Transcript

Thank you, everyone. Welcome to tonight's meeting of the social inclusion and community safety policy and accountability committee. My name is Councillor COSU. And I'm the chair of the committee. Before we start, just a few housekeeping points, the meeting is being live streamed to the Council's YouTube channel. And by participating, you are concerning to being recorded. If the fire alarm sounds either continuously or intermittently, I will adjourn the meeting. And please leave the meeting in an orderly fashion by the staff I exit, which is behind me to my right. And officers will directly to the assembly point. There is tea, coffee and biscuits available in the staff kitchen, extra reception and toilets on my left hand side. And if officers can please introduce themselves before speaking for the first time and make sure your microphone is turned on or I need you to speak. Apologies for absence. We have an apology for absence from Councillor Sallitailer. Councillor Miriam is also unable to attend. Declarations of interest. Are there any declarations of interest? No. And number three minutes. Do members agree the minutes of the previous meeting held on the 7th of February 2024 as an accurate record? Thank you very much. Those are agreed. Number four is an update report from the prevent team. We have Asha Asajjid who is a prevent lead to talk to us and Neil Thurlough, Assistant Director of Community Safety, Resilience and CCTV, introducing the report. Matthew Hooper, Director of Public Protection also attending and of course, Councillor Harvey, a cabinet member for social inclusion and community safety. Always feel free to come in. We would like to begin. Thank you for asking us to bring this report. So Aisha and her team deliver the prevent service in the borough. So I think the report sets out quite clearly what the team's focus is, what the team's room is. And within the report, what we try to explain to everyone is how do we discharge the prevent duty, which is the responsibility of the local authority and our partners. How do we understand the risk? And we spoke in the report around the Council terrorism local profile, which is a document which sets out the current threats and risks that take place or that are seen in Hammsworth and Fulham. How and why the team addressed the emerging issues. The report talks quite a bit around the Gaza war. And the reason that we've been engaged in that is because of the trust and confidence that the prevent team have with our communities as well as also talking about what we've been delivering. So whilst I won't necessarily go into detail of what the report is because obviously I know that the panel will have read that if I may just kind of highlight a few things. So the preventing is over a decade in existence. And it's a shared service with ourselves and RBKC. And that's borne by the Home Office identifying regions and areas where areas of profile would be created. Over the decade or more that we've been in existence, the team has gone through various changes and has faced various cuts and is now solely funded by both local authorities. That has meant that we've had to evolve and develop the way in which we did over service on the backdrop of national and international conflicts that haven't gone away. The reason that we are now solely funding this service ourselves is that the way in which the Home Office calculate risk, themes that the boroughs are not justified to receive government funding. And even though we don't agree with that position and working with Councilor Harvey, we've lobbied against this for at least two to three years of the cuts have been coming through. We felt we have a duty and responsibility to make sure that we maintain the service as it is. The way that we go about doing this work has seen numerous cases, high profile cases managed, and I'd ask the panel to be conscious that the nature of prevent and the sensitivities around the cases mean that we can't talk about individual cases and a lot of what the team do is confidential. However, we have managed risk and mitigated risk by workers of very vulnerable and complex people. The work of the team is also so well embedded that our communities come to us. So Aisha and her team will take phone calls day and night, and when the guards are conflicts started, when the Ukraine invasion started, they are the ones that were being called by the mosques, by the synagogues asking for help, asking for support, and they manage a very, very strong print and advisory group and the faith forum which bring all of us together. So the report kind of sets out the detail of what the team has been doing for the last 12 months, but the team has been existing a lot longer than that. I think we should be very proud of the prevents service that we offer here. Very proud of the trust and confidence that our communities have prevent can be and is seen as seen as the invasion of people's privacy sometimes because of the nature of what it's trying to do. But it's through the work of Aisha, IS, Simone and Marilyn that they've got that confidence, and I suppose if it's okay, I welcome Aisha just to kind of touch on you a couple of bits that she wishes to before we go over to questions as the prevent manager. Aisha's anything you'd like to say? No, I just wanted to say reiterate what Neil said. Over 10 years, we've built a lasting and trusting relationship with our community partners for more different faiths. And when things like the Gaza war happens, it's good to see that the trust and confidence has worked and the people do come to us. We try and address issues before they actually become or they escalate it. And I think that's one of the things that sort of we wanted to highlight, but we're able to have communities come to us and say that these sentiments in the communities, these tensions in the communities so that we can have a look, work with our communities to try and address them before they escalate or before they're hijacked by harmful influences. Thank you. Thank you for this. And thank you for the report submitted in advance. Are there any questions from the members? I have some questions myself. Sure, then in that case, I just wanted to ask you that you mentioned here in the report that there are just seven London borrowers that will continue to receive home office funding. Could you tell us which one of these and how that is assessed on what grounds? Yes, so up until this year, up until the first of April, the home office had a prioritization process by which they would assess the threatened risk in each borough and then they'd have like a only table. From this year, there are about 11 areas with which lost funding from the first of April, including past. And next year, April 2025, the remaining boroughs, except for the seven that you mentioned, they will also lose their funding. So from the top of my mind, the seven areas are Westminster, Enfield, Barnet, Tower Hamlets, and I will... No, not wasn't biased. Just give me... I'll just have a look. But they're deemed to have the highest threat and risk currently, so they will be continued to receive funding from the home office. But they will also be... I think it's a two-yearly process. They will be also reviewed and those seven areas can change and another seven can come in. Okay, thank you. Because you're saying the report from Parker 49 that HNF has historically seen significant, for example, Daesh extremist activity. Is there, therefore, an assessment that while this is a case historically, it's no longer the case and the threat is lower at the moment. So how we were originally assessed is RBKC and Humsman Fulham as the home office said we were regarded as one area, so one preventing what over both areas. However, when the home office do these assessments, they take various data from various sources. And when they take that data, RBKC's data is separate from HNF, so they don't see it as a whole entity. So therefore, the risk we get pushed down at the bottom because we're not seen as one complete entity. So that's where we're at a bit of a disadvantage. I see. And now that we'll be finding the service ourselves or with RBKC, are we expecting any changes, not necessarily reduction or uptake, but any significant changes as to the outlook, or whatever, what the service entails? No, not particularly. I think we want to look at what the current threats and risks are, and we want to try and address those. So the police create a local counterterrorism local profile every 18 months, and they highlight, according to them, what are the current threats and risks locally, West London-wise? And so we will be guided by that document. And we'll be matching the funding that we will be getting from the government, or is it not to the same? So the government funding is zero. Yeah, I mean, but we weren't getting from the government. Oh, so if you go back in a number of years, the government was 100% funding it. Last year, it was 50%. That's what I've noticed. So we've seen cuts, 15%, 10% here and there. And what happens is, is that the government will write to you, and usually in December and say, next year's offer of money is this much. In December 22, they wrote and said that we're going to reduce by 50% and put them notice that in March 31st, 2023, we cut all funding, and that then requires us to do transitional work to plan for growth on the local authorities to secure the funding, and to make sure that we understood the risks and explored the options with it. So yeah, it's been a gradual decline over over a number of years. Okay, thank you. Another issue, I mean, you mentioned about assessment of the threats. And one thing I think the reports would keep getting public news is that, and it's also in the report that extreme far-right terrorism is on the ascendancy and is now perhaps the biggest threat to British communities. Is prevent equipped to deal with this, or is it more around faith-based terrorism, for example, because a lot of it, even in the report, seems to be around that. No, prevent deals with them far-right extremism, as well as Daesh and fight extremism. So it comes under our prevent scope. Yeah, just to add to that, what I'd say is that people in the far-right use what's occurring the world or locally to justify their actions. So what we've seen during the guards of war is, unfortunately, that has essentially caused divide among Muslim and Jewish communities, and those that the far-right will use that target. I think what we're very fortunate here, is that as faith leaders, the faith form came together, and they wrote to the Home Office and to the Home Secretary to raise their concerns about how they felt the war was playing out, and they stand together, stand united. But unfortunately, those that have got far-right intentions do use these opportunities to try and engage with more people than they do, if you'd normally. Anyhow, sir, of course, yeah. Just to understand the link, but with the far-right and the Gaza war is what, that the far-right are anti-Gaza, or how does that, how does the right fit in with that? I'm sorry. Yeah, so obviously we've seen a lot of protests in central London, and there was a protest, I think it was the back intervention weapon start this year where the far-right were around the same time, and they were having their protests. It's that sort of thing where they'll use that to bring people together to use one person's conflict to maximise their own aims. Thank you. And can I just ask, I mean, it's in the report the repeated attacks on the Palestinian mission, and how the person arrested was from healing. How does it work when someone is not from our borough? It is that our area, we're having some fun in our BKC. Do you work with the other boroughs and other authorities? Is that an exchange of information, as was the case here? Yes, so in terms of the prevent world, we have a London Prevent Network, so all the prevent coordinators we meet once a month, and we share information, we see what the common concerns are, and then we have sort of a West London cohort as well, so although West London prevent coordinators will come together to see if there are any issues in their borough which are similar to the ones, and so accordingly with the Palestinian mission attacks, the same perpetrator had attacked Palestinian restaurants and Palestinian businesses in healing, and so with that information, you know, we shared the information and we managed to, or we shared it with the police and they managed to apprehend. Thank you, and just a final question for me. I see it at the scorecard about how we're delivering prevent locally, that engagement with communities and society groups, civil society groups, seems to be the one where we receive the highest mark and the one that stands out if you could just talk to us a bit more about, especially the Prevent Advisory Group and, you know, its successes and how it works. So we set up the Prevent Advisory Group in December 2011, and we've met every month since then, and it was more about working with our communities to understand what the threats and risks were locally, because they were best placed to tell us, you know, what's happening in the community, where they think the threats and risks are, and for us to work together to try and create and co-produce projects strategies so that we can work with them. We didn't want to go into the communities and say, you know, We're preventing this is what you need to do to keep your communities safe. They know their community is better, so it was about how can we help you, because at the time, Ham Smith and Fulham had a large number of young people that traveled out to the conflict zones, so we wanted to say to the communities, We know that this is happening. How do we prevent another individual from going out? What do you think is needed? And so that's how the Prevent Advisory Group developed, so not only did they help us co-design projects, but they co-delivered them, including our faith groups, which hasn't really occurred in other areas where the faith groups have delivered on Prevent Projects, so that's how the Prevent Advisory Group is still going strong 12 years later, so we're very proud of that. We set up the Faith Forum as well about five, six years ago, and again, it's bringing together different faiths to try and understand common issues, try and raise some common concerns, and to share good practice around them, and I think the most important thing is we want to safeguard our residents here, and if there are people out there who may be concerned about somebody they can come to us and say, We're really worried about this, and sometimes all it needs is to help, you know, put some strategies, some early intervention in place for those individuals, give them the support they need to try and divert them away from, you know, a path of radicalization that they may be on, so we've got the Communities Trust, and we feel that, you know, we can help and support them. Thank you, so just to add to that, so I actually should have both, you know, had trumpet a little bit more, so I just been here for the duration of the Prevent Service, and has no belief in her work in the community, when that's through her work here, as well as other things, and I think if you go back through the journey, when Prevent came in, mosques wouldn't trust any officer going in saying, I'm here from the Prevent Service, and that was because, you know, it looked like all Prevent Work was focused on our Muslim communities, and through ISA and through ISA, it's that consistent, regular approach of going in, spending in time, I'm here in their concerns, responding to their concerns, and also helping with all the assets that the Council has that can support housing, talking about benefits, talking about employment training education, so that they see ISA and ISA, not just as the Prevent Team, not just the Council, but as a friend, a trusted colleague and a partner, and part of the Prevent Service, and the referrals which come in, which identify risk, predominantly will come from police and schools, and it's really hard, if not necessarily, if not nearly impossible, to get community groups and family members to make referrals about someone that they know that some concern, and with ISA and ISA and that, I'm sure this will never have happened, we've had a small number of referrals from mosques, but they've identified people of risk, and I think it's massively down to how they engage their longevity in the role, and that commitment that allows to do that, and the Prevent Advising Group, as much as the Faith Forum, are there one to give the voice of the group to ask ISA questions, but also to hold ISA to account, and there have been very good conversations at times around international policy and changes and stuff like that, but I was wanting to come in chairs, I think, ISA and to solve the role of herself and ISA in making sure the Prevent Advising Group functions as it does, and that's because I said she's been here throughout, and monthly meetings, as we know, is a huge commitment, and trying to get all those members together is a complex and challenging face, but one that we do very well. No, thank you, thank you for putting that on the record, and congratulations, and thank you very much Aisha for your work. Neil, you mentioned the part of it involves actually being held to account, how does that, is that a normal thing that the members of the participants will question decisions, or they will put you in a difficult spot, let's say? Yes, they will, I mean, like Neil said, if there's policy changes at the national level, and they're a bit concerned about how the policy will impact the community, then they will ask, and you know, what we've done in the past is we've held events called community question times, where we get home office officials who have agreed on a policy change, and will bring the community together so they can directly ask each other the questions, because there's always a perception that they don't understand what we're doing, and we, they don't want to listen to us, we bring the two parties together, and it's worked really well because, you know, the home office will understand the impact that their policy may be having on the communities, and the communities will actually understand why the government needs to change some of the policy, so those events work really well, and it's made each side understand the other a little bit better, so yeah, where we've had those difficult conversations, we try and bring the decision-makers and the community together so that it can have those frank and honest discussions together. Thank you, yes, of course, Councillor Dinsville. Thanks very much, congratulations, well Echo, sounds like absolutely fantastic work. Two brief questions, one, you mentioned about referrals either from, say, faith leaders, if it's a faith-based extremism, or the police, art of curiosity, when it comes to far-right extremism, is that mainly police referrals, or do you get people who say, my mates, you know, watch out a lot of Tommy Robinson or whatever? A lot of our far-right referrals have come from schools as well, so schools is probably the largest source of referrals that we get, so a lot of them come through there. We have had a couple of youth groups who have said we have some concerns about, you know, young people attending our groups who have said certain things, so yeah, it could be a cost support. And would you mind just giving one or two anonymised sort of case studies as an example of an individual, how does it actually work in practice? I mean, you advise schools on policies, whatever, maybe on a macro level, but on a micro level, how does it work? If you've got an individual affair, how does the process work from around the world? So if a school is concerned about an individual, then we will get the details from the schools, we'll pass it on to our police colleagues, and then the police colleagues actually do an assessment. There's a framework by which they do this assessment, and then they will come back and say, actually, yes, we are concerned about this individual, and we have what we call the channel panel, where we have members from education, the health service in various council departments, the police, so we all sit around the table and we discuss this individual, and sometimes it might be that prevents not the best space to lead on this. So for example, we have a number of mental health individuals referred to have mental health conditions, and sometimes it's just that they've not taken their medication or that's been a relapse, and that's what's brought on something that they've said or something that they have expressed, and sometimes it's just bringing them back on to the medication, and that CT risk is gone. So it's, you know, sometimes it's just somebody's, you know, read something or heard something on social media, and they follow that person, and it's sometimes bringing them to a faith leader and having a one-to-one intervention to really understand what actually that's not what the book says, this is what the book says, and the person will then say, you know, so we've had various cases where, you know, one-to-one interventions has really worked. Thanks, sorry, I'm just two more brief questions. Do you have sort of prevent mentors? You have people who, you know, used to be going down the wrong path, that are sort of on the books as it were, and they have one-on-ones as well, and say, I used to read the same stuff you're doing. How does that work? Yeah, so the home office has a list of what we call intervention providers, so they've been, you know, scrutinized in their due diligence done, so there's a list, and, you know, they cover the far right and all types of extremism, so sometimes what we do is when we assess an individual, we then have a look at the list and see who's best matched, who's best placed to deal with this individual and who would be the best person. So, and a lot of them are those who themselves have been in those situations before, you know, they've been part of, you know, extremist groups or, you know, banned groups and, you know, they've come out of there and their best place actually to work with these young people and say, Look, I've been where you are, and, you know, it's not a good path, and it really does help. I'm sorry, just one last question. Just the line between the police's role and your role in the sense of, you know, obviously if somebody crosses the line and commits a crime, it might be a relatively minor crime as it were, and obviously you'd still play a role in preventing them getting worse and worse, or how does that work? Is there any leniency? Is there any conversation around, Look, you've done X and actually we can sort of throw the book at you, but if you commit to this program and de-radicalize, then maybe we can forget about X. So, there is a clear line. So, if somebody has committed an act of terrorism, then we as prevent cannot intervene or we cannot work with them. Because we're in the prevent space where no crime has been committed. However, in the last year, what the police have found is a lot of young people, and I've seen it from 10 to 15 year olds, they feature more not in the prevent space, but in the pursue space. So, they've bypassed prevent and they've gone into pursuit. But, you know, at the age of 10 and 11, how, you know, are we going to deal with these young people? So, there is now some research being done that even in those cases, prevent will still work with those individuals, like you say, to try and stop them from getting worse. Because, you know, 10, 11 year olds and we have a couple of those cases, you know, they're too young and we still need to give them support and still need to work with them and try and see what early interventions we can put in place. So, there is now this work being done between prevent and pursue. Genuinely not a loaded question, but do you think like the Scottish Government's hate law legislation would help with your sort of work with prevent or make it more difficult because obviously they've criminalised a lot of speech and so, once across that line, it's kind of game over. I mean, do you have any thoughts on that? I'm not, I'm really not trying to politicise you. There's no SNP counsellors, but I am just genuinely interested as to how that would play out. It's difficult to say to be honest. You will have some people who will be quite against, you know, what's being now banned and, you know, we've had a couple of groups that have been banned and people will pipe up and say, no, we support the ban. So, sometimes it can go one way to say, well, actually, you know, you were wrong in doing that and we still support that. So, you will get those. And there are others who will accept it and think, and I think sometimes it might work that, you know, people see a clear line to say, well, actually, we can't foster this line because if we do, then we'll be criminalised. So, you know, it can go both ways. I just wanted to pick up on something, Councillor Dinsmont asks, and your response to you about young people. I was wondering if any overlap there is with, I worked with the Gang's unit and youth violence prevention between prevents and other departments. I don't know, maybe Neil, you can also speak on that. Yeah, of course. Thank you. So, what's fantastic, I guess, is that first of all, the preventive, the Gang's team, serious violence duty, which is discharged by the community team, all sit under myself in the community unit. With the work that we've got going on, it's a very mature relationship. So, all officers are trained in rap training, which is explained in the briefing around what that is. And so, what will naturally happen is that at those conversations, which I should describe, where someone's excused, and it's actually, it's not a prevent issue, then the question is, well, who could help? And actually, if it's because they've been drawn into something, bless you, and the Gang's violence exploitation team would help, then we can refer across. Sumerling our education officer works very closely with our Gang's outreach officers, and I should work to very close with Gemma the Gang's exploitation unit manager. So, it is that kind of natural thing of, we're always looking at if we can't support, but they need support, who's best to do it. And with that kind of wide thing around violence, and the serious violence duty, and understanding why people have been drawn into violence, again, it's about looking at that person that person's needs. And if we think that they're being violent because they potentially have been exploited, not sexually, not around drugs, but around potentially third, then I've spoken about a far right, a far right rhetoric, then again, I should speak to Gemma the team and say, actually, we fell right over to us, and we'll have a conversation. So, it's very mature, I should have done that relationship, but because each team understands the risks, understands each other's lens around that risk, I would like to share that we get it right most of the time, and that young person and their family supporting the best way for their needs. So, I think it's an interesting question because, although on the face of its criminal gangs, may seem like a very different concept to groups of people that are allied around an issue of faith, actually, the ways in which organized groups seek to exploit and get new people involved into what they're doing are actually quite similar. And so, there is a readover from the prevents base to the gang space and understanding the ways in which people can be exploited and help and protect them from that, and crucially, helping to identify the early stages of that, which is what prevent is all about, and making sure that we put in place the right interventions to prevent them from getting involved in those groups to a point where they can't get out anymore. Just wanted to add, sorry, you asked me about the prevent process. So, when the police do, say, we've got a referral and we'd like, so I'll say, regarding lead Marilyn, she'll get the details of the individual, and what she does is she sends out the details and to all our departments of the gangs unit, housing, everybody to say, does anybody have any information on this individual, and then we can lay all that information and pass it back to the police. So, in that way, we're always connected with the different local authority departments. Now that the prevent program is funded locally, do you have more autonomy, therefore, in how you operate? I mean, when you were funded centrally, did you have to report back? Did they have a lot more control? Is it closer to the local community now, being funded locally, or how does that work? So, I think the question came up at the last committee on this, and while there was a degree of autonomy that will come with us funding it ourselves, we're still under the prevent duty, which is a statutory duty and set out in law, and will still be required because of that duty will be held against the 10 benchmarks that are included in the report. So, our success in delivering the program will be assessed against those 10 benchmarks, and that scrutiny will remain even though we're funding it now, because it's a statutory duty. Thank you, and can I just ask, General, I mean, when I was first hearing about prevent, and I appreciate it was perhaps the early years of it coming into existence, we seem to only be hearing the bad aspects of it, and there was a lot of lack of trust from the public or the communities it was working with or for. Have you found attitudes to have improved over the years? Is there more confidence on what is happening? How are you finding the reaction, I guess, to prevent both from other stakeholders, whether it's schools or whether it's from faith-based communities? So, I think I would say, yes, things have got better. I think I point back to the fact that the team is so established and been there so long. So, we are lucky in that respect. I think prevent can still be seen as a worrying thing to talk about, and if you do yourself as a prevent coordinator, barriers can go up, but I think people understand what the prevent teams do now and more, what that is that pre-criminal justice space, as I spoke about, is that early intervention support space, and I think, I know that when the teams go in, they talk about it in that way. We also do a lot more training and a lot more awareness raising, so that, you know, the school teachers, professionals, et cetera, gets to know what's going on, and with those PAG meetings, and other forums, we have those conversations. So, locally, we're very lucky that that trust encompasses there, that when we go in, we're going in because we've got a reason, and that we go in and we clear about what we've been in for. So, I think that's the case everywhere, but I think, here, we're very fortunate that we've got that trust in service. Okay, thank you. Any other questions? No, in that case, oh, Councilor, I'm happy. Yeah, I have more of a comment on this, really. As Matthew said, it is preventing statutory duties, so it's very disappointing that the government have cut funding. We have had incidents in a borough, we've got large venues, free football clubs, music venues, and theatres. So, we recognise the importance of keeping residents in a borough safe, as well as people that come to work here and visit here, and we continue, we all continue to fund, prevent, but we do hope that the government would actually fund it and review their decisions. So, it's very disappointing that they have cut that funding, but we'll continue to be committed to supporting our residents, our front team, and I share a highly regarded and they do fantastic work. So, the credit, thank you. Thank you. And just on that, a few times it's mentioned in the report that letters were sent, or explanations were sought, but none were received. Have you found that to be the case that we expect that things were improving, at least in the future, maybe we'll get someone's rights to know what is about funding or the future of the service? Yeah, so I think the home of it has been quite clear that the government position is not changing, and that the funding won't be coming back. I think we've worked our way through to, we'll actually accept that. When it comes to the letters, the faith form took a decision to write, as I said, to the prime instance of the home secretary, and I believe as things stand, that was sent before Christmas, we still haven't, they still haven't had the response back in recognition of those letters, and that came from the faith form themselves, and they disappointed around that. So, we keep lobbying, and Aisha speaks to colleagues in the home office on a pretty much weekly basis around the whole prevent agenda, and we will always ask about funds, but there's no indication that that will be changing anytime soon. Yep, Aisha. I just wanted to add that you asked about the seven areas, Ta Hamlet's, Newham, Redbridge, Haringay, Enfield, Brent, and Westminster. Okay, thank you. Thank you, and thank you, thank you all for coming and for your presentations, and again, thank you for everything you're doing with the Prevent Service, and congratulations on its successes, especially in the face of adversity and cuts. That brings us to an end of the reports. Last item, the date of the future meetings. Do members note the date of the future meetings, the next one being on the 24th of July? Thank you very much, and the possible topics to be considered the next meeting. We have a suggestion for a review of the regulation of investigatory powers act, would they be coming from your team? Neil, I would imagine. Thank you, and if we could also have an update on the law enforcement teams, and everything we're doing in the community safety team, I think perhaps maybe it would be good to see something on the CCTV network we have in the borough, because I think it's now been a while since we heard from that team, and I've had some communications with a doctor saying that something has changed, but it would be good to just have an update on any changes on that. Is there anything else, perhaps, Castle Harvey, that is on the horizon of your portfolio that we should be aware of? I would say we've got our hate crime strategy that we're hoping to publish soon, so that's quite a big area of work, and then we're doing some work around finance against women and girls as well. There's quite a lot in the pipeline, and also, I'd just like to mention that Matt will be leaving Amsterdam, Switzerland, so I think this would probably be your last PAC meeting, and thank you so much for your hard work. Sorry, I was not aware, Matthew, thank you so much for all your time and for your help, both to the committee and to me over time. It's been very, very welcome and very helpful, especially for us coming in as new councillors, so thank you very much, and good luck in anything you do. Any other suggestions for any possible topics? Sorry, was there any refugees strategy, I seem to remember? Yeah, that's a work in progress. Okay, of course, Neil, you wanted to say something? Yeah, so it was just to pose, maybe, for your forward plan considerations, really, and such behavior service, so we haven't spoken about and such behavior for a couple of years, so maybe we should forward plan that, and/or one slave in exploitation. What we talk about clients against women and girls, one slave exploitation is we've been other gender arts and that you may wish to look at, because we're doing a lot of work in that space, who's emerging, emerging spaces as well, so I would propose that you might think about that in the future. Yeah, thank you, these are good suggestions. Obviously, we have some time until then, so we'll have time to consider it, of course, let you know in advance so you can prepare the M.S. reports. Okay, in that case, that brings us to the end of the meeting. I'd like to thank everyone for attending, participating, or watching tonight's meeting, and I'll see you soon. Thank you so much, and thanks. Bye.