This resource is from the Committees section. This is report 6 of the 3 March 2006 meeting of the Co-ordination and Policing Committee, and approval a programme of community engagement by the Metropolitan Police Authority to counter terrorism, building on the success of its ‘Together Against Terror?’ event.

Sections available here:

• Community engagement to counter terrorism (2)
  • Summary
  • A. Recommendations
  • B. Supporting information
  • C. Race and equality impact
  • D. Financial implications
  • E. Background papers
  • F. Contact details
  • Appendix 1

Community engagement to counter terrorism (2)

Report: 6
Date: 3 March 2006
By: Chief Executive and Clerk

Summary

This report proposes for members’ approval a programme of community engagement by the Metropolitan Police Authority to counter terrorism, building on the success of its ‘Together Against Terror?’ event.

A. Recommendations

That Members approve for implementation the programme of activity proposed in paragraphs 19-23 and detailed and costed in Appendix 1 to the report.

B. Supporting information

1. The Metropolitan Police Authority (MPA) shares the Commissioner’s belief that ‘communities defeat terrorism’. The MPA has a critical role to play in engaging London’s communities in that endeavour.

2. On 12 December 2005 the Metropolitan Police Authority held an event entitled ‘Together Against Terror?’ to spark public debate around terrorism and society’s responses to it. In the resoundingly positive feedback received from participants, a clear demand for further such activity was expressed. Almost every participant wrote that they would be unsatisfied if the MPA did not follow up the event not only with a report featuring action-orientated recommendations but also with a clear forward programme of community engagement on terrorism. They requested that the debate continue in the interactive and innovative vein in which it had begun. The MPA now has requests from various community groups to facilitate meetings in which their members can voice their views and be heard on these important matters. ‘Together Against Terror?’ should be the springboard from which the MPA engages in a thoroughgoing dialogue with Londoners on counter-terrorism.

3. The event on 12 December 2005 was followed by a report to MPA Full Authority on 26 January 2006. Members approved all the recommendations in that report. One of those recommendations was that ‘Proposals be brought to the appropriate committee for the MPA to deliver its own distinct, related but independent programme of community engagement in relation to terrorism and counter-terrorism’.

Mandate

4. The Police Act 1996 (Section 96), as amended by the GLA Act 1999, requires that the MPA (not the MPS) ‘make arrangements to obtain the views of people about policing and their co-operation in preventing crime’. In order to discharge this statutory duty to optimum effect, the MPA in its Corporate Strategy 2004-7 is committed to ‘Transform community engagement to help Londoners secure more responsive policing’. This transformation will not take place unless, in the words of the joint MPA/MPS Community Engagement Strategy 2006 (Draft), ‘the MPA can play a leadership role in further strengthening the civic accountability and oversight of policing in London by enhancing the capacity Londoners have actively to participate in and influence police policy decisions at the pan-London level’.

5. The Police and Justice Bill 2006, if enacted as drafted, would empower the Home Secretary to order police authorities to make consultative arrangements where they are deemed to be lacking. The Home Office’s Respect Action Plan 2006 seeks to strengthen the voice of communities in policing and improve partnership between police forces, police authorities, and the public. Government clearly recognises and welcomes the benefits of police authorities engaging communities on issues of strategic importance to policing in the UK.

Added value

6. London’s communities have a key part to play in countering terrorism, not just at operational and tactical levels, which are the rightful concerns of the MPS, but also at policy and strategic levels, which fall within the ambit of the MPA. The MPA must harness that potential. Whilst not the primary provider of community-police engagement, the MPA can and does add significant value to the work in this arena undertaken by the MPS.

7. In order that MPA members can fulfil their scrutiny function and hold the MPS to account for its counter-terrorist policing on behalf of Londoners, they need a current and well-informed understanding of Londoners’ issues, questions and concerns in this sphere. Only through direct contact with community members can the MPA ensure that it is doing what Londoners want it to do.

8. The MPA offers a real and perceived neutrality to the public, which can be difficult for the MPS to achieve. The MPA can therefore reach some communities which the MPS may find it difficult to engage. As a result, the MPA has an opportunity to elicit commentary from communities which may otherwise go unheard.

9. The MPA is well positioned to promote best practice by developing and testing methods of community-police engagement for potential replication by the MPS and other police forces and police authorities.

10. Historically, the MPA has not prioritised community engagement at the pan-London level, having focused almost exclusively on local perspectives on strategic policing issues. This is an opportunity for the MPA to redress that imbalance.

11. The MPA will liaise closely on this work with the MPS Diversity and Citizen Focus Directorate (DCC4), as the central ‘clearing house’ for MPS community engagement, and with the MPS Specialist Operations Command (SO), as the lead MPS department on counter-terrorism. This will ensure that activity is co-ordinated, that opportunities are recognised and taken, that duplication is avoided, and that the unique value brought to this work by the MPA is used to strengthen the work the MPS does in this field.

Context

12. This report has been drawn up in consultation with MPA members and officers, with the MPS, and with partner organisations including the Greater London Authority (GLA), the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) and the Association of Police Authorities (APA).

13. At the local level, the ‘MPS Counter-Terrorism and Extremism Seven Point Programme for Borough Operational Command Units (BOCUs) 2006-7 (Final Draft)’, issued on 15 February 2006, lends structure and corporacy to police counter-terrorism work in each London Borough. It is deployed in support of three operational objectives: to create a safer local environment through security, protection and counter-terrorism work; to increase advance identification of threats from terrorism and opportunities to tackle them; and to enhance the security of key locations and protected persons. Safer Neighbourhoods Teams as they roll out are contributing to these objectives through community reassurance and intelligence generation. The MPA can enhance public contribution to BOCU counter-terrorism policy through the formal community engagement mechanisms it funds in every London Borough.

14. At the regional level, MPS community engagement to counter terrorism to date has predominantly taken place under the Communities Together banner. A widely commended Communities Together event was held with members of the public at the QEII Centre on 11 July 2005 in immediate response to the bombings. Subsequent Communities Together seminars have had an internal or practitioner focus. Under the auspices of Communities Together, the Assistant Commissioner of the Serious Crime Directorate (SCD) held a number of counter-terrorism-focused discussion groups with community members, including with specific subgroups such as women and young people. These discussions have given rise to hundreds of recommendations, which have been processed by DCC4, summarised, and circulated to partners on 21 February 2006. The implementation of these recommendations will be driven by the Communities Together Steering Group, on which the MPA sits. These recommendations will also inform the specific content of the MPA programme proposed in this report. The MPS has also participated in the work of regional and nationwide faith fora, including the longstanding Muslim Safety Forum, which has had a particular counter-terrorism focus since 7 July 2005. Future MPS community engagement to counter terrorism will include work already begun with asylum seekers and refugees and the formation of a multi-agency Communities Together Contact Unit housed within DCC4 and including both police officers and community outreach workers. The MPA acknowledges this substantial body of past and future MPS work. Recognising and wishing to bolster these efforts, the MPA should seek strategic steer from Londoners for police counter-terrorism policies and practices, including the form and function of future MPS community engagement on this topic.

15. At a national level, it is apparent that police authorities are inactive in this arena. Discussions with the APA and ACPO confirm that, apart from when they are involved with force-wide Independent Advisory Groups (IAGs) responding to critical incidents, police authorities have not sought to engage their respective communities to counter terrorism. Explanations of this may include the perception that counter-terrorism is a secret and specialist field which police authority members are wary to trespass upon, or deliberate exclusion of police authority members by police forces when it comes to counter-terrorism matters. Given the substantial and increasing expenditure of public money by police forces on counter-terrorism activity, it would seem reasonable to subject this activity to greater public scrutiny and to inform and enhance it by way of concomitant community engagement. The recent Government decision to expose the Security Services’ accounts to parliamentary scrutiny epitomises this approach.

16. The national CONTEST strategy’s ‘Prevent’ and ‘Protect’ strands rely heavily on community engagement. Sir Richard Mottram, HM Government’s Security and Intelligence Co-ordinator, observed on 8 February 2006: ‘A strategy for preventing terrorism is a lot about community engagement’. Work by the Home Office on preventing extremism and by the House of Commons Home Affairs Committee on counter-terrorism and community relations emphasises the importance of effective engagement.

17. At the international level, since the terrorist bombings in Madrid in 2004 and in London in 2005, counter-terrorism has risen to the top of the European Union’s agenda. Both the Austrian and the Finnish Presidencies of the Council of the European Union in 2006 specify counter-terrorism as a key agenda item. Counter terrorism operations without exception cross multiple jurisdictions and can be heavily influenced by cultural considerations. European partners are keen to learn from London’s experience in this field. Part of what London should share and be proud of is the involvement of its communities in shaping the solutions to the threats it faces.

18. This proposal therefore has a number of potential domestic and international applications. If the MPA can continue to demonstrate its ability to empower citizens to help the police to counter terrorism in London, then it should share this expertise with the rest of the United Kingdom and with the international community.

Proposal

19. The proposed programme of activity is a response to the six requests made most consistently by the participants at the ‘Together Against Terror?’ conference: more events; inclusive debate; action-orientated reporting; borough-level activity; work with young people; and continued interactivity.

20. It employs a mixed methodology, featuring a variety of community engagement techniques, in order to maximise the number and range of Londoners the MPA is able to inform, consult and involve.

21. We propose the following focused, time-limited programme of MPA community engagement activity to counter terrorism to take place throughout 2006:

• A series of six public hearings to be held at the MPA.
• A series of six invitation-only, research-orientated focus groups to be held at tertiary education institutions in London
• An agenda item for discussion on each of the 32 Community Police Consultative Groups (CPCGs) or equivalents in London. Feedback from all boroughs to be collated centrally.
• A documentary film covering the above activity and including additional research and interviews with (predominantly young) Londoners.
• Analysis of the qualitative information received from the public via the MPA website in connection with the ‘Together Against Terror?’ online poll.
• Compilation and publication of a collection of commentaries by respected authorities on current thinking in the field of counter-terrorism, including the speeches made by expert witnesses at the ‘Together Against Terror?’ event.
• A dedicated communications strategy to accompany this programme.

22. Further details and full costs of this proposal can be found in Appendix 1.

23. The programme will be given its own title and brand. This will confer significant public relations benefits and will distinguish the programme as a discrete and self-contained exercise.

Outputs

24. The above programme of activity will generate the following outputs:

A written report in December 2006 synthesising all the information captured through the six hearings, six focus groups, 32 CPCG discussions and the analysis of online submissions. This report would contain both quantitative and qualitative data and would include evaluation of process as well as content. The community will rightly expect this report to feature recommendations for action by the MPS and the MPA respectively. A joint MPA/MPS mechanism will be devised, in advance of the programme’s commencement, whereby the recommendations generated during the course of the programme will be analysed, impact-assessed and prioritised. It will not be the MPA’s expectation that all recommendations generated will automatically be approved for implementation. It will be expected that where recommendations are not accepted, the reasons for this are adequately communicated to programme participants. Both organisations will subsequently be required to report back publicly on the implementation of those recommendations, which are approved. The report would be used to inform the scrutiny to which the MPS is subjected by the MPA. It would be circulated to other police authorities by the APA and to other police forces by ACPO to stimulate increased activity in this field nationally. It would provide the basis for discussions with the APA about its future role in this important area of policing. It would be shared with other agencies working in the field of counter terrorism, with relevant central government departments, with appropriate ministers and with parliamentary committees and MPs to inform their work to defeat terrorism. It would also be tabled in European fora to improve the quantity and quality of community engagement to counter terrorism elsewhere in the continent.

• Letters to be sent from the MPA to other agencies and organisations as required, expressing recommendations from the public which are not within the remit of the MPA or MPS to act upon.
• A 30-minute film documentary of Londoners airing their views on terrorism and counter-terrorism. A truncated version of the film could be produced for webcast and/or for communication by bluetooth between mobile phones.
• An MPA publication: a collection of commentaries on terrorism and counter-terrorism by leading thinkers in the field. This publication would be distributed to relevant public, private and voluntary and community sector organisations in the UK and abroad. It would make a significant contribution to the ongoing discourse on the threat of terrorism and how society should respond. Informing people is one essential aspect of effective community engagement.
• Substantial publicity for the programme of activity and media coverage for the MPA.

Outcomes

25. The intended outcomes of the proposed programme of activity are to:

• Sustain and widen informed, factual debate on how our society should respond to the terrorist threat.
• Provide an opportunity for the police to explain what they do in this field, and why, and to dispel any misconceptions or misinformation.
• Heighten public understanding of the national and international dimensions of MPS counter-terrorism functions and roles.
• Enable the community to inform the police of their issues, considerations and tensions, leading to better-informed police decision-making.
• Seek policy direction and strategic steer on counter-terrorism for the police from the public.
• Challenge unproductive stereotyping of communities and polarisation of arguments with regard to terrorism and counter-terrorism.
• Enable the MPA better to scrutinise MPS expenditure on counter-terrorism policing and better to oversee the community engagement aspects of this expenditure.
• Enable the MPA to make a more informed assessment of the corporacy of the MPS approach to counter-terrorism.
• Elicit from members of the community new ideas for new ways of working.
• Reach sections of the community which historically the police have found difficult to engage on these issues.
• Foster a sense of public ownership of the problems, and their solutions.
• Increase the likelihood of generating future community intelligence
• Increase public understanding of and confidence in the role of the MPA.
• Demonstrate the MPA as guarantor of police transparency and accountability.
• Build social capital – and therefore resilience – in London.
• Assist other organisations to appreciate the impact their activity has on London’s communities with regard to counter-terrorism.
• Increase the amount of information publicly available regarding the terrorist threat and responses to it.
• Contribute to national policy on counter-terrorism in police authorities, police forces and in government.
• Work with the MPS on London’s contribution to international counter-terrorism strategy.
• Reduce the likelihood of future terrorist attack.

26. It is against these intended outcomes that realistic expectations should be managed and the programme of activity should be evaluated and assessed. Work currently nearing completion in the MPA Community Engagement Unit to develop a set of performance measures for community engagement will be applied to this activity. In turn, feedback on this programme will enable the MPA to set appropriate standards for future MPS community engagement activity in the field of counter-terrorism.

Conclusion

27. The MPA can champion London’s communities in their willingness to contribute to the way their city is policed and the way their security is safeguarded. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said on 13 February 2006 that ‘addressing the reality and causes of international terrorism is the great new challenge of our times’. This report outlines the distinctive role the MPA can play in facing that challenge.

C. Race and equality impact

1. The proposed programme of community engagement puts especial but not exclusive emphasis upon young people, upon students, and upon Muslims. This deliberate emphasis is intelligence-led.

2. Numerous recent studies and consultations stress the importance of engaging young people in this arena. The MPS ‘Communities Together Report’ on 13 July 2005 identified young people as a key population to engage, citing the necessity to ‘ensure young people, and particularly young males, are represented in all consultation and decision making’. The MPS ‘Together, supporting our staff, tackling terrorism and developing solutions’ report in August 2005 reiterated that ‘demographic subgroups, such as women or young people, do not get enough attention, despite the fact that a gap is acknowledged’. The I&DeA report ‘Scoping Reassurance in London’ presented at the Communities Together Seminar on 18 January 2006 proposed that engaging young people is still a key challenge. The Home Office-sponsored ‘Preventing Extremism Together’ Working Groups identified engagement of young people as crucial. Notwithstanding the Safer Schools Initiative and the Youth IAG, engagement of young people at a pan-London level on policing matters remains adequately to be addressed.

3. Lord Carlile of Berriew QC, the government’s independent reviewer of anti-terrorism legislation, in his testimony before the House of Commons Home Affairs Committee on 14 February 2006, made repeated, specific reference to his concern that ‘impressionable young men’ were being radicalised in British universities. Lord Carlile said he had talked to many people in universities who felt that recruitment and radicalisation were taking place on campus. Similar comments have been received by the MPA. Lord Carlile is clear that this issue must be addressed, that extremist student groups will not simply go away, and that to avoid this debate is perilous. This report proposes that the MPA take the lead in initiating this urgent and important piece of research and engagement.

4. There is a prevalent view that in the current climate British Muslims suffer threefold victimhood: they were among those killed and injured on 7 July 2005, they are the object of backlash faith-hate crime in the aftermath, and they are the ones who are most affected by the police response to the attacks. All four of the suicide bombers on 7 July 2005 were British Muslims. Negative stereotypes of British Muslims are developing in some quarters as a result. There can be no doubt then that the current terrorist threat does disproportionately affect British Muslim communities. It is therefore legitimate to place particular focus upon British Muslims in community engagement activity in this field. Concerted effort has been made by the MPS, Home Office and others since 7 July 2005 to engage Muslims in London around these issues, not least through the Home Office Task Force and the Muslim Safety Forum. However, Muslim women and Muslim young people remain largely unengaged. These subsections of the community have the potential to make valuable contributions to the London and national debate.

D. Financial implications

1. The cost to the MPA of designing and delivering this programme of activity will be £29,000. This sum has already been identified within the existing MPA Community Engagement Unit budget.

2. A breakdown of the costs for each element of the programme can be found in Appendix 1.

3. In order to deliver the proposed programme of activity to a high standard, on budget, and on time, a limited reallocation of existing MPA staff-time will be necessary. It is not proposed to increase the number of staff in the Secretariat to deliver this programme.

E. Background papers

• ‘MPA and MPS community engagement strategy’ (Draft), Metropolitan Police Authority and Metropolitan Police Service, 3 March 2006
• ‘Community engagement to counter terrorism (1)’, Metropolitan Police Authority, 26 January 2006
• ‘Scoping Reassurance in London’, I&DeA, 18 January 2006
• ‘Connecting with communities to defeat terrorism’, Association of Chief Police Officers, 24 November 2005
• ‘The Richard Dimbleby Lecture’, Sir Ian Blair, 16 November 2005
• ‘Preventing extremism together’, Home Office, October 2005
• ‘Together, supporting our staff, tackling terrorism and developing solutions’, Metropolitan Police Service, August 2005
• ‘Communities Together report’, Metropolitan Police Service, 13 July 2005
• ‘Terrorism and community relations’, House of Commons Home Affairs Committee, 22 March 2005

F. Contact details

Report author: Andy Hull (MPA Community Engagement Officer) and Sally Benton (MPA Corporate Information Officer)

For more information contact:

MPA general: 020 7202 0202
Media enquiries: 020 7202 0217/18

Appendix 1

Detailed and costed proposal

Component 1: A series of six public hearings to be held at the MPA

Budget: £7,000

• One hearing to be held in each of the months of May, June, July, September, October and November 2006.
• Each hearing to last two hours.
• All hearings to be recorded and transcribed.
• A core panel of five to attend all hearings. Three members of this panel to be MPA members; two to be external experts. One of the MPA members to be panel Chair.
• Each hearing to have a different theme within the broad subject of terrorism and counter-terrorism.
• Each hearing to have a different group of invited participants
• Each hearing to feature invited speaker(s), often including a senior police officer.
• Each hearing to be open to the public and press and advertised as such.
• Each hearing to be serviced by MPA officers.
• MPS representatives to be invited to all hearings.
• Format of each hearing to provide a structured way to achieve a more intensive analysis and to afford the opportunity for balanced discussion of key issues:
  • Panellists seek input from community members
  • Speakers address hearing
  • Panellists quiz speakers
  • Participants quiz speakers
  • Open discussion between participants, speakers and panellists
• Possible invited participant groups for hearings:
  • Schoolchildren
  • Young Muslim men
  • Asian groups
  • Muslim women
  • Clergy (all faiths)
  • Councillors
• Possible themes for hearings:
  • Causes and types of terrorism
  • Recruitment and radicalisation
  • Communication and engagement
  • Suspects and how to deal with them
  • Freedom, safety and the rule of law
  • Terrorism and identity: cultures, races, creeds
  • Policing terrorism: tactics, capacity, capability, intelligence
  • Contingencies and preparedness
• Budget for series of hearings:
  • Expenses for panellists, speakers and participants = £4,000
  • Food and drink x 6 Hearings x 50 people @ £5pp = £1,500
  • Transcription of Hearings x 100hrs @ £15/hr = £1,500

Component 2: A series of six research-orientated focus groups to be held at tertiary education venues in London

Budget: £4,500

• One small, invitation-only focus group to be held in each of the months of May, June, July, September, October and November 2006
• Each focus group to be held at a different higher or further educational institution in London
• Each focus group to be arranged in conjunction with the respective university’s or college’s students and staff
• Each focus group to last two hours
• All focus groups to be recorded and transcribed
• Each focus group to be attended by invited students and staff from the institution in which it is held
• MPA to source or provide a neutral moderator for each focus group
• MPS representatives to be invited to all focus groups
• Format of each focus group to provide a structured way to achieve a more intensive analysis and to afford the opportunity for balanced discussion of key issues
• Budget for series of focus groups:
  • Expenses for speakers and moderators = £3,000
  • Transcription of Hearings x 100hrs @ £15/hr = £1,500

Component 3: An agenda item for discussion by each of the 32 Community Police Consultative Groups (CPCGs) or equivalents in London. Feedback from each borough to be collated centrally.

Budget: covered by existing MPA borough-based community engagement funding

• Each CPCG or equivalent in London to table at one of its regular borough-based meetings or at an extraordinary meeting before December 2006 an agenda item on terrorism and counter-terrorism.
• MPA to provide any advice required on how to frame and manage this agenda item
• MPS to provide appropriate speakers to address these items
• Each of these meetings to take place according to all the normal rules and operating procedures of each individual CPCG or equivalent
• CPCG administrators to record discussions and send record to MPA for central collation
• MPA and MPS to investigate the potential of this activity to provide a formal feedback mechanism regarding relevant public satisfaction levels

Component 4: A documentary film covering the above activity and including additional research and interviews with (predominantly young) Londoners.

Budget: £3,050

• The documentary will follow the programme of hearings, focus groups and CPCG meetings, covering the efforts made by the MPA to engage communities throughout London on issues of terrorism and counter-terrorism and the results.
• The documentary will also capture the views of Londoners – be they community leaders or ordinary members of the public – on these issues which have the potential to affect us all.
• Additional interviews will be secured outside of the main programme of community engagement.
• A particular emphasis will be placed on communicating the views of young Londoners on terrorism and society’s responses to it.
• The proposed community engagement programme is the latest step by the MPA to communicate with and listen to the people it represents. Yet only a fraction of the general public is aware of this effort. It is intended that screenings, webcasting and possible televisual broadcast of this film will heighten awareness of this activity and of the existence and role of the MPA.
• Budget for documentary film:
  • Rate per day (or part thereof) filming or editing = £80:
    • 6 x hearings = £480
    • 6 x focus groups = £480
    • 6 x CPGC meetings = £480
    • 5 x days interviewing participants = £400
    • 15 x days editing = £1200

Component 5: Analysis of the qualitative information received from the public via the MPA website in connection with the ‘Together Against Terror?’ online poll.

Budget: covered by existing MPA resources

• 578 responses were received to the MPA’s online poll run immediately before and after the ‘Together Against Terror?’ event.
• The majority of respondents, in addition to the quantitative data generated by their voting, also supplied qualitative data in the form of freetext comments on the questions posed.
• Analysis of this data will require professional data-analysis skills, which the MPA possesses in-house.
• Analysis of this data will confirm whether or not this form of online engagement is productive or revealing.
• Having solicited the views of hundreds of members of the public, it is proper that the MPA should read and process them to see if any strong consensuses, recommendations or criticisms emerge.

Component 6: Compilation and publication of a collection of commentaries by respected authorities on current thinking in the field of counter-terrorism.

Budget: £3,000

• A publication to be printed, copyrighted and distributed by the MPA.
• To feature essays by 20 leading experts in the field.
• 10 essays already secured in the form of the 10 speeches made by expert witnesses at the ‘Together Against Terror?’ event.
• 10 more essays to be sought by the MPA from appropriate experts.
• To feature an MPA foreword and introduction
• Budget for publication:
  • Print run of 1,000 x 100-page publication (50-sheet; double-sided; ring-bound; black and white content; colour cover; acetate front; produced by MPS reprographics) = £3,000

Component 7: A dedicated communications strategy to accompany this programme.

Budget: covered by existing MPA resources

• A communications strategy to ensure maximum awareness and optimum coverage of all elements of this programme of activity
• To include advertising, media liaison, press releases, briefings, lines-to-take, and liaison with relevant press offices etc.

Component 8: Final written report

Budget: £3,000

• A final report to be written by MPA officers of all the activity undertaken in this programme by the MPA.
• To be distributed widely to ensure maximum dissemination of information and learning and maximum impact on policy at all levels.
• Budget for final written report:
  • Print run of 1,000 x 100-page publication (50-sheet; double-sided; ring-bound; black and white content; colour cover; acetate front; produced by MPS reprographics) = £3,000

Component 9: Travel and subsistence

Budget: £950

• A delegation of two representatives to go to Brussels on behalf of the MPA to hold meetings with EC/EU officials and GLA Europe Office to ensure maximum impact of MPA counter-terrorism activity at a European level.
• UK travel and subsistence for programme team, recognising the national dimension of the work and the likely need to visit other practitioners and professionals within the UK.
• Budget for travel and subsistence:
  • Eurostar return London-Brussels x 2 people = £200
  • Hotel in Brussels for 1 night x 2 people = £200
  • Subsistence in Brussels for 2 days x 2 people = £100
  • Travel and subsistence for programme team within UK = £450

Component 10: Contingency

Budget: £7,500

• All of the above costings have been researched and are estimated on empirical bases
• A contingency fund for the programme is nonetheless necessary to accommodate any unintended shortfall in the budget for any of the components listed, or any unexpected developments in the process of programme implementation

TOTAL BUDGET FOR PROPOSED PROGRAMME OF ACTIVITY = £29,000