Counter-Terrorism and Security Act 2015 (Risk of Being Drawn into Terrorism) (Amendment and Guidance) Regulations 2015

Debate between Baroness Lister of Burtersett and Baroness Brinton

Monday 23rd March 2015 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Brinton (LD)]

My Lords, I follow the comments just made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, by saying that one of the benefits of both new sets of guidance, for England and Wales and for Scotland, is that the tone is very different. That is enormously helpful. I am also very grateful for my noble friend’s comments about the final decision on external speakers being made by the next Government.

However, I would ask the Minister for absolute clarification on one point. I know that there have been discussions outside your Lordships’ House following the consultation on exactly what would happen if agreement were not reached on the thorny issue of external speakers. Could my noble friend give reassurance that the guidance to higher and further education would be withdrawn completely should such an agreement not be reached? Clearly, the reference within the guidance makes it absolutely clear that this is one of the Government’s major concerns.

I would be very grateful as well if our thanks could be passed back to the Minister’s civil servants for the hard work involved in accepting the many thorns in the flesh that your Lordships’ House has provided in the detailed discussions of this, especially given that the Commons did not have the chance to talk about the detail of the guidance when it considered the matter.

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)]

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.

Counter-Terrorism and Security Bill

Debate between Baroness Lister of Burtersett and Baroness Brinton

Wednesday 4th February 2015 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)]

My Lords, on behalf of the Joint Committee on Human Rights I would like to say how much I welcome the government amendment. It is nice to be able to welcome Government amendments unequivocally on this occasion. The Government have accepted just the one recommendation in our report, and we are very pleased that they have.

[Baroness Brinton (LD)]

My Lords, my name is on Amendment 14F and I also want to thank the Minister for his Amendment 14E. As I said in Committee, after going to war, curtailment of freedom is one of the most important things that a Government must consider doing. Given the seriousness of that, it seemed extraordinary that there was no scrutiny by Parliament, so I am grateful for that. On a slightly lighter note, and not strictly to do with this amendment, the fact that 33% of terrorists have been to university was repeated this evening. I wonder whether we need much more draconian measures for schools, given that 100% of terrorists will have attended school.

Children and Families Bill

Debate between Baroness Lister of Burtersett and Baroness Brinton

Wednesday 23rd October 2013 Grand Committee

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)]

I rise to speak in support of Amendments 65D and 219. As the noble Lord, Lord Low, said, Amendment 65D was a recommendation of the Joint Committee on Human Rights. I am very grateful to him for moving it so ably. There are really no more arguments to put, because he put all the key arguments. Does the Minister accept that the amendment avoids the crude binary distinction between inclusion and specialism that the Government understandably wish to avoid? If he does, will he accept the recommendation? If he does not accept it, is there some other wording that he would accept that would enable the principle of inclusion to be put in the Bill? As the noble Lord, Lord Low, said, it is an important principle.

The Joint Committee on Human Rights also gave its support to Amendment 219. It is a broader amendment than the amendment recommended by the Joint Committee. UNICEF’s The State of the World’s Children 2013: Children with Disabilities report emphasises that an accessible environment is essential if children with disabilities are to enjoy their right to participate in the community. The right to participate in the community is fundamental to citizenship. I am sure every noble Lord in this Room believes in the equal and full citizenship of disabled children. Therefore, I hope the Government will be able to accept this amendment.

[Baroness Brinton]

My Lords, I declare an interest as a trustee of UNICEF. I, too, am delighted to be speaking in favour of Amendment 219, which can bring about the transformation of education—much of our emphasis today has been on education—and, importantly, health and social care services, which is needed to make them truly inclusive for families with disabled children.

I strongly believe that the starting point for looking at the reforms to SEN in this Bill should be that a disabled child has just as much right as every other child to be involved in their community, to be visible in their own community and to have the same opportunities as their non-disabled peers. Despite some very welcome reforms to support for disabled children and children with SEN in the Bill, I fear that the right of disabled children to participate in their community will not be sufficiently realised through the Bill. This concern is shared by UNICEF and the Joint Committee on Human Rights, as the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, noted.

There is compelling evidence that families with disabled children currently encounter huge difficulties in accessing support in their community. Indeed, Scope’s recent Keep Us Close report found that a mere 14% of families with disabled children said they could get all the support they needed in their local community. Therefore families which already face immense challenges on a daily basis more often than not encounter a closed door when it comes to ensuring that their children enjoy the same opportunities as other children.

The Government previously stated in Committee on the Bill in the other place that there are already duties in place to ensure that appropriate provision is made for children and young people with special educational needs and disabled children and their families. However, such duties are clearly failing to achieve their intended purpose. Although the Equality Act 2010 requires organisations to be proactive and responsive in ensuring that the public services that they provide are inclusive and accessible, the reality is that services for disabled children are often developed, planned and commissioned separately from other community services, and consequently miss more strategic opportunities to create joined-up support and a more inclusive society. Parents are confronted with local activities and services that are inaccessible or a lack of support services to enable disabled children to join in with local activities such as youth groups or even simply playing in the park with their peers.

The Government need to set out a clear strategic direction and create a strong imperative for local authorities to focus on accessibility of local services, and that is exactly what the amendment would do. Although a number of local authorities undertake excellent work alongside families with disabled children to ensure that their needs are met by mainstream services—notably Suffolk, Leeds and Blackpool—not all local authorities are as progressive. Many local authorities and voluntary organisations want to provide more inclusive and accessible services, and the amendment would help to give them a chance to do that.

Such a duty on local authorities and NHS bodies would not have to be burdensome. Disabled children and those with SEN more often than not do not need hugely different or specialist services. With small changes to an existing service, we can make them accessible and inclusive for disabled children. It is not about providing more and separate services, but, rather, targeting current provision in the most effective way.

Indeed, making services accessible and inclusive for disabled children is just as much about changing attitudes as it is about making physical adjustments. It is about breaking down many of the fears and misconceptions about what inclusion means and ensuring that services see children simply as the individuals who they are—forcing services to think more creatively about how they can meet the needs of families with disabled children and allow the 1.7 million disabled children and children with SEN to reach their potential.