I’m looking for information on your local Channel panel.

1. How many cases have been referred to your Channel panel? (please provide these figures annually, for 2017 through to 2021, or the last year for which you have data)?
2. How many of these cases have been adopted by the Channel panel? (please provide these figures annually, for 2017 through to 2021)?
3. How many individuals adopted by the Channel panel later withdrew themselves from the process? (please provide these figures annually, for 2017 through to 2021)?
4. How many times has your Channel panel met to discuss referrals - including virtually? (please provide these figures annually, for 2017 through to 2021)?
5. How many Channel observations from the Home Office have taken place? (please provide these figures annually, for 2017 through to 2021)?

Wokingham Borough Council are applying Section 24(1) National Security to questions 1 - 5. The Council have considered the public interest test and do not believe that this outweighs the exemption being applied.

6. Which government agencies, charities and companies are represented on your Channel panel? (I am requesting names of institutions and organisations here, not personal details)?
Wokingham Borough Council, Thames Valley Police, Berkshire Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust, Berkshire West Clinical Commissioning Group. Other agencies, charities and companies invited when relevant.

7. Do your chair and deputy chair have UK National Vetting clearance at ‘Security Check’ level?
Neither confirm nor deny. Personal Details (Section 40) and Section 24(2) – National Security: (2) The duty to confirm or deny does not arise if, or to the extent that, exemption from 1(1)(a) is required for the purpose of safeguarding national security. The Council have considered the public interest test and do not believe that this outweighs the exemption being applied.

Internal review response:

1. For your questions 1-4, I agree with the officer's response to not disclose the information using the exemption in s24(1), but with the following reasons:
• Individuals could use the information requested in these questions to gauge the level of threat both in this area or nationally
• Individuals referred and adopted into Channel are those suspected of being risk of being drawn into terrorism.
• Providing information on the number of people referred and adopted into Channel for this area would provide a good indicator of the level of risk of vulnerable people being drawn into terrorism in this area.
• As individuals who are adopted onto Channel are vulnerable to being drawn into terrorism, those who refuse to consent to adoption as a Channel case will remain at significant risk of being radicalised. Providing information on the number of these people in an area would give a good indication of an at risk pool of individuals who are already refused to engage with safeguarding efforts.
• The Channel guidance states that Channel panels should meet once a month, however panels are also required to meet more than once a month if the circumstances require it. More meetings than the baseline would indicate a higher caseload
• This information could be used to create a ‘threat map’ of the UK via multiple FOI’s
• This could be used by individuals to better target radicalisation efforts, which could lead to more vulnerable individuals being drawn into terrorism
• There is a serious terrorist threat to the UK
• Providing information on past referrals to Channel, adopted cases, number of meetings or the number of people who were adopted onto Channel but withdrew from the process would provide access to information on how these numbers had changed over time.
• This would highlight any trends in an area.
For these reasons, I agree with the response given to you for questions 1 - 4 that the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosure. We do not have to provide you with evidence, only that our reasons given to you for possible harm are plausible. In my view these reasons about possible harm from disclosure are plausible.

2. For your question 5, I agree with the officer's response to not disclose the information using the exemption in s24(1) but for the following reasons;

• Panel observations are a key part of the Channel Quality Assurance process, which aims to standardise and improve the level of Channel delivery across the country.
• Disclosing the number of panel observations could, via multiple FOI’s, be used to build up a national picture of the extent of and the resource allocated to the Channel QA work
• This could be used to gauge the effectiveness and adaptability of the Channel programme, enabling individuals to better target radicalisation efforts and draw more vulnerable people into terrorism
• There is a serious terrorist threat to the UK
• Providing information on the number of panel observations over time would highlight any trends over time in this area and nationally
For these reasons, I agree with the response given to you for question 5 that the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosure. We do not have to provide you with evidence, only that our reasons given to you about possible harm from disclosure are plausible. In my view these reasons are plausible.

3. For your question 7, I agree with the officer's response to neither confirm or deny whether the Chair and Deputy Chair has UK National Vetting clearance, using the exemption in s24(2), for the following reason;

Revealing the information could result in a perception of weakness in the system both locally and nationally if given as a result of multiple Freedom of Information requests to other public authorities,

For that reason, I agree with the officer's response to question 7 that the public interest in maintaining the exclusion from the duty to confirm or deny outweighs the public interest in confirming or denying that information is held.