Preventing Terrorism - Duties in the Higher Education Sector
The Prevent Strategy was first introduced by the government in 2007 and was devised to combat all forms of radicalisation.
It has since been refocused and consolidated by the enactment of the Counter Terrorism and Security Act 2015 and associated regulations.
The Duty
From 1 July 2015, a number of specified authorities within the education, faith, health and criminal justice sectors have been required by section 26 of the Act to have due regard to the need to prevent people from being drawn into terrorism (the Section 26 Duty) but implementation of the duty was delayed for Higher Education Institutions (HEIs).
Why the delay?
It has long been acknowledged, if not universally accepted, that HEIs have a front line, critical role in confronting extremist ideology and intervening to combat radicalisation within academic communities. However, this presents a particular challenge for universities which are also under a legal duty to safeguard academic freedom and to take all reasonable steps to ensure freedom of speech for staff and visiting speakers. In May 2015 the Home Office confirmed that the Section 26 Duty would not apply to HEIs until there was a clear strategy on how these conflicting priorities could be reconciled.
The eagerly awaited separate guidance for Higher Education (HE) and further education (FE) institutions (the Guidance) was published on 16 July 2015 and finally received parliamentary approval on 18 September 2015, bringing the duty into force on the same day.
What does the Guidance mean for HEIs in England and Wales?
The Guidance is clear that the Section 26 Duty is not intended to place 'large new burdens' on institutions and is instead intended to be implemented in a 'proportionate and risk based way'. Whilst this is reassuring, it also states that compliance will only be achieved if clear policies and procedures are in place that set out the general expectations outlined in the guidance and these policies and procedures are properly followed and applied. HEIs will be monitored for compliance with the Section 26 Duty. Those institutions which also offer FE courses will need to ensure they comply with the FE specific guidance too.
There are a number of areas highlighted in the Guidance that may be of particular interest:
- Managing external speakers and events
All HEIs to which the Section 26 Duty applies are now defined as Relevant Higher Education Bodies (RHEBs), regardless of whether they are publicly or privately funded. RHEBs are expected to have policies and procedures in place to manage events on campus and for the use of all RHEB premises. These policies and procedures should apply to all staff, students and visitors and sit alongside systems for assessing and rating risks associated with any planned events. In doing this RHEBs must 'consider carefully whether the views being expressed, or likely to be expressed, constitute extremist views that risk drawing people into terrorism or are shared by terrorist groups'.
Risk assessments must contain evidence of how the decision to allow the event to proceed, to determine that it should be cancelled, or to put in place mitigation strategies to minimise risk were made. Such risk assessments must also provide for RHEBs' affiliated, funded or branded events that take place off campus. When an event is allowed to proceed, organisers must be sure that speakers with extremist views that could draw people into terrorism will be challenged with opposing views at the same event.
The Guidance makes it clear that if there is any doubt about whether a risk can be mitigated, then the event should not go ahead.
- Working in partnership
Senior management of universities must actively engage with other partners involved in Prevent, including the police and BIS regional HE Prevent co-ordinators. The contact details of Prevent co-ordinators can be found at www.safecampuscommunities.ac.uk
- Sharing information
RHEBs must work in partnership with students, by engaging and consulting with them on their plans for implementing the Section 126 Duty. RHEBs must also make use of internal structures to share information about Prevent across faculties and it is suggested it may be helpful to have a designated person to deliver Prevent related activity. RHEBs should also have procedures in place for sharing information about speakers with other institutions, where it is legal to do so.
This area will need very careful consideration to ensure compliance with all data protection and confidentiality obligations.
- Assessing risk
RHEBs are expected to carry out a risk assessment which considers where and how their students may be at risk of being drawn into terrorism through both violent and non violent extremism. This should include looking at institutional policies regarding the campus and student welfare and assessing the physical management of the university estate.
Recognition of chaplaincy as an important source of pastoral support is recommended and universities are expected to review their policies and procedures relating to the use of IT. Usage policies must make specific reference to the Prevent Duty and policies and procedures that should be in place for students and staff working on sensitive or extremism related research. Policies should also be in place to help universities deal with those who have accessed such materials for illegitimate purposes.
Once the risk assessment has been carried out, RHEBs are expected to develop a Prevent action plan to set out the actions they will take to mitigate the risks identified. RHEBs should therefore be reviewing their risk assessment and evaluation processes, including their corporate risk register.
- Working with student unions and societies
Student unions and their societies have an important role to play and RHEBs will need to work closely with them in devising, implementing and monitoring policies.
As charitable bodies, student unions are also subject to charity laws and regulations and must comply with those that relate to the prevention of terrorism. The Guidance states that student unions need to consider whether staff or elected officers would benefit from Prevent awareness training or other related training offered by the Charity Commission.
Clear policies must be in place specifying which type of student union and society activities are and are not permitted to take place on campus. Policies must also be in place to manage their online activity when it is directly related to the RHEB.
Further Information
The Guidance has provided some welcome clarity on what will be expected of HEIs when the Section 26 Duty applies to them, even if for the moment ambiguities remain. Balancing potentially conflicting statutory obligations from several pieces of legislation will be challenging but much can be done to make the changes necessary to demonstrate compliance with what has now become a mandatory regime.