My Lords, I thank noble Lords who replied to this debate. They did so in a very constructive way—as when the original Bill went through the House and we received close attention but in a most constructive way. I particularly pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, for his support during the passage of the Bill, and other noble Lords who managed to stay here for the last business before the Recess. Let me deal with some of the points made by noble Lords during this brief debate.
The noble Lord, Lord Rosser, brought up the exciting speech of my right honourable friend the Minister in the other place. I am afraid that there will be no crescendo or diminuendo from me. I will just continue in my normal monotone and I hope we will get through this quickly without any histrionics so that we can all go home.
The noble Lord mentioned the speech and some of the commitments made by my right honourable friend. One that was referred to was the way that any changes would be brought back here. When my right honourable friend referred to the spirit enjoyed in the Committee meeting in the other place, I think that he was referring to the constructive approach of all parties. Of course, he is fully aware that, however constructive that approach, he would have to bring back any revisions to be approved by both Houses. It is quite clear in Section 29(7) of the Act that subsection (5) will,
“have effect in relation to any revised guidance”.
Subsection (5) clearly says that any changes or instruments will be,
“laid before each House … and approved by a resolution of each House”.
The noble Lord, Lord Rosser, also asked if there was any obligation in the Act to keep guidance under review. We will keep the guidance under review. Again, my right honourable friend made that promise. There is no statutory obligation to do that. Section 29 of the Act requires that any revisions must be brought back—as I said. On how the revision will be monitored, we will have a monitoring process. It will be looked at over the next year or so. Then, if need be, it will go before the Prevent oversight board. If it is deemed necessary, any revisions will indeed come back.
In talking about oversight and evaluation, I can tell the noble Lord that the Prevent duty guidance sets out clear responsibilities for the oversight of Prevent, including evaluation and monitoring of the duties of the Prevent oversight board. He mentioned independent representation; at that moment, that is the presence of the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, the former independent reviewer of terrorism, who is an independent member of that board.
The noble Lord, Lord Rosser, made a very good point about common sense. I assure him and the House that common sense is exactly what we want applied in this matter. As the guidance makes clear, the duty should be implemented in a risk-based and proportionate way. We do not expect—and this addresses the point made by the noble Baroness—all events with external speakers, even if they might have extremist views, necessarily to be cancelled. What we do expect is that institutions put in place a system for assessing risk and taking appropriate action, which might include a challenge to those views. We talked about the 70 hate speakers who have addressed universities in the past year; it does not necessarily mean that 70 of those hate speakers would not be able to speak at those universities, but there has to be a risk assessment, and the risks have to be borne in mind—and appropriate mitigation, which would include challenge, should be put in place. As for interpreting the measure, higher and further education Prevent co-ordinators are available to provide support and guidance to institutions in implementing the duty.
The noble Lord mentioned some recommendations today from the Anderson report—the independent reviewer of terrorism’s annual report—which came out today. I am afraid that I have not read it yet, so I cannot comment on it. He mentioned that the
interpretation was subjective and could, if handled in a cack-handed way, create more problems than already exist. I completely agree with that. We absolutely expect it to be implemented in a common-sense way, and the Government have no reason to go steaming in prescribing these things. We have left a lot of interpretation to the universities and further education colleges and, as the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, said, common sense will prevail.
The noble Earl, Lord Erroll, talked about special schools and young schools in particular. That was part of the conversation and the debate in March, and he very kindly said that he did not expect any answers. Although the statutory instrument refers only to higher education and further education, I take his point—it will be monitored. He also, usefully, said that I should take his points back to the Department for Education, which as the Home Office Whip I will be delighted to do.
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, for the acknowledgement that the measure has significantly improved. She mentioned, for example, the original requirement in the Bill that all speakers should notify of the content of their speeches 14 days in advance. Of course, the Government have agreed to amend that. Politicians around Parliament acknowledged that and realised that it was impossible. Most politicians only make up their speeches on the train on their way to events, so they realised that that was not actually a practical proposition. The noble Baroness also made the point that there is a problem in collaboration if it is too burdensome. Again, that is a general point for the guidance to which we referred in March, but the Prevent oversight board will take that into account and will review how this is working in practice. We do not believe that if it is interpreted sensibly it will be too burdensome.
The noble Baroness said that if you have to be entirely convinced that there is full mitigation, this might end up as a de facto ban. We think that, with sensible interpretation and a decent risk assessment
with challenge and mitigation, it is not a de facto ban. It is certainly not intended to be one. The Minister made that clear in the other place.
As the noble Baroness said, the Higher Education Funding Council for England is the body that will do the monitoring. When we talk of sanctions, that body will monitor them. The idea is that if there are difficulties—and we do not expect them, because many, if not most, universities are doing most of this already—the sanction would be that, having discussed them with the university or further education college, there is the possibility that the Secretary of State can give direction, but only after that has been agreed by the Prevent oversight board. Ultimately, in theory, there could be a court order if the university did not abide by that. That is certainly not anticipated, but it could happen if the worst came to the worst.
I think that that covers most of the points. The noble Baroness also mentioned partnership working. It is quite right that a number of institutions are already delivering on requirements for the Prevent duty. The guidance makes it clear that there should be a risk assessment. The partnership working will flow from that assessment. As I said, a number of institutions are working well in partnership with other agencies. The Higher Education Funding Council for England will consult shortly on the monitoring framework and any sanctions will flow from the Secretary of State.
This secondary legislation is needed effectively to implement the Prevent duty across England, Wales and Scotland. It will ultimately help the Government and law enforcement agencies to keep the country safe from terrorism. Universities and colleges remain subject to the duty in recognition of the very real risk of radicalisation in those institutions.
I am most grateful to all noble Lords who have remained for this last business before the Recess. I wish all noble Lords a peaceful and relaxing three weeks, although for some it may be less relaxing than for others. I commend the instrument to the House.
Motion agreed.