Agenda item

(To receive a report by Nicole Hilton, Chief Community Engagement Officer, which provides an update on Prevent activity in Lincolnshire during 2016/17, as a result of changes to the Counter-Terrorism Bill 2014 and the introduction of the Government Counter-Extremism Strategy 2015 and the new responsibilities placed upon Local Authorities.

NOTE: Discussion of this report may result in the requirement for the disclosure of confidential information ("Confidential" information refers to information provided to the Council by a government department on terms which forbid the disclosure of that information to the public or information the disclosure of which to the public is prohibited by or under any enactment or by the order of a court).  Where the requirement for such disclosure is identified no further discussion will take place on the item.  When discussion that does not require reference to confidential information is complete, the press and public will be excluded from the meeting before the remaining identified items are discussed)

Consideration was given to a report which provided the Committee with an update on Prevent activity in Lincolnshire during 2016/17 as a result of changes to the Counter-Terrorism Bill 2014 and the introduction of the Government Counter-Extremism Strategy 2015 and the new responsibilities placed upon Local Authorities.

Members were advised that the focus of the Prevent work was moving more towards targeting the threat from extreme right wing groups.  Officers were working with schools, colleges and community groups to raise awareness of the Prevent legislation.  However, it was noted that Lincolnshire remained a low risk area.

The Committee received a presentation from Paul Drury, the Prevent Officer, which provided further information in relation to the following areas:

·         Principles of the Prevent Duty Guidance

·         Current International Threat

·         Crown Prosecution Service (CPS)

·         Threat: Far Right Extremism

·         New wave of Radicalisation

·         Extremist Narratives

·         Channel

Prior to the start of the debate on this report, members were advised that discussion of this report may result in the requirement for the disclosure of confidential information ("confidential" information refers to information provided to the Council by a government department on terms which forbid the disclosure of that information to the public or information of which to the public is prohibited by or under any enactment or by the order of a court.) and where the requirement for such a disclosure was identified, no further discussion would take place on the item. When discussion that did not require reference to confidential information was complete, the press and public would be excluded from the meeting before the remaining identified items would be discussed.

Members were provided with the opportunity to ask questions to the officers present in relation to the information contained within the report and some of the points raised during discussion included the following:

·         It was noted that participation in the Channel programme was voluntary and a lot of people did respond to it.  Officers were only aware of one person in 7 years who had turned it down.

·         The concerns regarding the activities carried out by some of the right wing groups, such as operating foodbanks, and providing accommodation for homeless veterans, was around the narrative that accompanied them which was toxic.

·         It was commented that a lot of the problems around this issue were related to the media as it gave 'free advertising' to these groups when they carried out attacks, as well as giving people ideas about how to do things in future.  It was noted, that for the first time in history, when events are unfolding, that information was able to be manipulated by social media.

·         Social media companies acknowledged that use of these platforms was an issue in tackling these activities, but on a daily basis there were 700,000 attempts to spread malicious information and radicalisation.  Members were advised that when one site was shut down, there were another 20 ready to replace it.  It was noted that when one was taken down, it created a void, and there was a need to find an alternative which could fill it.

·         It was noted that this was an ongoing battle for social media platforms, as no matter how quickly things were taken down, new ones would appear.

·         It was suggested that the Channel and Prevent programmes should be seen as safeguarding activities, as people did not always feel that they had the right to challenge religious beliefs in the same way.  This needed to be approached in the same way as safeguarding.

·         One member commented that when they were young they were able to talk very openly, but now it felt like people could not express their views as freely without being accused of intolerance.

·         There was a need for an environment where people could speak freely without being judged, as the right to freedom of speech had been hard won and should be protected.  However, there was also a need for balance and for people to be able to challenge extremist ideas.  It was noted that in some countries the criminalisation of some views had led to movement's being pushed underground and attacks on specific groups had increased.

·         It was queried how the message about the Prevent and Channel work was going to be communicated, and it was suggested that a councillor development session could be held on this subject.  It was commented that councillors could be key to this as they would know their communities better than officers could.  This suggestion was supported by the Executive Councillor for Community Safety and People Management.

·         The difference between the far right and extreme right was clarified (although it was noted that there was a difference of opinion in the academic world regarding defining the two groups) in that the far right tended to be a political movement, with a focus on housing and rights for workers etc., whereas the extreme right had a much more radicalised ideology based on race.

·         It was queried to what extent this activity was cyclical and whether it fed off social factors.  It was also queried whether the extremist Islamic groups and the extreme right groups were feeding off each other.  It was acknowledged that there was a commonality with the past, but the biggest difference now that the world had never experienced before was the impact of social media and how people could communicate ideas instantly to vast numbers of people across the world.

·         There was a need to recognise whether a person was just disenfranchised or if they had bought into a belief system.

·         It was noted that running the support groups for veterans etc. required funding and it was queried how those being operated by extreme right groups were recognised.  Members were advised that the Police were aware of groups like National Action and the individuals associated with them, and were able to shut down activities when necessary.  Although it was important to remembers there was a difference between illegal activities and unappealing behaviour.

·         A vast amount of intelligence came from communities.  When something did not look right, feel right or sound right, there was a need for people to know who to report it to.

·         It was suggested whether something similar to Signs of Safety which was used in schools for identifying safeguarding issues could be developed to recognise problems.

·         It was commented that it was amazing how one personality could have an influence on a young person.

·         It was noted that there was a psychological aspect to this as people were pack animals who wanted to be surrounded by people who were the same as them, but society had evolved to a place where differences were to be explored not feared.  If people were comfortable in where they were in life they were unlikely to get caught up in propaganda.  However, there was now a situation where the generation below were less well off than older generation.

·         It was noted that a Hate Crime survey had been launched by the Community Safety partnership as there were very low reporting rates for hate crime, and it was hoped that this survey would help the community to understand the picture better.

·         In terms of funding for local authorities for taking on the new responsibilities for Prevent activities, it was noted that the Home Office had made a £40million budget available to authorities, and it was expected that those with the greatest perceived risk would receive the most resource.  The money would be split between 9 regions, and Lincolnshire was part of the east midlands Region, and colleagues from other authorities in this region were supportive of Lincolnshire's concerns about funding and have assured the authority that the county would receive its fair share and have pledged to ensure that all authorities would have a full-time Prevent Officer and the appropriate administrative support.

As a question had been asked which required the disclosure of confidential information, the Chairman confirmed that there were no members of the press and public in the room and the Committee moved into confidential session.

RESOLVED

1.    That the comments made in relation to the report be noted.

2.    That a Councillor Development session be held in relation to the work of the Prevent and Channel programme.