Counter-Terrorism and Security Act 2015 (Risk of Being Drawn into Terrorism) (Amendment and Guidance) Regulations 2015 — House of Lords, 2015-03-23
Topic: Education
Margot Aline (Labour, Centre-left): My Lords, I welcome the opportunity to debate the guidance and welcome a number of the additions to the original draft, notably: the addition of the reference to the public sector equality duty in the Equality Act in paragraph 12; the cross-reference to "other relevant safeguarding guidance" in paragraph 40; and, in particular, the expectation in paragraph 111 that higher education institutions will, "seek to engage and consult students on their plans for implementing the duty" The role of students—listening to what students have to say—is really important, so I welcome that. I am sure that the inclusion of a definition of "Having due regard" in the glossary will be helpful to all those non-lawyers in the higher education sector As during our discussion of the Bill, I will focus my remarks on higher education. Here, as the Minister has acknowledged, there is a glaring omission, with the reference to the issue at a later date of, "guidance … on the management of external speakers and events", including, I am pleased to say, on how the Prevent duty will interact with, "existing duties to secure freedom of speech and have regard to the importance of academic freedom", which, thanks to the deliberations in your Lordships’ House and to the Minister’s willingness to listen, were written into the legislation Although I understand the reason for the omission, having read about it in the press—I do not want to intrude into private debates on this—it is regrettable that the most contentious part of the draft guidance when it was discussed in your Lordships’ House is not available for your Lordships to debate today, as opposed to what may happen. I very much endorse the plea made by the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, that, if agreement is not possible, the whole thing should be withdrawn. I also very much urge on the Minister, or any future Minister, that in the time between now and this being brought forward there should be proper engagement and consultation with the higher education sector to try to reach agreement on something that will be workable, unlike the original draft Concerns also remain about the position of student unions and societies. The guidance, I am glad to say, now acknowledges that student unions are already, "subject to charity laws and regulations, including those that relating to preventing terrorism". But the NUS states: "However, the continued emphasis on student unions’ compliance with their institutions’ policies remains worrying and indicates a misunderstanding of the autonomy of students’ unions which could lead to confusion and conflict between institutions and students’ unions" The NUS also commends the guidance for Scotland as achieving, "a better balance in this respect", with a greater emphasis on co-operation with, rather than control by, higher education institutions. Can the Minister clarify the Government’s understanding of the implications of student unions’ autonomy in this area and explain why the Scottish guidance differs from that for England and Wales? I cannot see what the particular circumstances of Scotland are to explain this difference The other most contentious element in the original draft guidance was the very broad definition of extremism as, "vocal or active opposition to fundamental British values, including democracy, the rule of law, individual liberty and mutual respect and tolerance of different faiths and beliefs" Perhaps even more worrying was the inclusion of "non-violent extremism". The Joint Committee on Human Rights—again, I declare my interest as a member—emphasised its concerns about such vague terms in its legislative scrutiny report and warned: "This legal uncertainty will have a seriously inhibiting effect on bona fide academic debate in universities, and on freedom of association" UCU, my former trade union, has expressed similar concerns around the revised guidance. So-called fundamental British values, it says, include values and concepts which are rightly the subject of debate and consideration in universities. It is not appropriate for universities to be required to exclude those who lawfully oppose them According to the summary of responses to the consultation, this issue attracted some comment, including concerns about that very vagueness. Yet the revised guidance does not appear to have attempted to address these concerns. Can the Minister explain why not? I do not want to make too much of it but can he also explain why the Scottish guidance does not make reference to "non-violent extremism" in the higher education section? If it is not necessary to repeat the earlier general reference there, why is it necessary to do so in the guidance for England and Wales Turning to training, the guidance requires a willingness to undertake training of what it calls "relevant staff". It says: "We would expect appropriate members of staff to have an understanding of the factors that make people support terrorist ideologies or engage in terrorist-related activity. Such staff should have sufficient training to be able to recognise vulnerability to being drawn into terrorism" The guidance also suggests: "Changes in behaviour and outlook may be visible to staff" The Minister, James Brokenshire, when he gave oral evidence to the JCHR, said: "There might be someone whom a lecturer has concerns about, not simply because of one particular lively debate, but because they are becoming withdrawn and reserved, and perhaps showing other personality traits" All this suggests that we are talking about staff who are in close contact with students—for example, lecturers or personal tutors—who will need to be trained as they are presumably the most likely to pick up on such vulnerability or changes on a day-to-day basis I was surprised that the impact assessment—if I have read it correctly; perhaps I have made a mistake—assumes that 15 people in every HE and FE institution will receive Prevent awareness training once every two years at a cost of £46,500. Who does the Minister envisage that these 15 or so people will be? What positions will they hold? Clearly, they cannot be at the chalk—or what is now the whiteboard—face of teaching. I am not arguing for mass surveillance of students by lecturers but there seems to be an inconsistency here that could leave teaching staff exposed if they are expected to play an active role in preventing students being drawn into terrorism without being given the training that the guidance itself acknowledges is necessary for people to be able to fulfil this role. Again, I would be grateful for clarification, as it may be that I have misread the impact assessment Finally, is the Minister now in a position to clarify HEFCE’s role, as that has not been spelled out in the guidance? Here, UCU repeats its concerns about HEFCE’s ability to regulate institutions with which it has no formal funding relationship. Has this now been resolved? What steps will be taken to prepare HEFCE for this new role For all the very welcome improvements that were made to the Bill during its passage through your Lordships’ House and the improvements that have been made to the guidance, the guidance still raises a number of very real worries. This is all the more so in the light of the recent newspaper report about Imperial College cancelling a booking for an international conference on Palestine at the last minute because of what speakers might say. If this is true—I have not been able to check the newspaper report—it suggests that the legislation is already having the very chilling effect that many Members of your Lordships’ House warned about when the legislation was going through. I am not convinced that the guidance as it stands is sufficiently robust to guard against such a chilling effect.