Agenda and minutes

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Sally Taylor and Omid Miri.

If a Councillor has a disclosable pecuniary interest in a particular item, whether or not it is entered in the Authority’s register of interests, or any other significant interest which they consider should be declared in the public interest, they should declare the existence and, unless it is a sensitive interest as defined in the Member Code of Conduct, the nature of the interest at the commencement of the consideration of that item or as soon as it becomes apparent.

At meetings where members of the public are allowed to be in attendance and speak, any Councillor with a disclosable pecuniary interest or other significant interest may also make representations, give evidence or answer questions about the matter. The Councillor must then withdraw immediately from the meeting before the matter is discussed and any vote taken.

Where Members of the public are not allowed to be in attendance and speak, then the Councillor with a disclosable pecuniary interest should withdraw from the meeting whilst the matter is under consideration. Councillors who have declared other significant interests should also withdraw from the meeting if they consider their continued participation in the matter would not be reasonable in the circumstances and may give rise to a perception of a conflict of interest.

Councillors are not obliged to withdraw from the meeting where a dispensation to that effect has been obtained from the Standards Committee.

There were no declarations of interest.

To approve the minutes of the previous meeting as an accurate record and note any outstanding actions.

The minutes of the meeting held on 7 February 2024 were agreed as an accurate record.

This report provides PAC with an update on the work of the Prevent Team between 01 April 2022 and 29 February 2024.

Neil Thurlow (Assistant Director of Community Safety, Resilience and CCTV) briefed members that the Prevent Team worked across both the London Borough of Hammersmithand Fulham (LBHF) and the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea (RBKC) as one area. Since its inception in 2011, the Prevent Team had built up trust and confidence with the local communities.  The report had set out the current threat and risk of LBHF based on the counter-terrorism local profile including those associated with the Gaza War.  Although the Prevent Team had faced Home Office’s funding cuts, both LBHF and RBKC had agreed to jointly fund the Prevent service as it was the Local Authority’s responsibility in discharging the statutory Prevent Duty.  While the Team had engaged in sensitive and confidential matters, it had managed and mitigated the risks well through both Prevent Advisory Group (PAG) and Faith Forum.

Aysha Esakji (Prevent Coordinator) highlighted the lasting and trusting relationship with the community partners built over the last decade.  When incidents like the Gaza War happened, some of the partners had approached the Prevent Team before any emerging issues were escalated or hijacked by harmful influences. 

The Chair was concerned about the Home Office’s criteria in assessing the risks across the London boroughs given that LBHF had historically seen significant Daesh extremist activity (page 20).  Aysha Esakji advised that in undertaking assessment, the Home Office had a prioritisation process that would assess the threat and risk of each area and list them on a lead table. It had obtained data from various sources and assessed LBHF and RBKC separately. As such, the overall risk for the area was listed towards the bottom of the lead table.  

On the Chair’s enquiry about the seven London boroughs that would continue to receive fundings, Aysha Esakji noted that from April 2024, the Home Office had cut the Prevent funding from some of the London boroughs covering 11 areas.  The remaining boroughs would also cease to receive funding from April 2025 except seven boroughs which were deemed to have the highest threat and risk currently. They were Westminster, Tower Hamlet, Enfield, Brent, Haringey, Redbridge and Newham. She added that the Home Office would review the situation in two years’ time to determine which boroughs had higher threat and risk for future fundings.

The Chair enquired whether there were any changes to the Prevent service after it was funded by the local authorities.  Aysha Esakji remarked that the work of Prevent service was guided by the counter-terrorism local profile drawn up by the Police every 18 months. The profile highlighted the current threat and risk locally and in West London. On funding matched by the Government, Neil Thurlow said that the Prevent service was fully funded by the Home Office for over a decade. However, the service had seen significant cuts over this time concluding in April 2023, when service funding was reduced by 50% and notice was given to the Council that funding would completely cease from the end  ...  view the full minutes text for item 4.

To note the following dates of future meetings:

·       24 Jul 2024

·       20 Nov 2024

·       4 Feb 2025

·       30 Apr 2025

The Committee noted the following dates of future meetings:

· 24 Jul 2024

· 20 Nov 2024

· 4 Feb 2025

· 30 Apr 2025

Work Programmes:

·       Update on the CCTV Network

·       Review of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act

·       Law Enforcement Team Update

·       Hate Crime Strategy

·       Violence against women and girls

·       Anti-social behaviour