For the committee to consider and review the response to Prevent, which is a legal responsibility for public bodies. This report advises of Herefordshire Council’s response alongside other key agencies whose responsibility it is to identify and support vulnerable individuals at risk of radicalisation, challenging extremist ideology and disengaging people from terrorist activity.

The report was taken as read. The Service Manager Early Help and Prevention, Head of Resilient Communities and Team Manager of the Safe Team were present to respond to questions from the committee.

1. Question: Were there any unmet criteria in the Home Office Prevent assurance letter and was there an action plan to address any unmet criteria?
   Response: All criteria had been met, with one area rated “exceeding.” The Prevent Board, risk assessment, referral process, and training programme were all active and regularly updated.

2. Question: Why was Prevent moved from Children’s Services to Community Wellbeing?
   Response: The change aligned Prevent with community safety and emergency planning, ensuring stronger cross-directorate collaboration while maintaining close ties with Children’s Services.

3. Question: What happened to the 90% of Prevent referrals nationally that had been rejected?
   Respond: Many involved violence-fixated individuals without ideology. Locally, alternative pathways such as Early Help, Get Safe, and safeguarding supported these individuals. The Anderson Review recommended expanding the Channel remit.

4. Question: Were Prevent referrals processed within the required time frames?
   Response: Timelines were managed by the police, and all indicators showed targets had been being met. The council meets its own information-sharing deadlines.

5. Question: What were the main radicalisation trends in Herefordshire?
   Response: Local patterns mirrored national ones, particularly right-wing and mixed-ideology extremism; no unique local trends were identified.

6. Question: How were online risks (such as gaming, social media) being addressed?
   Response: Through school training, parent sessions, and Prevent awareness campaigns. Year 5–6 pupils received workshops; staff, parents, and carers got regular updates. All councillors would receive materials to promote school participation.

7. Question: How were Gypsy, Roma, Traveller (GRT) or non-school children reached?
   Response: These children were reached through health visitors, family practitioners, and youth services. Plans were in place to extend tailored Prevent materials and support.

8. Question: What was the difference between Get Safe and Catch22?
   Response: Get Safe managed early help to high-risk safeguarding cases. Catch22 provided lower-level early interventions and school-based education. Both coordinated through joint screening meetings.

9. Question: How were schools and community venues ensuring safety?
   Response: Under Martyn’s Law, venues with 200+ attendees must assess and plan for risks. The Council promoted awareness but did not conduct risk assessments. Guidance would be shared more widely through parish councils and web pages.

10. Question: How did Prevent avoid stigmatizing communities?
    Response: Prevent was voluntary and confidential. If consent was refused, risk was managed through police-led partnerships without public identification.

11. Question: How were children and families supported to build resilience?
    Response: Through school curriculum work, family engagement, and child-friendly Prevent materials co-designed by pupils. Ongoing workshops supported parents and carers.

12. Question: Were national counterterrorism lessons applied locally?
    Response: Yes. counter terrorism police lead Pursue; Herefordshire received Counter Terrorism Local Profile (CTLP) updates to inform the local action plan.

13. Question: Were children’s perspectives included in emergency or civil contingency planning?
    Response: The Local Resilience Forum and Protect & Prepare Board considered this. Future exercises would test safety and recovery, including child-specific guidance like ‘Run, Hide, Tell’.

At the conclusion of the debate the committee discussed and agreed the following recommendations.

Recommendations:

1. The Director of Children’s Services, through the all-member briefing, to brief elected members on Pursue, Prevent, Protect, Prepare, and on elected members' duties as corporate parents with regard to Prevent.
2. The Protect and Prepare Board to consider how the specific perspectives and experiences of children and young people can be built into the design and delivery of emergency/civil contingencies exercises.