Child Literacy: Disadvantaged Areas

John Hayes Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd February 2023 Westminster Hall

[Alexander Stafford]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on having six grandchildren. I have only two children, Persephone and Charlotte, but one day I hope to have six grandchildren or more. I hope that they, too, will have a love of books and learning.

At present, children from disadvantaged backgrounds are already behind their more affluent peers when they enter primary school. That is extremely concerning, especially coupled with the 40% development gap between disadvantaged 16-year-olds and their peers that emerges by the age of five. The primary school rate is currently set at £1,385 per pupil, whereas the early years rate is only £342. That deeply affects the access to books that children have in their early years, as well as their chances of developing strong literacy skills. Ultimately, the funding currently allocated to early years does not reflect the evidence on child development or sectoral need.

My constituency of Rother Valley is by no means the worst-performing area in the UK in literacy and education rates—it has some great schools—but its literacy scores are certainly below the national average. On a recent visit to Dinnington Community Primary School, I was joined by Cressida Cowell—a former children’s laureate and the author of the hugely popular series “How to Train Your Dragon”—to discuss children’s literacy. A vast proportion of our conversation concentrated on the inequality in children’s access to school libraries. Yorkshire and the Humber holds the unenviable place of being the geographical area of the UK with statistically the lowest children’s book ownership: some 9.2% of children do not own a single book. It is particularly concerning that two in every five children in England are eligible for free school meals, but many of them do not have a dedicated library in their school.

I make it clear that prioritising the availability of books in primary schools should not be confined to disadvantaged areas. While there are apparent regional differences in library provision between the north and south of England, it should be a priority across the whole UK. It has been estimated that if all children were to read for pleasure, the economic impact of their increased skills, and therefore increased potential, would raise the UK’s GDP by £4.6 billion a year within just one generation. National Libraries Week encapsulates this notion with its most recent theme, “Never Stop Learning”, which seeks to draw attention to the valuable role that libraries play in supporting not only primary school children, but lifelong learning. If we prioritise children’s literacy, the whole UK will reap the benefits in every aspect of our society, most notably economically and socially.

A school library is a driving force for so many opportunities for children. It is essential for it to possess a wide range of books, from novels to graphic novels and even comics. It also needs to be an inviting place—we need to move away from the idea of a small, dark, gloomy room. It is not simply that if children have access to a primary school library, they will have a higher probability of attaining good literacy levels. It goes beyond access; it is also about quality, engagement with children, and the books on offer. Children need to be drawn to a library and to what it has to offer.

School libraries and efficiently allocated funding are critical, but I accept that they are not the only things that matter. Primary schools up and down the country are doing incredible work to boost literacy levels, but there is only so much that they can do, especially as much of what influences children and young people is beyond the school gates: it happens at home and in their day-to-day interactions with their local community and environment. That is why it is necessary for the private sector to play an active role in helping to boost literacy levels. Through their products, services and charitable initiatives, businesses have channels to influence children and young people that schools simply do not have.

A prime example of this multi-partner approach is the National Literacy Trust’s work with McDonald’s since 2013 as part of the McDonald’s Happy Readers campaign. Some 61 million books have been distributed as a result of that initiative, which is based on McDonald’s swapping toys and happy meals for books and including a book offer on the box. That is an undeniably strong example of the outcomes that can be achieved through a multi-sector, multi-partner approach.

The rewards of access to books are not confined to academic and economic achievement. Reading is a vital aid to a child’s mental wellbeing. There are proven, identified links between children’s literacy engagement and their wellbeing. Children who are most engaged with literacy are three times more likely to have higher levels of good mental wellbeing than children who are least engaged. I believe that engagement with literacy relies heavily on libraries being a place to which children have access during their lunch breaks—a “third space” away from the classroom.

For me, a library is a wonderful form of escapism—indeed, just like the best books. As a result of my strong belief that the availability of primary school libraries, as well as books at home, is instrumental to improving literacy attainment, I have canvassed many schools across Rother Valley over the past couple of months to assess their reading facilities. I was delighted with the level of engagement. It was encouraging and confirmed to me that, with the right support, schools are receptive to prioritising reading.

Initiatives such as Michael Morpurgo Month—a competition where schools enter to win a live virtual event with the author—are incredible ways to engage children, even those who do not consider themselves natural readers. I am extremely proud that some primary schools in Rother Valley will enter this competition, and I urge other Members to encourage their primary schools to start thinking outside the box and to engage with similar initiatives that bring reading to life for children.

Ultimately, we need to challenge the outdated notion that reading is boring or irrelevant. My strong belief in prioritising children’s literacy prompted me to meet the National Literacy Trust and the World Book Day charity. I was incredibly pleased to learn of the invaluable work they do to raise awareness not only of the significant role libraries play in helping children reach their full potential, but of the benefits that reading for pleasure can bring. The annual World Book Day, which takes place on Thursday 2 March, is dedicated to reading for pleasure. It witnesses 15 million book tokens being distributed each year, with an impressive 90% of schools participating throughout the UK. I strongly encourage Members to attend the parliamentary event on 28 February to show their support for World Book Day.

It can be easy to think that World Book Day is an isolated day that comes round once a year, but the charity’s work challenging the notion that reading is outdated continues throughout the year. It releases book club content, reading recommendation lists and video stories with the aim of helping parents engage their children in reading beyond the classroom. A distinct aspect of the charity is how it introduces children to comic books and graphic novels for those who perceive reading as not for them. I was surprised to learn that research from 2015 found that reading a Dickens novel and a manga comic book have exactly the same impact on a child’s development because of the way they engage the brain with pictures and tests to open up their imagination in a new way. I am in the process of becoming a World Book Day champion, and I urge all other Members to do what they can and to consider joining as well for the good of the children.

The National Literacy Trust works to address low literacy rates in disadvantaged areas by combining a range of evidence-based programmes with community-driven, place-based solutions. Across the UK, the trust has 20 literacy hubs in areas with the highest levels of deprivation and literacy vulnerability. The hub’s approach is characterised by a mix of strategic local partnerships, community campaigns and targeted programmatic activity in earlier settings than schools, run by local teams that have strong existing networks in these communities. Literacy hubs are leading the way in breaking cycles of intergenerational low literacy by engaging the entire community, which encapsulates the innovation we all should be striving for.

In October 2021, the National Literacy Trust, together with Penguin Random House, launched the Primary School Library Alliance, which strives to address the chronic lack of investment in primary school libraries and to change the narrative where one in seven primary schools in England does not have a library by transforming library spaces. As of 2022, the alliance has worked with more than 330 schools, and its mission is to help transform 1,000 primary school libraries by 2025 by giving them the books, training and support they require to make that possible. The fact that the programme is worth over £5 million and is supported by many children’s authors, publishers and private companies proves the extent of support on prioritising improving children’s literacy skills.

One aspect of its work that should be noticed is its intense focus on engaging parents to encourage their children to read, such as in early morning reading groups for parents, by having books in the house and the school library being open in holidays. These are all innovative ways to encourage parents to see the value in reading and for children to view the library as their third space outside the classroom. The success of the scheme speaks for itself, and I am sure Members will join me in advocating for the expansion of such a wonderful scheme, which is pioneering in creating not just a library space, but a reading community.

Having argued the merits and value of primary school libraries, what can be done to ensure their secured future in our educational institutions? We all want to reach the end point of a statutory requirement for all primary schools to have an adequately sized and well-resourced library. That would greatly complement the White Paper published in March 2022 and help achieve its aim of improving literacy rates across the UK. However, it is recognised throughout the sector that we must transition towards that through the support of public-private schemes, such as the Primary School Library Alliance.

Secondly, the Government must recognise the importance of early years for language development. That needs to be reflected in the funding invested in resources, which should result in early years receiving the same rate as the primary school rate. As a consequence, the early years rate should equate to the £1,385 per pupil received by primary school children.

Thirdly, the Government should ensure that the allocation of funding across the UK is weighted towards disadvantaged areas to target the pupils who are persistently disadvantaged. One of the ways the Government can do that is by taking a multi-sector, multi-partner approach to activate private sector investment. In practice, that requires the Government to support initiatives such as the Primary School Library Alliance, to try to further their goal of reaching 1,000 schools by 2025. That support would prevent the statutory requirement from being solely tokenistic, since it strives to engage pupils, teachers and parents. The Government need to form partnerships to create a readers’ community throughout the whole United Kingdom.

Ultimately, I propose that we must ensure every child in Rother Valley and across the whole of the UK has access to an adequately sized and well-resourced library at their local school to achieve high levels of literacy attainment. We must do more to help every child fulfil their potential—that was a pledge of the school White Paper. I firmly believe that introducing the statutory requirement for all primary schools would be a force for change to make that truly possible, and improve not only the quality of our children’s access to books, but the rest of their lives. Children are the future generation, so it is crucial that we ensure they are provided with adequate resources to excel fully and change the narrative of 25% of 11-year-olds leaving primary school being unable to read at the expected level. That figure rises to 40% among disadvantaged children.

Reading is a simple, cost-effective and powerful tool to unlock prosperity in Rother Valley and across the UK, and it is our duty to make the United Kingdom the world’s foremost reading community. I hope that my sponsoring today’s debate can be in the first chapter of the very exciting story of children’s literacy.

[Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)]

rose—

[Mr Peter Bone (in the Chair)]

Order. Sir John, I have not been notified that you wish to speak in the debate. I have not been told by the Member that he has your permission, nor have I heard it from the Minister.

[Sir John Hayes]

I did ask—

[Mr Peter Bone (in the Chair)]

It is easy to do. Does the Member have any objections?

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir John Hayes]

Unusual is my middle name, Mr Bone. I am immensely grateful for your indulgence. My hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley (Alexander Stafford) spoke about the debate earlier this afternoon; I had not expected to be here, but when he told me the subject I felt that I ought to be.

The way in which we store, exchange and use information has changed immeasurably in my lifetime. The internet has done good but, of course, much more harm—not least because, paradoxically, it makes finding information more straightforward but simultaneously makes serendipity less likely, as the pursuit of speed replaces the journey of discovery. Search engines mean that we are directed to exactly what we need when we need it, rather than the business of finding out things that one did not expect, which might stimulate all kinds of thoughts, ideas and adventures, and that is just what a library does. When someone enters a library or a bookshop, they do not always necessarily know what they will come out with; in fact, they very often come out with much that they did not expect to.

Libraries play a critical part in exciting and enthralling and seeding dreams and memories. School libraries are particularly important in that regard, as my hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley made clear. T. S. Eliot said, “Where is the wisdom we have lost in knowledge?” If he was alive now, he would say, “Where is the wisdom we have lost in data?”, as we drown in a sea of data. Libraries—whether they be public libraries, such as the one I helped to save in the Deepings, my constituency, which is now flourishing, or school libraries in the schools in my constituency—are places where children, often for the first time, encounter the canon of English literature. No childhood—no rich and enjoyable childhood —is complete, surely, without knowing C. S. Lewis, Roald Dahl, dear Enid Blyton or Tolkien, so I congratulate my hon. Friend on this motion. Every child in every school should—

[Mr Peter Bone (in the Chair)]

Order. Thank you, Sir John; that is all very good. I call the Minister.

Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Bill

John Hayes Excerpts

Consideration of Lords amendments
Tuesday 7th February 2023 Commons Chamber

[Matt Western]

I thank the right hon. Member for his comments, and for the style and energy that he brings to such interventions. The cases the right hon. Gentleman has been talking about are exceptions. Indeed, Office for Students statistics show how few cases there have been. I was making a point about the amount of parliamentary time that has been devoted to this over two years when there are much larger issues at play on our campuses.

[Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)]

The hon. Gentleman says these are marginal considerations. I do not know whether on the visits he has described—which sound picturesque, as well as being, no doubt, informative—he ever meets members of the University and College Union, because its survey on this matter found that 35% of academics self-censor for fear of the consequences of saying what they really believe.

[Matt Western]

I talk to members of all university communities of course, as the right hon. Member would expect: I talk to the senior leadership teams, UCU members, Unison members, those who are non-affiliated, and also students. I listen to all points of view across the piece. I am sure that occasionally the right hon. Member did not say what he would have liked to have said in a Cabinet meeting when in power, but that is the nature of how society works and there should be no difference between what happens on campuses and in wider society.

Anyone would think that the Minister’s colleagues have come to the fair conclusion that the Bill is more about political posturing than delivering on students’ priorities. Let me be clear for the record: this Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Bill and its passage through both Houses is a product of a Government who are out of touch, out of ideas and out of steam. It has been a masterclass in how not to pass legislation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle]

I sat on the Bill Committee and heard the evidence. Some, which I supported, talked about the unnecessary nature of the Bill, much said it would be unhelpful, and a lot said it would impose a chilling effect. I have no problem with a requirement for free speech. I have no problem with, for example, allowing the Office for Students to determine these matters. In fact, I would like an appeals process to be part of that, which would strengthen the provision by allowing people to seek resolution. Instead, the evidence we heard on the tort aspect was that it would be chilling. Rather than take the risk, people would not do anything.

We know that that has happened before. Many Acts have been passed in this place that have had a chilling effect, meaning that people do not take action. I want to see vibrant debate in my universities. That has always happened, such as when University of Sussex students in the 1970s blocked the American ambassador from coming on campus until he condemned the war in Vietnam. Those activities are also about free speech; students’ ability to express their heartfelt beliefs and desires must be allowed as well, but such activities would be prevented under the Bill.

That is why I am against the Government’s move to reject the Lords amendment, although I welcome some of the other moves, particularly on non-disclosure agreements, that we put in initially. I wish the Government would come together with us to remove the tort clauses and to provide other appeal processes, so that people can seek proper justice that is not just about financial recompense.

[Sir John Hayes]

I refer hon. Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests in relation to the University of Bolton.

Learning is, through exploration, the discovery of truths. Of equal importance to the answers learning provides are the questions it poses. For the emergence of understanding is a process, not a moment—a journey, not a destination. Such is the delight of being inspired to know more that it provokes an open-mindedness to all kinds of possibilities.

That is the spirit that speakers across this House have enjoyed and recommended to us, and yet across universities that spirit is being frustrated by the kind of intolerance that, rather than opening minds, aims to close down debate. This Bill must provide a significant shield and a sword to those who are determined that universities remain places where ideas are discussed freely and can be tested through critical analysis.

W. B. Yeats said, “Education is not the filling of a pail, but the lighting of a fire.” We must not quench the fire of learning because we regard some ideas or views as contentious or controversial. Some may alarm. Some may cause offence. Yet without the ability to alarm and to disturb and to shock, there is no ability to inspire and to move and to enthral. They are two sides of the same coin.

The practitioners of intolerant identity politics have successfully cancelled a litany of students and academics who dared to espouse particular understandings of race, gender and sex—understandings, by the way, that are commonly held by our constituents—taken as read by most of the people we represent.

Those without wealth or influence to resist have too often been left at the mercy of the mob. It is a bitter irony that one academic who came forward to give evidence when we discussed the Bill in Committee, Kathleen Stock, was subsequently driven out of her job by a combination of militant students and weak-minded academics who refused to support her. She told us, along with my friend Arif Ahmed, that there is a climate of fear and a culture of silence, as academics self-censor for fear that what they say might leave them at the mercy of university authorities that use all kinds of techniques to silence them. So, this Bill is critical and the tort is critical to its effect.

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Sir John Hayes]

I happily give way to the hon. Gentleman, who served on the Committee.

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle]

When we served on the Committee, did we not agree that one thing this Bill lacked was security of tenure for academics—very rare now—which would provide a bulwark against a chilling effect? Is that not something we could seek agreement on?

[Sir John Hayes]

I agree with the hon. Gentleman on that, but, having declared my interest that I am employed at the University of Bolton, I had better not make too forceful a point about it.

Many more academics we do not know of will have faced similar pressures, in untold everyday stories of students and academics that, whether through fear or otherwise, go unreported or unresolved. That is why it is so important to reject the Lords amendment that would abolish the new statutory tort proposed in the Bill as it was originally drafted. It is disappointing that the academic establishment in the other place made a case against that—disappointing, but unsurprising, because of course these people look after their own. I am very pleased that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Danny Kruger) said, the Minister has resisted those calls. She has shown determination, insight and, I must say, a degree of courage in doing so, because it is easy to roll over when the big beasts in the other place roar in defence of the academic establishment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jeremy Corbyn]

I am pretty sure there were people who tried to cancel them at the time. I was not at university and I cannot make any further comment on that.

My plea is simple. We have heard today from Members who have a lot of sensible and direct experience. The issues raised by the hon. Member for Sheffield Central are very important, including that of freedom of speech and the limits placed on it. At what point do we allow a fascist, a Nazi, to speak? At what point do we allow a holocaust denier to speak? Those issues are best dealt with by codes of practice, rather than by threats of legal action. Surely codes of practice in colleges and universities, and discussion and debate, bring about a better resolution than enabling those who can afford it to take legal action.

Student unions that are frightened and nervous about any action that might be taken against them simply go down the road of caution and reduce, limit and inhibit the student experience. Surely we want our young people to be brought up listening to and developing challenging ideas, and being inventive and creative. Surely that is what education should be about, not the straitjacket of being told what to think, what to say and what to know. It has to be that approach—[Interruption.] The right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings is waving his arms around. I am concerned.

[Sir John Hayes]

We think that, too. That is the very purpose of the Bill—to open minds, to open debate, to have free speech. We believe in what the right hon. Gentleman is articulating, so perhaps he should vote with us tonight.

[Jeremy Corbyn]

I am sorry to disappoint the right hon. Gentleman, but I cannot vote with him tonight because I think the Bill will have the opposite effect. I wish it were the other way around, but it is not. We should recognise that the Lords amendment is a good one. It would make the academic experience better, not worse, and it would be a good idea if, for once, we supported it.

Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Bill

John Hayes Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 13th June 2022 Commons Chamber

[Matt Western]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We need more process, more transparency and an honest approach if we are to clean up our politics. I absolutely believe that that is what I would want any organisation to have. We must move away from what appears to be an increasingly transactional approach to these appointments.

In return for his being appointed, Lord Wharton’s company GBMW Ltd made what is now referred to as a golden thank you for being handed the job by the Prime Minister: a donation to the Conservative party of £8,000. That is small change for him, given that he gets paid £60,000 for just two days’ work per week.

Last month, we discovered that Lord Wharton had chosen to speak at the Conservative Political Action Conference in Hungary. It was a sell-out. In his speech, he endorsed Viktor Orbán’s far-right, autocratic regime—the regime that had forced George Soros’s Central European University to leave Budapest in 2019. So much for our champions of academic freedom! He also shared a platform with Zsolt Bayer, a television talk show host in Hungary who has been widely denounced for his aggressive racism; his grotesque comments do not bear repeating in this place.

Despite widespread condemnation from student groups here such as the Union for Jewish Students, and cross-party calls for the Government to take action against the chair, it is telling that Ministers have so far refused to do so. That is important, because independence, propriety and accountability in public life absolutely matter. That is the point of new clause 4.

It seems that the politicisation of the Office for Students has not stopped there. Three months ago, the Secretary of State appointed Rachel Houchen, the wife of the Tory Tees Valley Mayor Ben Houchen, as a non-executive director on the board of the Office for Students, despite her having no direct experience in the higher education sector.

In that context, the comments made in Committee by one of the Government’s own witnesses, Professor Nigel Biggar, especially alarmed the Opposition. He agreed that

“the Government…given the legislation…wants a director who has a certain partiality of that kind.”—[Official Report, Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Public Bill Committee, 7 September 2021; c. 22, Q40.]

Even the Government’s own witnesses fear that the appointment will not be impartial: Dr Arif Ahmed and others made the point that the person “has to be impartial”.

In Committee, the Minister responded to a series of Opposition amendments by stating:

“There is no need to set up the bureaucracy of a non-statutory advisory body, as suggested by the amendment. The OfS is independent of the Government, so to do so would simply duplicate its role as set out in the statute.”––[Official Report, Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Public Bill Committee, 22 September 2021; c. 343.]

Well, clearly not. If the appointments to the OfS are meant to reassure us that the director will be impartial, they have lost all credibility. I dare say that the Minister will repeat the same line today, as she has done—blind to any suggestion of improvement, not least because this morning her Department advertised for the position even though the Bill has not even had its Third Reading.

[Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)]

The hon. Gentleman is right that we had a useful, productive and positive exchange in Committee. I just want to correct the record for him because, knowing him well, I know that he would never mislead the House except inadvertently. Dr Ahmed—Professor Ahmed, I should say—is an enthusiastic supporter of this legislation and an enthusiastic supporter of the idea of having someone to oversee it. What he emphasised in his evidence and subsequently is that there should be impartiality in the exercise of that person’s work. This was not, as the hon. Gentleman suggests it is, about Dr Ahmed in any way questioning either the custom or practice associated with this legislation.

[Matt Western]

The right hon. Member was very involved in the Committee, and I thought that his contributions were robust and helped the debate along. I do not mean to misrepresent what Professor Arif Ahmed may have said, and he did say that this should be impartial. However, it was clear from what was said by Professor Biggar that that will not be possible if the Government want to do what they have set out to do. This is the point that I was trying to make, and if I did not make it clearly I apologise, but I have certainly tried to put it back on the record now.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jess Phillips]

Yes, that’s right.

That Government Member said, “You can’t be forced to sign”, but that is to totally misunderstand the power imbalance. Someone might have worked hard and be the first in their family to go to university. They might have studied and done everything they could, because they wanted to go and make something of themselves. They might get into an institution that they are proud to say they are from. The fact that they could be raped on that campus by another student and complain, but then be threatened that they will be expelled if they speak out points to an enormous power imbalance. It is something that this House should legislate on for the sake of freedom of speech.

I welcome the Minister saying that she will take the proposals away, listen and perhaps do something in the House of Lords later in the process, but under this Bill, without our amendments, if a woman or a man, whether staff or student, is raped on campus, that person’s freedom of speech will be completely and utterly denied on campus and outside, and we would do nothing about it. Freedom of speech surely has to mean freedom of speech for all.

[Sir John Hayes]

Benjamin Disraeli said:

“Upon the education of the people…the fate of this country depends.”

That greatest of Conservative Prime Ministers went on to say:

“A university should be a place of life, of liberty and of learning.”

However, if the flame of liberty is to burn brightly, and if the university sector is to be a beacon of learning, we must face up to the fact that, in many of our universities, freedom of speech is in jeopardy, censorship is happening as we speak tonight, and academics and students feel intimidated by that censorship.

We know that from the evidence that the Bill Committee heard from academics on the frontline of that struggle. The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington (Matt Western), quoted Professor Arif Ahmed, who was clear that there is a series of means by which universities restrict and limit freedom of speech. He said:

“what I mean is universities placing formal obstacles in the way of people saying things that are perfectly legal.”––[Official Report, Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Public Bill Committee, 7 September 2021; c. 13, Q22.]

He went on to say, quoting the Universities and Colleges Union survey of 2017, that

“35% of academics self-censor”––[Official Report, Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Public Bill Committee, 7 September 2021; c. 16, Q27.]

because they are nervous about saying what they truly believe; the number of students doing so is probably even greater. The truth is that there is a tyrannical minority in universities, among the academic staff and in the student body, who do not believe that universities are places of light, liberty and learning; instead, they think that universities should limit free speech.

I find it hard to understand why Opposition Members such as the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Emma Hardy), whom I respect greatly, and the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington, with whom I have—I was going to say “collaborated”, but that makes me sound rather like a fifth columnist—co-operated in this place on many subjects, oppose a Bill designed to reinforce precisely the freedoms that are essential to an open society. I thought about that and cogitated on how it could be that such decent and honourable people—I include the hon. Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner) as well—could do this.

In doing so, I should draw the attention of the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests in respect of higher education, as I did perpetually and—some people felt—relentlessly during the previous stages of our consideration of the Bill. By the way, I stimulated a number of others to do the same, and I have no doubt that they will want to chip in on a similar basis this evening.

The conclusion I drew, having thought about it, was that those decent people on the Labour Benches who certainly believe in free speech and the exchange of honestly held opinion find that hard to reconcile with a zeitgeist that is preoccupied with a fear of causing offence. We are perpetually told now that because we must not make people feel uncomfortable, we must not offend them. We in this House know, do we not, that the ability to alarm is closely associated with the ability to inspire, that the ability to disturb is intrinsically linked with the ability to enthral, and that even the capacity to shock is necessary in the development and exposure of new ideas and fresh thinking?

[Emma Hardy]

rose—

[Sir John Hayes]

Having said such nice things about the hon. Lady, it would be extremely impolite of me not to give way.

[Emma Hardy]

I say to the right hon. Member that, as Bill Committees go, it was a very enjoyable one. I thank him for being one of the few Conservative Members who listens to the contributions. On the point he is making, it is not about disagreeing with this idea of shocking people or of having different opinions; the fundamental problem, as I have said repeatedly, is how this piece of legislation interacts with existing legislation already in place. How does this interact with equality legislation? How does this interact with other existing pieces of legislation? My concern is further developed when I see the person who is making the decision on how these different pieces of legislation interact with each other. It is, as has been mentioned—and this is the reason for new clause 4—somebody appointed by the Prime Minister of the day, which then leads to all those issues around impartiality of process. We have a situation here where we have a piece of legislation that almost buts up against existing equality legislation, but it is not quite clear how their processes will rub together, yet there is no specification that the person making the decisions has to have legal experience or knowledge; they are instead a political appointment. That is where we have the difficulty—it is not with freedom of speech, but with the legislation itself.

[Sir John Hayes]

At the risk of putting our professional association in jeopardy, I say to the hon. Lady that I agree with her. I agree that the Government need to look at the equality legislation. I note the Attorney General’s recent comments that, as well as unpicking the Human Rights Act 1998, which we certainly should do without delay, we need to revisit the Equality Act 2010 and the rest of the long tail of Blairism. The hon. Lady is right that some of that unfortunate legislation on the statute book is inhibiting much of the very good work that the Government are trying to do. In particular, she is right—this was raised in Committee by me and others—that the Government need to be very clear that this legislation can be squared with other statute and, so the means by which it might be challenged.

[Emma Hardy]

I think it might also be worth the Government having a look at the recent legislation that they have already passed on the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 and the issues around protest and free speech. We could end up with a situation where free speech is the preserve of students who attend university, but those outside university will have their free speech limited unless they are very, very quiet and do not protest too loudly. We could end up with more conflict, with one part of the Government saying one thing in terms of restricting protest, and another part of the Government saying something else about supporting free speech. It is fair to say that having this Bill along with existing and proposed legislation will create a muddle.

[Sir John Hayes]

We are dealing with a complex subject. Free speech by its very nature means people saying all kinds of things in all kinds of ways about all kinds of subjects. The hon. Lady is right that there will be tensions to be settled, which is precisely why the Government have put in place mechanisms to do that. They are going to appoint, as was said earlier, an office with responsibility for ensuring that this Bill’s intentions and provisions are applied consistently. The Government acknowledge the difficulties that she has highlighted, which is precisely why they are putting in place a person and team to do exactly that.

[Dr Julian Lewis]

rose—

[Sir John Hayes]

I can see that my right hon. Friend is about to make an erudite intervention.

[Dr Lewis]

You can always hope, Mr Deputy Speaker.

Does my right hon. Friend not feel as I do that the interventions that he has just taken show that perhaps the diminutions on free speech have already spread into other areas of legislation rather further than he and I would like them to have done?

[Sir John Hayes]

I agree entirely, which is precisely why this Bill is so welcome, but it needs to be part of a bigger programme of work by the Government to do what I described earlier, which is to unpick some of the legacy of the dark days of Blairism and the impact that that has had on all kinds of aspects of our wellbeing. My hon. Friend is right. This Bill is significant, but modest, so let it be the beginning of a crusade to establish freedom as the default position across all our legislative considerations in exactly the way—with erudition and diligence, matched by experience—that my right hon. Friend illustrates.

Free speech is complex and, in the words of the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington, may be seen as an abstraction, but if it is an abstraction, it is one that is essential for the wellbeing of our free society, for it is at the very heart of what an open society is all about. The ability to say things which, as I said earlier, alarm, disturb, or even shock, and hear things with which we disagree is the very nature of what good universities are all about. I fear that that is jeopardised by some of the thinking that permeates universities, particularly university leaders and managers. For example, Professor Ahmed also spoke of

“issues to do with race, with transgender, and with Israel and Palestine on which they were simply unwilling to say what they thought”––[Official Report, Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Public Bill Committee, 7 September 2021; c. 13, Q22.]

people fear the consequences of doing so. It is not just those issues, although those are notable among the list of things that people now regard as beyond the scope of free and open debate.

[Miriam Cates (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Con)]

My right hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. Does he not agree that much of the controversy surrounding this Bill comes from a conflation of physical safety with emotional and intellectual safety? Although students should have the right to be physically safe on campus, there is no right to feel safe and, as he rightly says, universities are the place where we should feel emotionally and intellectually challenged and, perhaps, unsafe at times.

[Sir John Hayes]

Burke said, as you well know, Mr Deputy Speaker:

“He that struggles with us strengthens our nerves, and sharpens our skill. Our antagonist is our helper.”

Part of developing intellectually and personally, particularly for young people at university—we should not assume that only young people go to university—is exactly that. It is being stimulated, sometimes being excited, sometimes being challenged and, yes, sometimes being offended. I am often offended in this Chamber by all kinds of things, and not always things that I hear from those on the Opposition Benches.

[Emma Hardy]

Even if the right hon. Gentleman is offended, he is never offensive, so I always enjoy debating with him. On the issue of the need to challenge and to shock, there is always a line to be drawn somewhere. In Committee we talked about the offensiveness of holocaust denial. Okay, there is not a physical threat from holocaust denial, but I think that we would all agree that it is very offensive and it is therefore very hurtful. A line will always have to be drawn when it comes to free speech, but we have the difficulty, which I keep going back to, of who makes the decision on where that line is drawn—what experience do they have, what criteria is set, what is their knowledge, and what is their understanding of the subject. Having the right person at the top is important. I am sure that the right hon. Member will accept that, yes, someone might want to offend, to shock or to stimulate discussion, but there is always a point at which we say, “No, that is not intellectual stimulation. That is just offensive and rude and not part of an intellectual debate at university.”

[Sir John Hayes]

Yes, but the problem is that that line moves with the times, with fad and fashion, with what I described earlier as the zeitgeist. Perhaps the most chilling example of that is the case of Kathleen Stock. The hon. Lady will remember that Kathleen Stock gave evidence to the Bill Committee of which she was part. Within a few weeks, Kathleen Stock was driven out of her job as a distinguished professor at the University of Sussex by the mob, a group of students who pursued her and intimidated her and her family.

Kathleen Stock received scant support from many of her academic colleagues, although latterly the university authorities claimed they were supportive, and she was so affected and so damaged by all that that she ended up leaving the job she loved. I thought how chilling and ironic that she should have been one of the people who came to us, as Members of this House, to a Bill Committee debating this Bill, and yet just weeks later found herself a victim of the very problem she highlighted and emphasised in her evidence.

I will move fairly rapidly on to the amendments that stand in my name, Mr Deputy Speaker, because otherwise you will claim that I am making a Second Reading speech—and with some just cause.

[Dr Lewis]

rose—

[Sir John Hayes]

But before I do so, I will happily give way to my right hon. Friend.

[Dr Lewis]

My right hon. Friend is so kind. He has just given a terrible example at the extreme end of the spectrum of intimidation and restriction on free speech, but does he share my concern about the paranoid issuing of so-called trigger warnings or alerts, which are meant to protect students from hearing anything that they might find in the least discomfiting or disturbing? How does that prepare them for going out into the real world, where they are, whether they like it or not, going to hear things that are not to their liking? They will be under-prepared for that terrible ordeal.

[Sir John Hayes]

Almost every part of the canon of our great literature now seems to come with a health warning. From “Moby-Dick” to “Jane Eyre”, we are told that books are desperately dangerous for young people to read. That this is happening in schools and, amazingly, in universities is almost beyond belief. Snow has turned to ice: they are no longer snowflakes, they are in deep freeze, those people who dare not even read Austen, the Brontës or George Eliot—of those three, I strongly recommend George Eliot, by the way, but let us move on before I get into any more literary considerations.

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith]

No, no—Austen!

[Sir John Hayes]

I thought my right hon. Friend was going to challenge my literary knowledge, but let us move to the amendments.

The Government have moved a considerable way since we debated the matter in Committee, and I congratulate and thank my right hon. Friend the Minister for Universities for her earlier words and especially for what she has done. She listened carefully in Committee. Often, when Ministers in Committee say, “I’ll take that away and think about it.”, we know they are going through the motions, but not this Minister, any more than I did when I was a Minister.

I think it is important that Bills metamorphosise through scrutiny and that Governments listen to argument—including arguments from those on the Opposition Benches, by the way. When I was a Minister, I would often go back to my civil servants and say, “Well, what the shadow Minister said seemed to make a lot of sense to me. Why aren’t we doing that?”. That is a very effective way for Ministers to challenge their own officials when they hear cogent and sensible arguments put from all parts of the House. That is precisely what this Minister did, and the Government amendments, on which I will not comment in any detail, reflect her consideration of the strong arguments that we used to strengthen this Bill, which she has now done in a number of respects.

--- Later in debate ---

[Miriam Cates]

I absolutely agree with the hon. Gentleman. The belief that human life starts at conception is a scientifically valid belief, and one that I hold myself. Students and staff should absolutely be protected in reflecting that view. He leads me on to my next point, which is that for every high-profile case we have discussed in the House today, many more never make the headlines. Underneath these incidents lies a culture where students and academics alike are becoming afraid to discuss and share their views. Last October, the University and College Union published a report showing that 35% of UK academics had undertaken self-censorship for fear of negative repercussions, such as the loss of privileges, demotion or even physical harm. The report’s authors commented:

“Self-censorship at this level appears to make a mockery of any pretence by universities of being paragons of free speech and…the pursuit of knowledge and academic freedom.”

The evidence is clear: free speech and academic freedoms in our universities are under threat, so I welcome the Government amendments that will strengthen the Bill further. Amendments 1, 2 and 16 extend protections to academics by removing the express limitation that academic freedom covers only matters within an academic’s field of expertise. They are important: first, because in many disciplines it would be hard to define exactly where the boundaries of a particular field lie; and secondly, because it is right to recognise that research and ideas do not exist in silos. There are obvious crossovers, for example, between science and ethics, politics and economics, philosophy and history. We need our greatest minds to be free to write, to speak and to conduct research in an unrestricted way for the benefit of our whole society.

[Sir John Hayes]

As ever, my hon. Friend is making a compelling case. University authorities are often either complicit in this, or in denial. The Bill will send a signal to them that it is simply not good enough to brush the attacks on freedom under the carpet. I hope that she will press the Government to go still further, as I have done, in ensuring that the Bill has all the provisions needed to ensure that freedom is maintained.

[Miriam Cates]

My right hon. Friend is right: this Bill is an important marker for universities, which will be forced to recognise that these are not specific isolated issues, but that there is a culture change that needs to be addressed across our whole country. We are also seeing it in other countries in the world, particularly America.

I support the amendments to remove the restriction on field of expertise, and I also support Government amendments 3, 4 and 6 to 10, which will ensure that higher education providers cannot require visiting speakers or hosting bodies to bear some or all of the costs of security. This will prevent no-platforming by the back door. As my right hon. Friend the Minister has already said, if universities have a physical safety and security issue on campus, they should urgently address the root of that.

On safety, amendment 18, in the name of the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington (Matt Western), would compel the Office for Students, when considering a free speech complaint, to be mindful of the right of students to feel safe on university campuses. I have no doubt that the amendment is well meant, and I listened carefully to his arguments, but I fear that it would further embed the culture and attitudes that have led to the chilling effect on free speech and that have made this Bill necessary.

In the amendment, as on campus, we see the conflation of physical safety with intellectual and emotional comfort. Students should of course be physically safe, and higher education institutions have a duty to follow health and safety law, like all other organisations, but I suspect that is not what the amendment is getting at. Universities should absolutely not be cultivating an atmosphere on campus where students believe they are or should be free from emotional and intellectual discomfort. Just as our bodies must go through training, challenge and discomfort to become physically fit, so our minds must experience challenge, discomfort and sometimes even offence to become stronger, more resilient and more wise.

In the recent book, “The Coddling of the American Mind”, the authors describe “anti-fragility”, the idea that young people’s brains must be exposed to challenges and stresses, or they will fail to mature into strong and capable adults able to engage productively with people and ideas that challenge their beliefs. Nowhere is it more important to understand the concept of anti-fragility than in our universities, where institutions are cultivating minds that will become the thought leaders of tomorrow. Since our universities act as an incubator for wider public culture, we will fail to uphold freedom of debate in this country if we fail to uphold it on campus.

Freedom of speech is the bedrock of democracy. As a recent New York Times editorial put it:

“Ideas that go unchallenged by opposing views risk becoming weak and brittle rather than being strengthened by tough scrutiny.”

We saw the impact of that cancel culture in political and social debate during covid, where damaging, un-evidenced, ineffective and wasteful policies went unchallenged. If we value the kind of rigorous debate that upholds democracy and ensures the best policies are produced, we must not allow this concept creep of the term “safety” on campus.

Despite levelling up, Brexit and enormous economic challenges, this is possibly one of the most important Bills making its way through Parliament, because our ability to unite and level up in this country is threatened by the culture on campus. The starkest division in British society—not only in voting behaviour, but in social values—is between graduates and non-graduates. The trend towards a homogenous worldview in our higher education institutions is exacerbating this division. Instead, we need our universities to be places where it is the norm for competing ideas to co-exist and to be openly interrogated and challenged by evidence.

--- Later in debate ---

[Michelle Donelan]

With the leave of the House, I will speak on the non-Government amendments. New clause 1 seeks to improve transparency, especially in relation to foreign donations, and new clause 3 would place a duty on higher education providers as part of the promote duty to report information about foreign language, culture and exchange programmes and courses to the Office for Students and the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State would then be empowered to direct them to terminate the partnership or offer an equivalent if there were concerns about freedom of speech.

My hon. Friends are absolutely right to promote the importance of transparency of overseas financial arrangements, and we agree, which is why Government new clause 2 addresses those concerns. New clause 2 also requires the reporting of funding from certain overseas educational partnerships, including Confucius institutes, which addresses new clause 1 and the first part of new clause 3.

New clause 3 would have unintended consequences and place an unnecessary burden on the sector. Under new clause 2, there would be a financial threshold and countries such as NATO allies would be exempt. New clause 3 has no exemptions, which would mean that every single kind of partnership would be covered from the Turing scheme and third-year language students studying abroad with partner universities to important international research exchange programmes. The burden on providers to deal with that information would be disproportionate and would stifle the ability of our world-class universities to work with global partners on important research programmes.

The Government take the concern regarding foreign interference extremely seriously, however, which is why we developed a cross-Government programme of work to counter those threats, and we are continuing to work with providers to help them to understand the threats and respond. Government new clause 2 will help us to do that, and the Office for Students could utilise a range of enforcement powers to issue fines, close programmes such as Confucius institutes, or mandate universities to offer alternatives to students if that was necessary to secure free speech. As I said, however, new clause 3 would have unintended consequences.

Amendments 19 and 20 would provide that a non-disclosure or confidentiality agreement with the governing body of a provider did not mean that members, staff or students and visiting speakers could not speak freely. I stress that I fully support the spirit of this amendment; it is almost unimaginable to think of anything worse than suffering sexual assault and then being pressurised into being silent. I have been very vocal about the fact that our universities should never use NDAs to silence victims of sexual harassment, which is why I launched a pledge in January to end the use of NDAs. Some 66 universities are now signed up, 62 of which are in England, and three Oxford colleges.

We have a long way to go, which is why I am constantly talking to universities and working with Can’t Buy My Silence to call out those who have as yet failed to sign the pledge, but I know that a number will sign imminently. When it comes to the use of NDAs and sexual assault, the higher education sector has an opportunity to lead the way and show others what can be done.

We have also asked the Office for Students to impose a binding condition of registration on universities to ensure that they properly tackle sexual misconduct, which we intend to deal with that sort of behaviour. This would have teeth and it would mean that universities could be fined up to half a million pounds; they could even lose their degree-awarding powers. The ramifications would be big, and it would mean that the lawyers who developed those NDAs would be breaching the registration condition by doing so. We are the first Government who are prepared to tackle this issue, and I shall continue discussing with colleagues on both sides of the House all the ways in which we can tackle sexual harassment in universities, because that issue is very important to me and we will be doing more.

Amendment 17, which would widen the definition of academic freedom, is not necessary, because all the proposed new paragraphs are already covered by Government amendment 1, which will remove the requirement for academic freedom to be within an academic’s field of expertise. New clause 6 would add a new definition of academic staff, which I outlined in my opening speech.

New clause 7 and amendment 21 would change the definition of harassment in the Equality Act 2010 and under the Bill. I fully agree that there are occasions when universities have misapplied the Equality Act and have relied on it to wrongly shut down lawful free speech. There is both a subjective and an objective element as to whether harassment has taken place, and that should not be based on the views of just the complainant. Indeed, we saw a case last week where the University of Essex had to amend its policies following welcome pressure from the Free Speech Union. I assure hon. Members that once the Bill has passed, the new director of the Office for Students will ensure that providers are complying with the Equality Act as it is written, rather than overreaching.

[Sir John Hayes]

I am grateful that my right hon. Friend is addressing the amendment that stands in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Tom Hunt). Part of the problem is that universities are drawing up policies for dealing with complaints about free speech and its protection that are themselves faulty; they are often based on advice from individuals and organisations that have a skewed view about the relationship between free speech and the Equality Act. Will she look at those policies and their sources, and the advice that universities are receiving?

[Michelle Donelan]

My right hon. Friend is correct. As I said, some universities have misinterpreted the Equality Act, which is why comprehensive guidance will be produced by the new director that will be the main source that they should refer to, rather than external agencies.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir John Hayes]

I will speak very briefly, making only three points in two minutes.

First, it is disappointing that the Labour party is opposing the Bill. By its nature, it is a party whose Members are elected to a Parliament that has as its foundation the exchange of honestly held opinions. Even at this late stage, I feel that Labour Members might be persuaded to change their mind. I implore them to do so, because it is entirely specious—as the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington (Matt Western), who is a thoughtful person, knows—to compare the cost of living with the price of freedom. The price of freedom is the capacity to disarm, to disturb, sometimes to make people feel uncomfortable and certainly to challenge the status quo. That is the nature of academic discourse, yet it is at risk.

Secondly, the evidence is clear. In Committee, Trevor Phillips said that

“in the last three to five years we have seen example after example of where university authorities have essentially abdicated their responsibility to protect their own academics and students.”––[Official Report, Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Public Bill Committee, 7 September 2021; c. 23, Q42.]

Professor Biggar said:

“My view is that the Bill would protect lawful free speech.”––[Official Report, Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Public Bill Committee, 7 September 2021; c. 24, Q44.]

He went on to say why that was necessary. Professor Ahmed said:

“With regard to self-censorship, my own experience has been that it has changed drastically over the last 10 years…I know that there are people who bite their tongues in the sense that they will not object to certain things that are pointless and stupid, simply because they are afraid of the consequences.”––[Official Report, Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Public Bill Committee, 7 September 2021; c. 15, Q26.]

The consequences for academics and students can be dire: they are isolated, they are persecuted and in some cases, as we have heard, they are even driven out of their job.

The Government have got this right, and the Opposition have got it badly wrong. As Members of this House know, I am not a person who thinks that a single party or a single side of the House has a monopoly on wisdom, but on this particular occasion all the wisdom lies with the Government Front Bench. I implore the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington and other Opposition Members to change their mind, look to their conscience and defend freedom of speech, as I know the Minister is doing and the Bill does.

Oral Answers to Questions

John Hayes Excerpts

Monday 23rd May 2022 Commons Chamber

[Nadhim Zahawi]

Universities UK published a report a couple of years ago assessing the sector’s progress on tackling gender-based violence, harassment and hate crime. It showed some progress had been made, but only 72% of responding institutions had developed or improved the recording of data on harassment. I need them to go much further, and we will keep everything on the table. I am determined that we get to where the hon. Lady and I both want to get. I am the father of a nine-year-old girl who will one day go to college or, I hope, take a degree apprenticeship. A zero-tolerance culture must be delivered.

[Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)]

10. What progress he has made on helping to protect freedom of speech in education.

[The Secretary of State for Education (Nadhim Zahawi)]

The Government maintain our commitment to the protection of free speech and academic freedom in universities with the reintroduction of the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Bill following the Queen’s Speech on 10 May.

[Sir John Hayes]

As the Secretary of State says, it is right and just that we are in the vanguard of the fight for free speech. As the Bill that will ensure that progresses through the House, the backdrop against which we debate it is disturbing, with universities continuing to use the Equality Act 2010 to elevate the fear of disturbance or distress above the ability of free speech to inspire, enthral and move the academic agenda forward. The case of Dr Sarkar at the University of Oxford is a recent sad example, but it is by no means exceptional. Will the Secretary of State, before the Bill reaches the statute book, conduct a review of free speech policies at universities, and, if necessary, issue fresh guidance to ensure that academics and students in those universities can speak freely? [Interruption.]

Educational Assessments

John Hayes Excerpts

Thursday 17th March 2022 Commons Chamber

[The Minister for School Standards (Mr Robin Walker)]

I genuinely congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Meon Valley (Mrs Drummond) on securing this debate and on the enthusiasm with which she has put her case. She has written extensively about examinations and assessment and she is a passionate advocate for children and young people.

There is a great deal on which we can agree, such as understanding the importance of young people’s mental health, the importance of skills as well as academic rigour in the system, and the importance of balancing opportunities across vocational and academic routes. I entirely agree with my hon. Friend that we do not want schools to be teaching to the test and that we want pupils to be engaged in activities as well as learning from which they can benefit.

I fear that we are fated to disagree, however, on exams and assessment reform. We stood on a manifesto that promised to ensure that

“every pupil gets the qualifications they need for a prosperous future, while learning in an environment where they will be…fulfilled.”

It is vital to me that qualifications align with our broader vision for education. The Government are clear that young people should be able to access a broad and balanced academically focused curriculum up until the age of 16. We believe that pupils should be introduced to the best that has been thought and said to familiarise them with the essential knowledge that they need to be educated citizens and to ensure that as many children as possible can lay claim to a rich intellectual inheritance.

Key to that, of course, is ensuring that they have the numeracy and literacy skills to access that broad and balanced curriculum by the time they finish primary school. GCSEs provide the basis for an academically focused curriculum from 14 to 16 and it is our ambition that, by 2025, 90% of pupils will sit a core set of academic GCSEs known as the EBacc.

We have taken steps to ensure that pupils have the opportunity to study high-quality vocational and technical qualifications alongside that core from 14 to 16. We have improved the quality of non-GCSE qualifications at key stage 4 by introducing a new approvals process for technical awards. Only those that meet our stretching requirements and are reviewed by Ofqual will be recognised in key stage 4 performance tables alongside academic qualifications.

With that broad grounding, all students, regardless of background, are prepared to fulfil their aspirations post 16. Pupils can specialise by choosing from a range of high-quality academic and technical qualifications and routes that then become open to them. As my hon. Friend rightly pointed out, the academic route is not the only path to success, which is why it is important that a range of assessment types and pathways is available, drawn from our rigorous and evidence-informed blend of qualifications, to ensure that all students can achieve their full potential.

Alongside A-levels, we have introduced T-levels. Our 10 new T-levels are being taught, including digital, construction, education and childcare, and healthcare science. More than 20 will be available from 2023 and they give students a clear path from their studies to their chosen career. We are also streamlining and improving the quality of post-16 qualifications at level 3 and below.

[Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)]

The Minister is both diligent and thoughtful about these matters. The key thing is that many people’s tastes and talents take them down a practical route, yet we are still labouring under the illusion that the only way to gain accomplishment comes through academic prowess. The simple fact of the matter is that, as he suggested, we need to recognise that fewer people should be studying those degrees that confer neither intellectual rigour nor economic value. People should be studying practical, vocational, technical subjects for their own benefit and fulfilment and for the national interest.

[Mr Walker]

I do not disagree at all with my right hon. Friend, and he will see that some of the work our right hon. Friend the Minister for Higher and Further Education is doing with the university sector is about recognising precisely that, but I do not think that is an argument for removing GCSEs at the age of 16; it is an argument for ensuring that those vocational routes are available.

As we all know, the past two summers have seen unprecedented disruption to the familiar routine of exams and assessments. Teachers and school and college leaders across the country have coped amazingly well with the pandemic and with its associated disruption to exams—and I want to take this opportunity to again thank them from the Dispatch Box for their herculean efforts—but we know that exams are the best and fairest way of judging students’ performance.

Exams provide a shared understanding of what students know and can do—an even playing field with everyone being assessed on the same thing at the same time, independently. We know that exams and the preparation leading up to them can be motivating and lead to improved learning. Beyond that, exams provide students with an objective and accurate gauge of their progress and understanding of subject matter, which can inform their choices about where to go on to next. Exams are the most objective measure, which is why non-examined assessment and coursework is used only where knowledge, skills and understanding cannot be tested validly by an exam. Examples of this would include coursework in GCSE and A-level art and design. For all those reasons we are committed to exams continuing to play a crucial role in our education system, and we are firmly committed to their reintroduction this summer as we emerge from the effects of the pandemic.

Over the course of the last 10 years our reforms to secondary and further education qualifications have created a gold-standard exam system that is respected around the world. Our qualifications exports in 2018 were worth £3.3 billion to the UK economy; this points to a model of success of which we should rightly be proud.

My predecessors in the Department reformed and strengthened GCSEs from 2013 to address concerns from higher and further education institutions and employers that the previous qualification did not adequately prepare young people for the demands of the workplace and higher studies—points my hon. Friend the Member for Meon Valley made. Our reformed GCSEs rigorously assess knowledge acquired by pupils in key stage 4 and are in line with expected standards in countries with the highest-performing education systems.

Our reforms strengthened GCSEs in a number of ways. Qualifications became linear, with exams sat at the end of a two-year course so that less time is spent preparing for modules and resits and more time is spent on teaching and learning. My hon. Friend raised the point about teaching for tests. I have frequently discussed that with Ofsted, which takes it very seriously; its new inspection framework encourages schools to keep a focus on the breadth of curriculum, particularly at key stage 3 and earlier, and discourages teaching to the test.

Ofqual was formally established as the new independent regulator in 2010, with a statutory responsibility to maintain standards. It put in place robust arrangements to maintain standards, which led to year-on-year stability in grades over a long period. Ofqual also introduced a new grading scale, from 9 to 1, with 9 the highest and 1 the lowest grade, in place of A* to G, to signal that the standard of qualifications had changed and to allow greater differentiation of performance at the top end. In 2017 Ofqual also introduced a national reference test to capture improvements in attainment in English and maths so that these could be reflected in grading.

GCSEs serve a critical function as a measure of attainment and a vehicle for progression, and they do so because they are recognised and trusted. They have strong public recognition, with support from 75% of those surveyed as part of Ofqual’s most recent public perceptions and confidence study. That trust stems from a long history in this country of assessment at age 16, which has existed since at least 1918 when the school certificate was introduced, through to the introduction of O-levels in 1951, CSEs in 1965 and GCSEs in 1988.

Oral Answers to Questions

John Hayes Excerpts

Monday 31st January 2022 Commons Chamber

[Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)]

Will the Minister, mindful of what she has just said, investigate how much local authorities are spending on so-called anti-racist education, which is based on deceit, spreads dismay and causes division? She will know that this is happening in Brighton and elsewhere. Will she therefore meet Don’t Divide Us—parents and teachers who are highlighting these matters—with a view to issuing guidance and if necessary taking legislative steps to prevent this kind of indoctrination?

[Michelle Donelan]

I know that the Minister for School Standards, my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr Walker), will be only too happy to meet my right hon. Friend. It is important that I remind the House that schools are subject to political impartiality, and guidance on this will be updated shortly.

Careers Guidance in Schools

John Hayes Excerpts

Tuesday 11th January 2022 Westminster Hall

[Esther McVey (Tatton) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered careers guidance in schools.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Rees. I thank the Speaker for granting the debate. I should start by saying that my right hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon), the Chair of the Education Committee, wanted to be here today, but unfortunately he has tested positive for covid and cannot join us. I know that careers guidance is a matter close to his heart, and I thank him for all the work that he has done on it.

One of my very first speeches in this House was on career guidance and extending opportunities to all. That was over a decade ago. It included reaching out to young girls and supporting them to climb the career ladder. It was about smashing glass ceilings, stopping stereotyping people, and knocking down the barriers that prevent people from achieving, succeeding and fulfilling their potential. I have written academic papers on this issue, worked on reports such as the “Genda Agenda” report and the Ideopolis report, and worked on the Merseyside Entrepreneurship Commission, which looked at the reasons why pupils from deprived areas were often half as likely to set up in business and twice as likely to claim benefit as people from more advantaged areas.

We looked at how to go about breaking those cycles, and the answer kept coming back to good-quality, consistent, regular careers advice and meeting inspirational role models—people young girls could learn from and, where possible, people from similar backgrounds who had managed to succeed, often against the odds, as well as people who young girls could really relate to and who would have an influence on what they were going to do as they got older.

Most advice, for most people, comes from people they know—from parents and friends. How big that pool is will determine how much those people come into a huge and different array of careers, so that pool needs to be widened if we want to widen opportunities for as many people as possible. How can children know what they want to do when they leave school if they are not told about the career opportunities available to them, the qualifications they will need and the different educational paths they can take to get there?

I hope Members can tell that I am as fired up by these issues today as I was more than a decade ago. I will declare an interest because, caught by the bug of supporting young people, I set up my own charity to do just that in 2013. It is called If Chloe Can and it provides careers advice to pupils up and down the country, particularly in years 8 and 9, and predominantly to disadvantaged pupils. It is supported by 200 role models who are successful individuals: Debbie Moore, the first woman to run a public limited company; Jo Salter, the first woman in the UK to fly a fighter plane; Professor Sarah Gilbert, who developed the AstraZeneca vaccine; and people such as Nick Knowles and James Dyson. The list goes on.

The charity provides careers advice, role models and confidence. It is about goal-setting, planning, communication, resilience and assertiveness. The charity used to go into schools and hold performances and plays, but all of that changed because of covid and lockdown, and so too must careers guidance.

[Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right about familiar networks providing advice and about the way that that disadvantages those who do not have good access to such support. That is why, when I was the Minister responsible for these things, I introduced a statutory obligation on schools to provide independent advice and guidance. The problem is that that needs to be face to face—it needs to be direct. It is not enough for it to be via a website, or a remote connection. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the key thing for the Minister to assure us of—I know that the Minister is very keen on this matter—is that that degree of face-to-face guidance will be available to all children in sufficient quantity and quality to make up the difference for those who suffer from disadvantages?

[Esther McVey]

I thank my right hon. Friend for the work he has done. To go back to covid and lockdown, many of us wanted to make sure that schools were not locked down, and he is right that pupils need face-to-face connections, inspiration and support. But when that was not possible, the work that I did with Zoom to engage directly with pupils, play videos and allow pupils to meet inspirational role models online was important too. As my right hon. Friend says, it is the number of times that a pupil connects with people that is important; it cannot just be once, and then they forget it in the years to come. If the pupil can do that consistently, week on week in the summer holidays or in the school term, wherever they are—in school or not; with covid or not—then they can engage. That is the programme I have been working with Zoom on.

We have done some great initiatives, and lots of good things have been done over the last 10 years. I congratulate all the groups, businesses, local enterprise partnerships and charities that are doing so much. Before Christmas in my area of Cheshire, AstraZeneca showed 480 pupils how artificial intelligence, virtual reality, robotics, 3D printing and drones could be used remotely to diagnose problems in the manufacturing process. There are companies doing it, and across Cheshire and Warrington, the local enterprise partnership has been co-ordinating online work experiences too. In two months last year, 1,750 young pupils were given a workplace challenge with 43 local employers; those employers worked with the pupils to open their eyes to what was right on their doorstep. Equally, that allowed the businesses to influence what subjects the pupils might like to—and could—do.

I welcome all that is going on, but it is a bit piecemeal; it depends on where someone lives and what school they go to. We need to broaden that. That is why I welcome the Government’s Skills and Post-16 Education Bill, because it will allow local school skills improvement plans to be created by employer representative bodies, to make sure that schools are working locally with businesses in their area to develop programmes for pupils. Embedding employers in the heart of the education system is key. The Bill also looks to transform the current student loan system, which many of us have called for quite some time. It will give every adult access to a flexible loan for higher-level education and training at university and college, and it will be usable at any point in their lives.

All of these great things are happening, but more still needs to be done in schools to provide better guidance. The latest report from the Centre for Social Justice says that there is a growing need for tailored, innovative and inspiring career guidance with links to role models and employers. Some good work has been done, but lots more needs to be done.

Why is that so important? A young person who has four or more interactions with an employer is 86% less likely to not be in education, employment or training—to not be a NEET—and they can earn 22% more during their career compared with a young person who has had no interaction with an employer. Sadly, the Centre for Social Justice points out that there seems to be no single place where a young person can go to get comprehensive Government-backed careers information. It has also found that schools are not consistently delivering good-quality careers advice. About one in five schools does not meet any of the eight Gatsby benchmarks—a series of internationally respected benchmarks that help Government to quality-assure careers advice in schools.

The Centre for Social Justice also drew attention to the fact that careers advice in school often leads strongly towards academic routes. According to one study, only 41% of 11 to 16-year-olds said that a teacher had discussed the idea of an apprenticeship with them at school, and just 21% of teachers always or usually advised high-performing students to opt for an apprenticeship over university. We are not really looking at the pupil’s needs and what would be best for the pupil; we are still focusing on the institution. We need to ensure that it is pupil-centric advice and support.

I want to acknowledge the work done in this area by Lord Baker. He secured the amendment to the Technical and Further Education Act 2017 that allowed further education colleges, university technical colleges and apprenticeship providers into secondary schools to explain to students the various alternative pathways for their education and training. That will be strengthened by the Skills and Post-16 Education Bill, and that is key. Knowing the options, knowing the benefit of an option, having sample days in colleges and workplaces and meeting people who actually do the job is really important, because it is usually when a young person meets the person doing the job that the job is brought to life.

Also important is starting careers guidance at a very young age. Teach First is really pushing for it to go into primary schools, and I agree with that too. Sometimes I meet pupils and they do not necessarily really know what school is for; they do not realise that it is a journey to get them into work. They feel that it is for killing time for a number of years and perhaps getting exams. In fact, this is a journey to help them to do whatever they want to do for the rest of their life, so I would agree with going into primary schools.

I again congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mark Jenkinson) on his private Member’s Bill, the Education (Careers Guidance in Schools) Bill, to give careers guidance to those in year 7. It should complete its passage through the House on Friday. I welcome the advice going to younger pupils. I know that the Government will be supporting that but, again, can the advice go to even younger pupils? We know that we have the National Careers Service and the Careers & Enterprise Company, but this feels a bit piecemeal. I am wondering whether they can merge, so that we can really get value for money with those two organisations.

I appreciate that the Minister who will answer this debate is standing in for one of her colleagues, who also has covid, so if she cannot answer today all the points that I am about to ask, it would be most appreciated if she could perhaps arrange a meeting with the Under-Secretary of State for Education, my hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Alex Burghart), who is the Minister for skills. The questions I am asking are these. How do the Government plan to ensure that careers guidance is of a high quality for all pupils, irrespective of where they come from? How do they plan to link pupils to the local businesses in their area? How do they aim to support schools to bring in role models, whether that is in person or in the new, innovative way I am doing this—with Zoom, online? How do we stop piecemeal careers guidance? Pupils need to know, in this fast-paced, ever-changing world, what works for them—where they can get the education and the support that they need.

Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Bill (Twelfth sitting)

John Hayes Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd September 2021 Public Bill Committees

[Matt Western]

I do not have any points to make on this clause.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 9 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule

Minor and consequential amendments

Amendments made: 17, in schedule, page 13, line 25, leave out from “subsection (1),” to end of line and insert—

“for ‘a provider’ substitute ‘a registered higher education provider, or a students’ union,’”.

This amendment is consequential on Amendment 18.

Amendment 18, in schedule, page 13, line 27, leave out “provider,” and insert—

“registered higher education provider or of a constituent institution of such a provider,”.

This enables costs recovery from constituent institutions in connection with the complaints scheme.

Amendment 19, in schedule, page 14, line 6, after “provider” insert “, constituent institution”.

This amendment is consequential on Amendment 18.

Amendment 20, in schedule, page 14, line 43, at end insert—

“(aa) after the definition of ‘a fee limit condition’ insert—

‘“constituent institution”, in relation to a registered higher education provider, has the same meaning as in Part A1 (see section A3A(4));’;”.

This defines “constituent institution” for the purposes of Part 1 of the Higher Education and Research Act 2017.

Amendment 21, in schedule, page 15, line 46, leave out sub-paragraphs (2) to (4) and insert—

“(2) In paragraph 1, for the words from ‘in relation’ to the end substitute ‘where under section 73 the OfS imposes a requirement to pay costs on—

(a) the governing body of a registered higher education provider,

(b) the governing body of a constituent institution of a registered higher education provider, or

(c) a students’ union.’

(3) In paragraph 2—

(a) in sub-paragraph (1)— in sub-paragraphs (3) and (5), after ‘governing body’ insert ‘or students’ union’.

(i) after ‘governing body’ insert ‘or students’ union’;

(ii) for ‘73(1)’ substitute ‘73’;

(4) In paragraph 3(1) for ‘of a provider’ substitute ‘or students’ union’.”.

This amendment is consequential on Amendment 18.

Amendment 22, in schedule, page 16, line 15, at end insert—

“(1A) In subsection (1)—

(a) in paragraph (b), omit the final ‘or’;

(b) after paragraph (b) insert—

‘(ba) a constituent college, school or hall or other institution in England or Wales of an institution within paragraph (b), or’.”.

This amendment aligns section 31(1)(b) of the Counter-Terrorism and Security Act 2015 with the concepts used in the Higher Education and Research Act 2017, in order to facilitate the Minister’s other amendments to Part 2 of the Schedule.

Amendment 23, in schedule, page 17, line 4, leave out from “provider” to end of line 7 and insert—

“or a constituent institution of such a provider has the meaning given by section 85(6) of the Higher Education and Research Act 2017;”.

This amendment and the Minister’s remaining amendments to Part 2 of the Schedule clarify how section 31 of the Counter-Terrorism and Security Act 2015 applies in relation to constituent institutions of registered higher education providers.

Amendment 24, in schedule, page 17, line 13, at end insert—

“‘constituent institution’, in relation to a registered higher education provider, has the same meaning as in Part A1 of the Higher Education and Research Act 2017 (see section A3A(4) of that Act);”.

See the explanatory statement to Amendment 23.

Amendment 25, in schedule, page 17, line 22, leave out from “provider” to end of line 24 and insert—

“(aa) a constituent institution of such a provider, and”.

See the explanatory statement to Amendment 23.

Amendment 26, in schedule, page 17, line 28, at end insert—

“(e) after the definition of ‘qualifying institution’ (inserted by paragraph (d)) insert—

‘“registered higher education provider” has the meaning given by section 3(10)(a) of the Higher Education and Research Act 2017.’”.—(Michelle Donelan.)

See the explanatory statement to Amendment 23.

[Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)]

I beg to move amendment 70, in schedule, page 17, line 36, at end insert—

“14A After section 32, insert—

‘32A  Section 26(1) duty: exception for higher education providers

For the purposes of section 26(1) of this Act, the obligation to have due regard to the need to prevent people from being drawn into terrorism shall not apply to any decision made by a registered higher education provider that directly concerns:

(a) the content or delivery of the curriculum;

(b) the provision of library or other teaching resources; or

(c) research carried out by academic staff.’”.

We have had a useful debate on the principles of the Bill. A difference between us has emerged during that debate, which is essentially the difference between those of us who think the Bill is essential, because we think there is a prevailing problem that we need to address—that was reflected to some degree in the evidence we received from Professor Biggar, Dr Ahmed, Professor Kaufmann, Professor Goodwin and so on—and those who take the opposite view, that there is not a problem and, if there is, it can be dealt with by existing means.

My anxiety in all of these matters is to bring clarity to the Government’s intentions. I have made that point throughout. We have been reassured by the Minister a number of times that she is listening to the Committee and will go back and reflect further on the points that have been raised. We have also heard that much will be made clearer in guidance. That is not uncommon in this place. Over many years, as a shadow Minister and Minister, I have encountered many occasions where the implementation of a Bill, particularly when breaking new ground, has required that guidance be issued. It is right and important—if I were the Opposition, I would be making this point—that that guidance is made available at a time that allows it to be scrutinised. I understand that argument, and it is a perfectly reasonable one.

However, equally, from the point of view of good governance, it is important that the guidance—based on the discussions and consultations that will no doubt take place, as the Minister has assured us, between the sector and Government—is iterative and that it reflects those discussions and marks those consultations. I am not as concerned about that as some, because I assume a degree of good will in that respect.

My view about the Bill and the Committee is that, as was said by Members from across the House, our task is to improve the legislation during its passage. That is precisely what I have tried to do in the amendment. For me, it is about certainty and clarity and about establishing an environment where universities and others will be confident that the new regime is one that will deliver the outcomes we want, which is to facilitate and, indeed, to guarantee free speech on campuses across the country.

I am a supporter of the Bill, and the amendment, as hon. Members will see, is a helpful one. It is not designed to do anything other than to improve the legislation. I am also mindful that all Acts are rather different from the Bills they begin as. No Act of Parliament is quite like the Bill that is published; they all metamorphosise during their passage and improve as a result of that metamorphosis. So, the amendment, which is straight- forward, is designed to provide greater clarity, build the certainty I have described and also mark the progress of the Bill. Once the Bill becomes an Act we need to measure its effect. I have argued throughout the Committee for greater clarity, for greater certainty and for more information to be provided.

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle (Brighton, Kemptown) (Lab/Co-op)]

The amendment talks about the Prevent obligations, which are not an Act in themselves so are subordinate to Acts, not being applied for purposes of research, delivery of the curriculum or teaching. Can the right hon. Gentleman give some examples of how he would want this to be applied? We are not quite yet clear on this side of the Committee about whether that is something we would be positively happy with because we are not clear on how the he sees it being implemented.

[Sir John Hayes]

The hon. Gentleman has not only anticipated fully my preliminary remarks, but the essence of my amendment and my speech. I was about to say that my efforts are to improve the legislation and ease its passage to create the certainty and clarity I described. The hon. Gentleman will not necessarily know this, but as Minister for Security at the Home Office, I introduced the Prevent duty. Prevent was a long-standing part of our strategy to deal with counter-terrorism, as he will know, but I introduced the change to oblige local authorities, schools, the health service, community organisations and others to identify, where they might, people who were vulnerable to the overtures of terrorists or who were possibly dangerous already in those terms. We are talking here about potential terrorists and the hon. Gentleman will know that the way the Prevent duty works is that when those people are identified, a process begins, which may end up in them being referred to the Channel programme. The Channel programme is designed to counter the activities of extremists and others who wish to groom those individuals.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir John Hayes]

I see the Whip is nodding. It is important that we are clear about how the Prevent duty operates in practice; the intent of that duty; and the relationship between that and the provisions of this Bill.

We have already spoken about the necessary consistency in the application of these provisions. We have also spoken about the interaction, the interface between these new legal responsibilities and existing law, particularly in respect of the Equality Act 2010. More generally, it is important that this fits with other legislation when it becomes law. That is always a challenge for the Government because Ministers and Governments inherit a statutory landscape not of their making. That is not always a straightforward process. However, by improving legislation in this metamorphosis we can address that issue. That is what I am trying to do with the amendment. I do not know whether it is perfectly worded; I do not know whether it could be improved.

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle]

The right hon. Gentleman has clarified his thinking for me, which is very useful. I am not sure about some of the detailed wording, but that is the point of a probing amendment, is it not? I wonder if he would like to reflect on the interesting contradiction that the Prevent duty does not apply to student unions, but it does apply to the institutions. This amendment applies to both. When the right hon. Gentleman was Minister, did he consider why the Prevent duty was only on the institutions? Why did he not extend that duty to the student unions, and why is he now supporting this Bill, which does the opposite?

[Sir John Hayes]

I spend a good deal of my time contemplating what I think now, and I occasionally contemplate what I thought once. However, the longer one has lived, the harder that becomes. I could not say with absolute conviction that I recall the considerations I made in years gone by. It is complicated, in my case, by the fact that I have held a lot of different ministerial offices, and dealt with a lot of legislation over a lot of years. I said to the Labour spokesman that I have sat many times where he sits today, and, while it is tough being a Minister, it is pretty tough being a shadow Minister too.

I hope I have made it clear that my intention is positive; good Committees are about responsible progress being made—to that end I do not want to delay the Committee any further. This is a probing amendment to clarify, and make straightforward, the relationship between these legislative imperatives, so that the universities know precisely what is to be done. Finally, I send this signal out again: the Prevent duty is not about curbing free speech, it is about identifying potential terrorists. It is no more or less than that. It should not be under-interpreted, because we need to find those people before they do harm. However, it should not be over-interpreted as a backdoor means of closing down free and open debate.

[Matt Western]

I thank the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings for the clarification in the points he has put forward. I found reading what he was proposing a bit troubling, but I understand much more, having now listened to him and to the responses that have been made by colleagues. The right hon. Gentleman had already alluded to the fact that, under Prevent duties, specified authorities are required to have a due regard to the need to prevent individuals being drawn into terrorism. This applies to higher education institutions, local authority schools and further education institutions, as well as the health sector, prisons, probation and police services. I may have got this wrong, but my understanding was that there was a provision prior to the coalition Government’s introduction of the Prevent duty, and it was an enhancement of this that came in through the office of the right hon. Gentleman.

[Sir John Hayes]

The difference was the statutory basis of what we did. I think there was a provision prior. Prevent is a longstanding part of the Contest strategy, which is the means by which counter-terrorism efforts are delivered. We specified in statute a new duty—that is the difference.

[Matt Western]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for the clarification. As he has said, in essence this was a policy introduced by the coalition Conservative Government. I am interested to hear what the Minister’s view is in response to this amendment.

I have read that, in the view of Corey Stoughton, director of advocacy at the human rights organisation Liberty, the tactics of the strategy for monitoring campus activism has had a

“‘chilling effect’ on black and Muslim students, provoking self censorship for fear of being labelled extremist.”

We have to be very careful here, because blanket exemption is just as bad as blanket application. I have looked through the responsibilities of universities, which already have done very well to balance freedom of speech with the Prevent duty. My hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown and I have discussed how the Nottingham Two incident—the right hon. Gentleman may be familiar with it—played out, and how such situations can be avoided. There must be an obvious method of ensuring that academics can research these subjects, whether it be the cultural impact of drugs or the impact of certain political movements, without the police knocking on the door. I would have thought that an obvious way of avoiding problems and difficult situations on campus would be to introduce processes to allow academics to make their governing bodies and departments aware of their work.

--- Later in debate ---

[Michelle Donelan]

Under amendment 70, higher education providers would not have to comply with certain academic decisions such as those concerning delivery of curriculum or research in relation to the Prevent duty. The Government are clear that the Prevent duty should be used not to suppress freedom of speech but to require providers, when exercising their functions, to have due regard for the need to prevent people from being drawn into terrorism. There is no prescription from Government or the Office for Students on what actions providers should take once they have that due regard.

Specific guidance has been published by the Home Office on how higher education providers should comply with the Prevent duty. The legislation imposing the Prevent duty in higher education already specifically requires that providers have particular regard to the duty to ensure freedom of speech and the importance of academic freedom. That means that providers already have special provisions on the application of the Prevent duty to enable them to take proper account of academic freedom, so there is no need for this amendment to go further.

The Government have commissioned an independent review of the Prevent duty and are looking at how effective the statutory the Prevent duty is, to make recommendations for the future. I hope that reassures the Committee.

[Sir John Hayes]

I find the Minister perpetually reassuring, so that is a good starting point. The anxiety is that research is curbed, materials that might be accessed by students are in some way constrained and activities on campus are curtailed, particularly around research and new courses that, by their nature, are contentious. We have heard some examples so I will not repeat them. There are fears in universities that the authorities will not allow academics to run a course in a controversial area or commission research that might be deemed by some to be awkward or embarrassing. That is not in the spirit of academic freedom that I think we all want to engender in our universities. My intention with the amendment was to protect that academic freedom.

There is a problem with Prevent; I am a great supporter of it, as is the right hon. Member for North Durham, but there is an issue on which the review of Prevent might focus. It is the number of referrals and whether all those referrals are appropriate. That is a different debate for a different place, with different people.

On the basis of the Minister’s reassurance, the healthy debate we have had on the subject and that we need to make progress, with my mission to clarify and bring certainty to this legislation, I happily beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question proposed, That the schedule, as amended, be the schedule to the Bill.

[Michelle Donelan]

The schedule contains minor and consequential amendments to other legislation and is brought to effect by clause 9. As we discussed, the consequential amendments are necessary to give effect to the main provisions of the Bill and make all the legislation work together seamlessly and consistently. Therefore, it will contain amendments to other legislation that are necessary for the operation of the many measures of the Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

Schedule, as amended, accordingly agreed to.

Clause 10

Extent

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Fiona Bruce]

I hear what the Minister says, as well as the comments from other Members, but there is still a lack of clarity. The Minister said that an employment tribunal will decide if a dismissal has been fair or not fair, and may take into account academic freedom.

[Sir John Hayes]

The emphasis here is on “may take into account”, in my hon. Friend’s words. The important thing is that those tribunals understand both the spirit and letter of the law that the Bill will become, and that the context that she set out is well understood by all concerned.

[Fiona Bruce]

The Government might want to continue to consider this issue as the Bill progresses.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matt Western]

Further to that point of order, Mrs Cummins. I will just add my thanks to you and to Sir Christopher Chope for your sterling work as Chairs of this Committee.

I also express thanks to both the Clerks for their great assistance in assembling the amendments; it was the first time I had to do that, so I greatly appreciated the support and direction that they gave me. I thank the Whips for putting all the work of the Committee together, and I thank all members of the Committee for the spirit of engagement that we have had.

[Sir John Hayes]

Further to that point of order, Mrs Cummins. The right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington proposed me earlier as the spokesman of the ordinary members of this Committee, or something like that, so I thank the Minister and the shadow Minister for the way that they have performed in this Committee. It is always a challenge for both Ministers and shadow Ministers to maintain the attention of those of us who do not hold those great offices, but they have done so with style and aplomb.

Bill, as amended, to be reported.

Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Bill (Eleventh sitting)

John Hayes Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd September 2021 Public Bill Committees

[John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)]

New clause 8 is a simple request to the Minister to issue some form of guidance about the relevant route for appeals before the legislation comes into force. I think it is quite significant. We are introducing a complex system of complaints and processes, as well as the potential for civil action. It is not much to ask that we get absolute clarity, so that those who will implement the legislation or be the victims of it know how the complaints system will work. I would welcome a commitment from the Minister that we could take to the Floor of the House to reassure people.

With regard to the issue about the rush to sanction, my only comment is that we are dealing with a pretty contentious area, where an element of mediation might resolve most of the problems. Previous progressive equalities legislation that some people have initially opposed has not involved heavy sanctions. In the main, the results have been resolution and progress through a process of education, engagement, mediation and resolution. I think the rush towards sanction will undermine the ability to mediate.

[Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)]

I apologise, Sir Christopher, for not being here at the outset. I always take the opportunity to declare my interests in the Register of Members’ Financial Interested. I am interested particularly in the University of Bolton.

Mediation would be an option available to the director. When the director receives a complaint or identifies a problem, I have no doubt that he will have at his disposal a range of mechanisms for dealing with it. This is not an either/or; it will depend on the severity of the problem, and sanctions will occur only where the matter is not dealt with satisfactorily. I do not think it is an either/or.

[John McDonnell]

It would be helpful if we got on the record from the Minister the process that the Government envisage the director undertaking. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that it is not an either/or, but let us make that explicit on the face of the Bill. If we can get a statement from the Minister to that effect, I will be happy.

I use the example of a parking ticket, but even with a speeding fine—I admit nothing—there is the offer of going on a course to address speeding behaviour. We are not even building that into the Bill. I would welcome the Minister making a statement that she expects the director to undertake that process of engagement, mediation and warning before arriving at a sanction, which could be counterproductive to that process of engagement.

--- Later in debate ---

[Michelle Donelan]

There is no formal right of appeal. If a provider or student felt that there was a factual error, of course that would be outlined in the guidance by the OfS director in relation to this Bill as well.

In the case of a monetary penalty, which is something that hon. Members have raised multiple times, there is a right of appeal set out in schedule 3 to the 2017 Act. That will be available if a monetary penalty is imposed because of a breach of the new freedom of speech registration conditions in clause 5 of the Bill.

[Sir John Hayes]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for drawing attention to the connection between this legislation and existing provisions. In the guardian of free speech’s dutiful determination to preserve that freedom, it is right that the watchdog barks before it bites. Equally, however, and as with some of the examples given in evidence by Professor Kaufmann, Professor Goodwin, Dr Ahmed and Professor Biggar, it seems to me that there has to be a righteous severity in the cases of those who cajole, bully, intimidate and cause fear across our universities, for that is exactly what is happening.

[Michelle Donelan]

I absolutely agree with my right hon. Friend, which is exactly why we are bringing forward this legislation, which really will have teeth to tackle the issue at hand.

I hope that hon. Members are reassured that for binding decisions made by the OfS there is already a route of appeal in place, and that it is not necessary to have a route of appeal against non-binding recommendations.

New clause 8 would require the Secretary of State to publish guidance before the Act comes into force, setting out which complaints routes to use and in which order. The Bill provides for two new specific routes for redress: a complaints scheme operated by the OfS and a statutory tort. These replace what is currently available for breach of section 43 of the Education (No. 2) Act 1986, which is judicial review, giving the duties real teeth. These new complaint routes will be available in addition to other possible complaint routes, depending on the circumstances for students: the Office of the Independent Adjudicator for higher education and the employment tribunal for employees.

It is of course important that individuals are well informed about the most appropriate route for their complaint. For example, in certain cases a student may decide to go to the OIA rather than the OfS, for instance where freedom of speech is only a small part of their complaint. That is because the OfS will be able to make recommendations only on the free speech element of the complaint. The OIA and the OfS currently already work together in a variety of ways, and the Government will work with them to ensure that these processes are clear and accessible, so that students understand their options and both schemes are free of charge.

It is important to note that proposed new schedule 6A to 2017 Act, as set out in clause 7, will allow the OfS to provide in the scheme that it will not consider complaints where the same subject matter is being, or has been, dealt with by the OIA. A similar provision will apply the other way around, so the OIA will not consider complaints already dealt with by the OfS. As for the use of the tort proceedings, the Government expect that in most cases this will be used only as a last resort, as the Committee has already discussed, noting the availability of free routes of seeking redress.

Finally, it is likely that employment cases will be appropriate for those who have had employment disputes where there might be a number of employment-related issues to consider, not just academic freedom. The tribunal will be able to consider the question of academic freedom and alleged breached of the duty in this context, although the Bill does not give them jurisdiction to hear freedom of speech cases. New schedule 6A will enable the OfS to provide in a scheme that it will not consider complaints where the same subject matter is being, or has been, dealt with by a court or tribunal.

Now that I have made clear what each complaint route does and who they will be suitable for, I note that the main provisions of the Bill will not come into force until the day set by the regulations. One of the reasons for that is to allow time for the OfS to develop the new complaints scheme and draft comprehensive guidance, including guidance on the new complaints scheme, and consult as appropriate.

I hope hon. Members are reassured that the Government will work with the OfS to ensure that clear guidance is in place before the duties in the Bill come into force and the new complaints scheme and the tort become available. This will ensure that individuals are aware of their various options when seeking to bring a freedom of speech-related complaint.

The strengthened freedom of speech duties set out in clauses 1 and 2 will ensure that higher education providers and student unions are under clear legal obligations to take steps to secure lawful freedom of speech and academic freedom. Nevertheless, it is important that individuals can access a route to raise complaints where they have suffered a loss as a result of a breach of those duties.

Clause 7 ensures that by providing for the establishment of a new complaints scheme within the Office for Students for complaints relating to a breach of the new freedom of speech duties. This will operate alongside the complaints scheme run by the Office of the Independent Adjudicator for Higher Education, a scheme for students with complaints against their provider.

The OfS complaints scheme will provide an accessible, free route for individuals to bring freedom of speech and academic freedom-related complaints against a higher education provider or student union where they have suffered adverse consequences as the result of a breach of duties in new sections A1 and A4 respectively. The scheme will be overseen, as we have talked about extensively, by the new director for freedom of speech and academic freedom.

The scheme will be available for those to whom duties are owed under new sections A1 and A4—students, members, staff and visiting speakers—which will significantly extend access to redress in terms of freedom of speech and academic freedom cases. There is currently no similar route for anyone other than students to bring complaints against their provider.

--- Later in debate ---

[Fiona Bruce]

No, but it is my opinion that the endeavour is to cancel this in the future.

The definition of Islamophobia was actually debated in this place just a few days ago. The Under-Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall North (Eddie Hughes), said:

“we cannot accept a definition of Islamophobia that shuts down legitimate criticism and debate. Freedom of speech is the foundation of a healthy society, allowing for debate and disagreement underpinned by the values that bind people together—tolerance, equality and fairness.”—[Official Report, 9 September 2021; Vol. 700, c. 204WH.]

It seems to me that the mere discussion of the nature of Islam, which seems to be the allegation here, cannot possibly be construed as Islamophobic.

[Sir John Hayes]

I entirely endorse what my hon. Friend is saying. Once the master had apologised, it is unlikely that the conference would be run there again. That is the point. Often, the people who issue these apologies are not malign or malevolent, but weak and weary or befuddled and bemused. This master may not be the brightest spark in the fuse box—we do not know—but clearly he was not shining brightly on this occasion.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matt Western]

I was not aware of that, so there is a gap in my knowledge, but I think that is exactly the right sort of approach. We need this appointment to have credibility.

[Sir John Hayes]

I am not going to continue the debate about the United States, although there are some virtues in its system—appointments to the Supreme Court spring to mind. To bring matters back to hand, Dr Ahmed, whom the hon. Gentleman has quoted, was very clear. He said:

“There is no evidence that I am aware of that there would be any problems with the appointments process.”––[Official Report, Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Public Bill Committee, 7 September 2021; c. 20, Q37.]

When it comes to credibility, he said that what matters is having someone who has “guts and principles.” That is what we need in this role—someone who can grasp the nettle. The prickly nettle is the absence of free speech, which is becoming increasingly common in our higher education system.

[Matt Western]

It sounds as though we may be being slightly selective in our quotes from Dr Ahmed, because I take something slightly different from what he said. I take on board the point that the right hon. Gentleman has made, but I reiterate that, as Dr Ahmed has said:

“There are always concerns with the regulator—that it has to be impartial”.––[Official Report, Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Public Bill Committee, 7 September 2021; c. 20, Q36.]

That is where we have real concerns about the direction of travel with the OfS.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Jones]

They do. I think it is up to an institution whether they allow people to complain, if they want to complain about that. I am a bit concerned that Gerald Batten, a former UK Independence party leader, who has some quite horrific views on Islam, for example, wrote the foreword to one of the organisation’s documents. Putting that point to one side, people can complain about these organisations, which is good. I personally think it is down to the institution to decide whether it should allow its buildings to be used.

As I have said before, the reason the appointment is so important is that the individual will have a lot of power in deciding what is defined as freedom of speech. In the Bill, we skirt around the issue; we have not got a clear definition of freedom of speech. We know from the discussions that we have had in Committee that the definition varies between different individuals. The right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings, whom I have huge respect for, said that it is about people’s principles. That is what concerns me, because people’s principles are very different, and that is the problem. Today, it will be the Conservatives who can make political appointments, because they have a majority in this Parliament. They can appoint who they wish. But what happens if we have a Government of a very different complexion—they could be extreme right or extreme left—who want to put forward someone who will interpret the definition of freedom of speech? That could have a chilling—I will use that word again, because it is the in word—effect on the way the state or the Government of the day dictate to independent institutions what they can and cannot discuss, and what they can and cannot do. I say again that the Bill is very unconservative in that respect.

I do not think my hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington is asking for something radical. I know it is out of favour with the current Government, but he is basically saying that we should have a system underpinned by the Nolan principles. Sir Christopher, you are long enough in the tooth to know why those principles were brought in. Let us be honest: they were brought in during a very squalid period of our history in the early 1990s, when individuals connected to the Government of the day were involved in some quite unsavoury practices. I am always wary that things such as the Nolan principles should not become like tablets of stone. However, they have served us as a nation well, not just for national appointments, but in local government and other institutions. We should ensure that people are appointed on merit and because of their abilities and expertise in an area.

If the Government’s current direction of travel is to ignore the Nolan principles in large part, I would be quite relaxed about it, but we have a Prime Minister who is determined to put a Government stamp on an array of institutions, from museums right through to universities. It concerns me that we do not have safeguards in the Bill as regards an individual who will have a lot of power.

[Sir John Hayes]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his remarks about me, which he knows are reciprocated. He is always worth listening to and has great experience, both in this House and in Government. However, almost in the same breath, and certainly in the same intervention, he challenged the idea of principles—I was quoting Dr Ahmed about that, by the way—and then made a case for the Nolan principles. He is implicitly accepting that there is a series of measures that can be established and that are the proper means by which the new director can do his job. If we can devise and implement the Nolan principles, I am sure the new director would advise and implement principles in a similar vein.

[Mr Jones]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his intervention, but he is confusing people’s political principles with the Nolan principles. If Dr Ahmed was suggesting that the Government believe passionately in the Nolan principles, I would have no problem with that, but I do not think that is a fair interpretation. Do the Government have form in this area? They clearly do in the appointment of Lord Wharton as the head of the Office for Students. I actually quite like the individual as an individual, but what are his qualifications for that job, apart from having been the former Member for Stockton South?

Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Bill (Tenth sitting)

John Hayes Excerpts

Monday 20th September 2021 Public Bill Committees

[Michelle Donelan]

I think it is quite clear, from my own words, that the Government do not feel that no-platforming is the crux of the issue; the issue is a chilling effect. We have been very open about the fact that the number of no-platforming incidents is low, but the Bill is about the broader issue of the chilling effect.

[Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)]

I am grateful to the Minister for giving way on the issue of the chilling effect, which I described earlier as the fear that pervades many of our universities. That was made clear by the witnesses who came before the Committee. Dr Ahmed said:

“You can distinguish between hard censorship and soft censorship…Soft censorship is where there is not any regulation, but people know—people sense it themselves, because they know that if they say this, or they say that, or if they present these views, they will be regarded adversely. If they are a student, they might be ostracised.”––[Official Report, Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Public Bill Committee, 7 September 2021; c. 9, Q13.]

That fear affects academics and students, and it is damaging the calibre and quality of our universities across the land, which is why the Minister is right about the chilling effect.

[Michelle Donelan]

I agree with my right hon. Friend, but I fear that we are slipping into a debate on the necessity for the Bill itself, which we have already had at great length on Second Reading. I close my remarks on the amendment.