My Lords, we discussed the role of statutory guidance when we dealt with the issue during the passage of the Bill. The guidance has benefited considerably from the work that was done on it then and in the interim, but I am still not convinced that a statutory duty is the best or most appropriate way of going about all this. Although the tone of the guidance is, indeed, rather different from that of the draft, I hope that the Minister will understand if I focus on some concerns rather than on giving a three-minute paean of praise for the changes that have been made—many of which I am glad to see.
3.45 pm
Inevitably, because of the primary legislation, the guidance is quite top-down. There is little attention to the nuanced, softer approach or to the creation of a counter-narrative, which we discussed during the passage
of the Bill. There is reference to discrimination, but not very much about the dangers of discrimination or perceived discrimination.
Understandably, the question of resources remains a matter of concern, as many of the consultees said, including when they talked about training. The impact assessment says:
“The cost will vary with the level of the risk”.
However, the context in which that point is made reflects the reactive nature, it seems to me, of some of the guidance, not a more proactive, subtle approach. On the impact assessment, I cannot entirely follow all the figures and I hope that the Home Office can get rid of the typos—there is a stray “m” somewhere, which seems to be a big multiplier of the amount that something might cost, but I think it is an error.
I was interested that the consultation provoked responses from very many consultees, but not from all those that I would expect, including a number of local authorities that are in what I would assume to be the current priority areas.
Some of the guidance I find difficult. It identifies best practice, describing ways in which authorities can comply with the duty, but because of the emphasis on monitoring and enforcement it reads as though “best practice” means the only practice—a lot of the content about record-keeping and inspection rather supports that view. After all, this is a best value duty, and the sanctions which accompany that duty can be quite considerable.
Like the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, I still find some difficulty with the confusion between “extremism”—violent and non-violent—“terrorism” and, in one or two places, “radicalisation”, in phrases such as “drawn into extremism or terrorism”. There is one paragraph—oddly, perhaps, in the section “Prisons and probation”, which I thought was actually very clear—which refers to:
“concerns around someone being drawn into terrorism (which includes someone with extremist ideas that are used to legitimise terrorism and are shared by terrorist groups)”.
I thought that was a very helpful way of expanding on the point.
Conversely, however, one of the paragraphs in the section on schools reads:
“Being drawn into terrorism includes not just violent extremism but also non-violent extremism, which can create an atmosphere conducive to terrorism and can popularise views which terrorists exploit.”
All this is a very difficult area. I knew I would not need to say anything about the higher education sector—although I still wonder how this is to be applied in early years education—but, in that same paragraph, schools are told that they are to,
“secure a balanced presentation of political issues”.
That seems to be quite a difficult ask of them, in the light of the wording that I have just read.
Clearly, however, a lot of work has gone into this and the matter will be kept under review, so I do not suppose that this is the last time that Members of this House will be discussing the matter.