23.13  RESOLVED – (1) That the Committee notes the requirements of the Prevent Duty and the resource implications with respect to staff training and extending safeguarding and the Prevent Duty arrangements for out-of-school educational and childcare settings;

            (2) The Committee note that a “Prevent Action Plan” responding to risks and priorities setting out the work programme and performance framework will be taken to the Prevent Board in its October meeting;

            (3) The Committee notes the resource implications for Prevent projects; and

            (4) The Committee note the requirement for an overall communication plan; and

            RESOLVED TO RECOMMEND - That the report be referred to Full Council for noting and a copy is sent to all Committee Chairs.