1. meeting the duty and ensuring a proportionate response
Implementing the Prevent duty: policies and procedures on freedom of speech:
meeting the duty and ensuring a proportionate response

2. Introduction
Section 26(1) of the Counter-Terrorism and Security Act 2015 imposes a duty on “specified authorities”, when exercising their functions, to have due regard to the need to prevent people from being drawn into terrorism. Relevant higher education bodies (RHEBs) comprise one of the specified authorities.
The higher education-specific guidance notes RHEBs’ commitment to freedom of speech which is based in longstanding legislation. It also refers to their role in the advancement of knowledge and rationality which means that they represent one of the most important arenas for challenging extremist views and ideologies.
Nonetheless because young people continue to make up a disproportionately high number of those arrested in this country for terrorist-related offences the guidance emphasises that RHEBs must be vigilant and aware of the risks posed to vulnerable young people who might be drawn into terrorism.

3. What does the duty say about external speakers?
“In order to comply with the duty all RHEBs should have policies and procedures in place for the management of events on campus and use of all RHEB premises. The policies should apply to all staff, students and visitors and clearly set out what is required for any event to proceed.” (para.7)
But what is an “external speaker”?
There is no precise legal definition of an external speaker and as autonomous bodies universities have the freedom to settle upon their own definition and procedures.
However it is generally accepted that an external speaker in this context is:
“Any person who is not a student or member of staff of the university or students’ union.”
It is also the intention that events held off site but organised by or in the name of the university or students’ union are within the remit of this guidance.

4. Universities and students’ unions
Although students’ unions are not strictly within the scope of this legislation, as charitable bodies they are subject to charity laws and regulations, including those that relate to preventing terrorism
And the Prevent statutory guidance is explicit in stating that RHEBs’ responsibilities extend to all events on campus and this must be addressed in institutional arrangements:
“Institutions should have regard to the duty in the context of their
relationship and interactions with student unions and societies.”
It goes on:
“Policies should set out what is expected from the student unions and societies in
relation to Prevent including making clear the need to challenge extremist ideas
which risk drawing people into terrorism. We would expect students’ unions and
societies to work closely with their institution and cooperate with the institutions’
policies.”

5. Legal considerations
RHEBs must carefully balance a range of relevant legal duties when managing their response to external speaker events.
Such events cannot be viewed solely in the context of the recent counter–terrorism legislation and must take account of other legislation which imposes duties and responsibilities upon it.
Education (No 2) Act 1986
Section 43(1) A direct obligation to “ensure that freedom of speech within the law is secured for members, students and employees …. and for visiting speakers.”
Equality Act 2010
Prohibits unlawful discrimination in relation to “protected characteristics” through direct or indirect discrimination, harassment or victimisation.

6. Request to hold an event with external speakers - the application process
Institutions and their students’ unions should have a clear understanding of their responsibilities in relation to the organising and holding of external speaker events.
A key aspect of this is having effective and well-communicated policies and procedures in this area, supported by training and support for all those involved in the process.
Here are a few important considerations concerning the application process:
There should be clear definition of what the university policy applies to. Are curriculum-linked speaker events organised by staff and commercial events included in the policy or are they covered by separate guidance?
There should be a minimum agreed timeframe for the applications to hold an event to allow for the necessary checks and decision making. 14 to 28 days is the norm. Late applications should be set aside unless exceptional circumstances apply.

7. The application process continued
Application forms for student society events should request the following information:
Name/contact details of organiser and name of society.
Title of event and theme/objectives.
Location where it is proposed that the event is to be held.
Anticipated numbers attending and entry/ticketing arrangements (is it closed to other society groups, will it be a public event?)
Name/contact details of the speaker(s) and the organisation that they represent.
Will the event be filmed or recorded by the speaker, the society or someone else and will this be made publicly available including via social media?
Are any materials being displayed, sold or distributed to attendees?
Are the press invited or expected to attend?
What arrangements are anticipated for publicising the event (events should not be publicised prior to them being authorised)?

8. The application process continued
Are there any grounds known to the organisers which might indicate that protests, disorder, disruption may occur or anything that might impact upon the reputation of the university or students’ union?
The university or students’ union may require in the first instance that organisers themselves conduct open source searches of the speakers and the organisations that they represent. This promotes a greater understanding of the risks involved and greater transparency between organisers and decision makers and represents good practice.
Where organisers are expected to undertake this function there should be training and support available - either internally or through DfE higher education / further education Prevent coordinators who offer a free training package to student societies, for example on due diligence and chairing skills.
It is generally felt that initial open source checks of speakers ought to include examination of up to three pages of a Google search on both the individual and organisation. Results should be submitted with the application or retained and made available if later required.

9. Risk assessment of the application
Applications for external speaker events should be submitted within the published timeframe to the designated point for review – which may vary depending on the type of event.
The application should be checked and omissions or requests for further information should be made.
At this stage open source checks should be made (unless this has already been carried out by the organiser/applicant).
At this initial stage it should be clear whether the event can be authorised at once or whether it needs to escalated for a higher level of scrutiny and decision-making (as stipulated in local policies).
If authorised at this stage the person authorising the event should inform the organiser together accordingly, with any conditions such as liaison with security, proposing an alternative venue, providing an opposing view to ensure a balanced debate, etc noted.

10. Referral for high-level decision-making
Some events will inevitably carry potentially greater risks and these must be identified and referred for a greater level of scrutiny and high level of decision-making.
Policy should contain guidance on:
How to undertake a risk assessment process, what these risks might be and the threshold/process for referral.
Who should undertake further checks and the decision-making process.
Who else should be consulted, and by whom, including in some instances external partners such as police, DfE Prevent coordinators, local authority etc.
The organiser/applicant should be informed that the application has been referred for decision making and may be able to furnish additional information, reassurances to support the decision-making process.

11. Prevent statutory guidance on external speakers
When considering external speaker applications universities must ensure that when allowing events to proceed that they do not allow: “Encouragement of terrorism and inviting support for a proscribed terrorist organisation are both criminal offences. RHEBs should not provide a platform for these offences to be committed.” (para.10) This is non-contentious and straightforward. The guidance goes on: “Furthermore, when deciding whether or not to host a particular speaker, RHEBs should 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. In these circumstances the event should not be allowed to proceed except where RHEBs are entirely convinced that such risk can be fully mitigated without cancellation of the event.” (para.11) This is more challenging so let us consider its implications in more detail.

12. Prevent duty statutory guidance continued
“When deciding whether or not to host a particular speaker, RHEBs should 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.”
What are extremist views?
“The vocal or active opposition to British values, including democracy, the rule of law, individual liberty and mutual respect and tolerance of different faiths and beliefs. We also include in our definition of extremism calls for the death of members of our armed forces, whether in this country or overseas.”
What is the risk of people being drawn into terrorism?
“A minority of speakers condone, justify or praise the ideologies and views of terrorist and extremist groups. Where those individuals are allowed an unchallenged platform for their extremist views they can mistakenly be given unwarranted credibility and status and the risk of drawing vulnerable people into their ideology. There views often involve the victimisation and abuse of minority groups or others who dare to disagree with their ideology.”

13. Prevent duty statutory guidance continued
“In these circumstances the event should not be allowed to proceed except where RHEBs are entirely convinced that such risk can be fully mitigated without cancellation of the event.”
It is important that events that may fall within the criteria on the previous slide are identified and considered at the highest level and that this is reflected in policy.
The responsibility of fully mitigating this risk reflects the importance of the potential consequences – refusal to hold the event should be the exception.
It is only by obtaining accurate, wide ranging information and by seeking views of stakeholders, partners and those who may be affected that effective decision making in this respect can be made.
Institutions will need to keep a full record of the decision making process especially in the context of how they believe risks have been “fully mitigated” and also the grounds on which refusal to proceed with the event was based.

14. Conditions and requirements
The authorising officer for higher risk events, especially those where extremist views may be expressed, may need to impose a number of safeguards and conditions. The duty states: “This includes ensuring that, where any event is being allowed to proceed, speakers with extremist views that could draw people into terrorism are challenged with opposing views as part of that same event, rather than in a separate forum.”
What is “challenge” and how might it be achieved?
inviting individuals or groups to the event who represent opposing views to the speaker.
Allowing or promoting questions of the speaker by individuals or groups with opposing views.
Providing an additional panel member at the event who will present an alternative view.
Universities UK published helpful guidance in this respect in 2013

15. Conditions and requirements continued
Here are just some possible conditions that could be placed on an event:
The event be ticketed.
The event be filmed by the organisers.
A specific event location may be prescribed or denied.
An independent and appropriately skilled chair may be appointed or agreed upon with the organiser(s).
Submission of the speaker's speech, a summary or detailed outline.
Restrictions on numbers attending and seating arrangements.
The requirement for event organisers to meet with others opposed to the views of the speaker(s) prior to the event in order to promote greater understanding and tolerance among all parties.
Provision of a translator to assist the chair, university staff, audience.
Refusal to admit the media or any other specified individuals or groups.
Requirement that the speaker(s) sign up to or agree to abide by any equality and diversity standard that the university or student’s union has in place.
Signposting or otherwise advertising to the speaker and audience conditions and expected standards of behaviour, for example pre-submitting questions or taking questions only when allowed by the chair.

16. Final considerations
Policies and procedure for external speaker events should be proportionate to the number, nature, and level of risk of events that are likely to be held at the institution.
Larger institutions that hold lots of events may need a more complex process of application, checks and decision-making to discharge their responsibilities effectively. Remember once size doesn’t fit all.
The RHEB might wish to consider how it manages those speakers invited by staff for curriculum-linked purposes. While a “lighter touch” approach may be sufficient staff need to be briefed to understand their responsibilities and provided with support when necessary.
Many universities hold commercial events where premises are used by external individuals or groups – policies should embrace such events.
Effective communication is key to ensuring that events where there is a greater risk are highlighted and subject to appropriate levels of decision-making.
Effective policies and communication of and training in them will allow institutions to implement the duty and uphold freedom of speech.

18. A case study in decision-making

19. What are your initial considerations?
Case study - part 1
A student society group are organising an event featuring a high-profile external speaker.
The event is titled “Only one religion, only one path to heaven”.
The invited speaker has previously attracted media attention and some criticism because of his lack of tolerance towards other religious views, groups and in particular has condoned the actions of proscribed groups.
The speaker has recently spoken at other RHEBs, but on those occasions he was speaking about his experiences travelling extensively abroad.
The group are seeking to hold the event in a room holding up to 30 people, all of whom are anticipated to be members of their society.
What are your initial considerations?

20. Case study - part 2
Further information becomes available that the student society have received complaints from other student groups on their Facebook page.
People have complained about the speaker’s views being inconsistent with the principles of equality and diversity they are opposed to the event being held.
The speaker’s lack of tolerance of other religious views and groups is not disputed; however YouTube footage appears to suggest that his expression of views in this respect are relatively mild, even though some people consider them to be offensive.
The comments condoning the actions of proscribed groups is known to be from five years ago and amounts to the speaker stating publicly on more than one occasion that proscribed terrorist groups were justified in committing acts of terror in support of their religious cause.

21. At this stage what action would you take?
Do you believe that the event should be referred for a higher level of scrutiny and decision-making?
Do you believe that external partners/agencies should be consulted to identify if they have additional useful information to offer or because the event could have impact beyond the RHEB?
Does the event appear to fit within paragraph 11 of the Prevent statutory duty and therefore what are the important considerations?

22. Sources of support
Universities UK guidance -
Charity Commission guidance –
NUS guidance -