Heather Bellamy spoke with The Christian Institute, about the Joint Committee on Human Rights report on the Government's approach to countering extremism and how the legislation could be over, before it's even begun.

This committee was scathing about the Government's approach to it. They said they had failed to demonstrate why the new law was needed. They said that there was nothing from what the Government was saying, to suggest they had anything resembling a precise definition of non-violent extremism or British values, which are associated to it. It was gauged far too widely; free speech was under threat and it is likely to interfere with any number of human rights. It goes on and on.

It's very normal for committees to review legislation. The strength with which they criticised this legislation is rather more unusual.

Heather: They also referred to the Government's assumption that there is an escalator that starts at religious conservatism and ends with support for Jihad. What was it they said about that?

Ciaran: They said it was a false notion and attacked the idea.

Let's say you are strong in your views that marriage is between a man and a woman, then that might be characteristic of you being on this escalator that ends up with Jihad. That's likely to be offensive to many millions of people in the UK, never mind further afield. This is at the heart of the problem with this legislation. Rather than looking at the terrorist actions, which are covered by any number of existing laws, this is a thought crime law. It suggests that if you hold particular views that perhaps aren't mainstream, or are less politically correct than they once were, or are less socially acceptable, then that's probably an indication that you are somewhere on this escalator towards undertaking Jihad.

Heather: What were their thoughts on the plans to inspect church youth work?

Ciaran: They were certainly quite critical of that as well and talked about having grave concerns.

This is the idea that out of school settings, which include church youth work, would have to register in order to operate. Then having registered, they would be susceptible for Ofsted coming in and inspecting them for their compliance to British values. They said that they didn't support a regime of routine inspections of those kinds of settings. They talked about the fact that, that would catch not just church groups, but all sorts of groups indiscriminately. They said that whether it's Evangelical Christians, Orthodox Jews, or others with conservative religious views who don't encourage violence in any way, that through the after school settings and EDOs, they could all be penalised.

Heather: What do they recommend?

Ciaran: They didn't come up with a recommendation, in the sense of, rather than doing this, you should do that. What they said was that if you are going to legislate, you have to have a gap in the existing legislative framework to put a new law in and you haven't made a case that says this is a gap that needs closing. To give you an example with this legislation, we don't have to commit an act of violence, but what if you are inciting someone to violence? That would be non-violent extremism. That's a good example, except that it is already covered under existing legislation and there are many more examples of that.

They were saying to Government, if you are going to have new laws, then you need to know where those new laws are going to be targeted and you clearly don't.

Heather: Are the Government obliged to take on board what's said in the report?

Ciaran: They are likely to take it on board. There isn't a definite obligation for them to take on board the concerns in practice. What they have said though is that they would carefully consider them and that they will respond in due course. It does seem unthinkable that they wouldn't pay them very high regard.

Heather: The Government originally announced the Counter Extremism Bill in May 2015, but it hasn't appeared yet. Why is that?