Investigatory Powers (Amendment)Bill [Lords]

Debate between John Hayes and Kevan Jones

Report stage
Monday 25th March 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mr Jones]

That would be helpful. That would give reassurance to the public and provide a test of how the system works. As I have said, I am comfortable with the process of authorisation, but the public must be comfortable with it as well.

[Sir John Hayes]

I note the right hon. Gentleman’s proper consideration of the balance between privacy and security, which lies at the heart of the Bill, but I also recognise the Minister’s concern that we must not make the process too unwieldy and bureaucratic. I wonder whether the right hon. Gentleman might invite the Minister to commit to a regular report going to IPCO as authorisations are made. That might be monthly, but it would at least mean that there was some iterative process of a kind that might reassure the right hon. Gentleman, me and others about that balance.

[Mr Jones]

I understand where the right hon. Gentleman is coming from. Our original idea about having an email was explained when I met the Minister and his civil servants. I think that that would really cut across some of the processes that we have in place. The suggestion that has been made would be one way of doing it, but IPCO already has the powers to look at such things. The only problem with doing that is that we would then have to set up someone in the agencies to produce another report. I do not want to do anything that holds up their work, and I think that that might do it.

Possibly the Minister’s suggestion of how Sir Brian Leveson is going to do it will give the public some reassurance. Let us not forget that Sir Brian has the power to take action if things are not being done correctly. If we read his reports, we can see that he is not fearful of doing these things. A fair compromise has been put forward. I think we have one and a half victories so far—

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Jones]

No, I would not quite say it is two. Hopefully, I might get another one on my other amendment, and then we can all go home happy.

[Sir John Hayes]

Is this an example of my being more hardline than the right hon. Gentleman? It seems like it to me, but perhaps not.

[Mr Jones]

I would not have thought that the right hon. Gentleman could be seen as hardline on anything, pussycat that he normally is. He portrays himself as hardline, but I know from working with him very closely on the ISC that he cares about this information. He has referred to the Investigatory Powers Act as his baby. It has grown up a little bit and is now being brought into the modern age. I should put on the record again his dedication and work as a Minister to bring in the original Act, which was groundbreaking for this country. It has stood the test of time. We know that we will be back here, so the measures will change. I have no problem with that. It is just that, as technology changes, things will change.

May I finish by thanking the members of our security services for the work that they do? I also thank them for the way that they have engaged with the ISC on the Bill. Hopefully, with the changes that have been brought forward, we can reach agreement on the Bill and our security services will have the ability to face up to the challenge that is coming forward: the ever growing use of larger datasets, and the more sophisticated way in which state actors and non-state actors have access to technology. That will enable the security services to do what we all want to do, which is to keep individual citizens and, just as importantly, our democracy safe.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir John Hayes]

I am seeing the Minister nodding. He might want to say a word or two more when he sums up.

[Mr Kevan Jones]

May I gently suggest that the right hon. Gentleman goes back to the Minister now, just to pin down exactly what he is agreeing to? We on the ISC have no problem with the idea of our security services having these powers, and I do not think the public would either. They would be less comfortable, as I and the right hon. Gentleman are, with other organisations having them.

[Sir John Hayes]

The Minister may want to intervene on me again to do exactly what the right hon. Gentleman has suggested.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tom Tugendhat]

Again, just to clarify for my right hon. Friend, this Bill offers no greater expansion than his own Bill did in 2016. In the same way he ensured that Bill was no snoopers’ charter, I assure him that this one is not either.

[Mr Kevan Jones]

rose—

[Sir John Hayes]

I was going to say that I have done this matter to death, but I can see that the right hon. Gentleman wants to intervene.

[Mr Kevan Jones]

I think the Minister is getting another “dancing on the head of a pin” award for his explanation. What I think the right hon. Gentleman is trying to get on the record—perhaps not for the benefit of people in this House who understand this Bill, but for the wider public—is that the way the Bill will be used is that it will include, for example, a local authority when an investigation is being driven by a security issue, such as in his example of organised crime in cigarette smuggling.

[Sir John Hayes]

Yes, exactly. The right hon. Gentleman has put it very clearly, and the sense of what the Minister has said has reassured me that it is not the Government’s intention to extend those powers beyond the very strict legal limits associated with the kind of organised crime that he and I have both cited. For me, that is considerable progress. The right hon. Gentleman spoke earlier about half a win; I think that is three quarters of a win, at least. For that reason, I feel that I can move on to my next request of the Minister.

We spoke earlier about IPCO, and its role and association with Government. As the Minister will know and as the right hon. Member for North Durham referred to, this legislation provides for a report to be made available to the ISC on an annual basis. There has been some concern that that report might be rather different from the one that is made available to Ministers and others, and my anxiety is that it should not be different. All that it should exclude is current operational matters; nothing else should be excluded from what my Committee considers, and clearly, it needs to be the same as what IPCO gets. We cannot have three or four different reports.

Investigatory Powers (Amendment) Bill [ Lords ] (Second sitting)

Debate between John Hayes and Kevan Jones

Committee stage & Report stage
Thursday 7th March 2024 Public Bill Committees

[Sir John Hayes]

It does the Minister great credit that he has made that list available during the course of our consideration. That is very important. What I had feared might happen was that we might not get it while we were in Committee. In fact, I have not actually seen it, but I am grateful to him for making it available, at least, during our consideration.

[Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)]

This is an area that concerns me. I am quite certain the security services have protocols on how to deal with such things, but it worries me that the DWP is on that list. Having been involved in work on the Horizon Post Office scandal for many years, I know the DWP did not cover itself in glory on some of those cases. Can the Minister reassure the Committee that there are protocols governing when and how it will use those powers? That, I think, would give the public some assurance that there is a standard for how they will be used.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Jones]

I agree with the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East, and the ISC feels strongly on this issue. We are clearly speaking English and the Minister is speaking Japanese, because this is about understanding what is actually being given to the agencies without any judicial oversight, which is being dismissed as if these powers are no greater or more intrusive.

As the Committee will know, under the IPA an internet connection record is a form of communications data. It contains data on who has accessed something: it does not actually provide the content of what they have seen or been in contact with. However, under the IPA information can be sought to develop knowledge of who is speaking to who. I think the ISC see the value of this for not only security services but issues around child protection and organised crime, as has already been argued. We are giving the security services and agencies a degree of authorisation here, which I would argue they have not had up until now.

We then come to the argument made by the Minister and the Government that these regulations are not any more intrusive than what we have at the moment. I would argue differently because the power is broad. Previously, targeted discovery condition A, under section 62 of the IPA, required that the agency and officer know the service and precise time of use to discover the identity of an individual, so that they actually know what they are targeting. The Minister used the words “fishing expedition”—this regulation will be a fishing expedition. By default, it will bring in a broader range of individuals who have nothing to do with the target the agencies are looking at the time and connection records for, and are of no interest to the agencies or anybody else.

The Government are arguing that this regulation is no more intrusive—but it is, if we are dragging in a large number of people in that way. Actually, by not having any judicial oversight, they are allowing the agencies to agree that internally. Although the intrusion is not deeper, it is certainly a lot broader than what we have at the moment. The Bill says that the new powers can only be used for “national security” and the catch-all phrase

“economic well-being of the United Kingdom”.

I am still yet to be convinced of that terminology, but I understand that the Minister and the civil service like consistency across Bills, and that is why it is in this Bill.

Under sections 60A and 61 of the IPA, requests to obtain an ICR are like requests to obtain other communication data: they have to be “necessary and proportionate”, which runs through all of this. Again, the Government are allowing the agencies to decide what is necessary and proportionate. I am not suggesting for one minute that they are going to go on a fishing expedition, but again there is a problem with the Government’s approach to the Bill, and certainly with the agencies’ approach. They want these powers, and I do not personally have an objection, but we have to look at how other people, who are not drowned in the detail of this Bill, will perceive them. Some opponents would say, “Why should I be dragged into this?” It is really about giving public confidence; as the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings said this morning, when the IPA was passed, it was about trying to reassure people.

It would be very simple to ensure that this regulation has independent judicial oversight, as the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East has just said. I know the catch-all phrase that the Minister will come back with, because I am a quick learner: he will say, “The IPC has the ability to look back at anything.” Again, that is the haystack—where is the needle? It would be better and more reassuring if they were to have some judicial approval in advance. I will give the Committee one example. Let us suppose that we are looking at train records and patterns of behaviour on WhatsApp or a train-ticketing website. There is possibly a valid reason to do that—to see someone’s patterns of travel, and so on—but it will scoop up a lot of innocent internet users. The assurance here is that they will not be of interest and therefore they will not be part of it, but their information is being dragged into the system. Then a decision has to be made as to which ones people are interested in and which ones they are not.

That is a big change. I accept that it would not be the exact content that somebody accessed, but the connections would be there. It does not sit comfortably with me to leave such a big change to the security services. Knowing them as well as I do, I do not suspect that they will use the provision illegally or for alternative motives, but we have to reassure the public, and I do not think this does that. Would that be onerous? I am not sure that it would be. This comes back to the point that we have made about the ISC all the way through. If we are giving the security services extra powers, we need the counterbalance of a safeguard.

As the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings said this morning, that was exactly how the IPA was approached. Clearly, he was a very good Minister, because he accepted amendments and suggestions, whereas only one has been accepted for this Bill so far. The Minister spoke this morning about working with the ISC. The Minister speaks to us, but he does not necessarily listen to what we say or take a great deal of interest in what we propose. This is an important point. It comes back to the fundamental point that if extra powers are going to be given, it is only right that they come with responsibilities and safeguards.

New condition D removes the existing requirement for the exact service and the precise time of use to be known. Basically, it will now be possible to do a sweep, which will mean dragging people in. Therefore, I cannot see the problem in having some oversight of these powers. I would like to know why the Minister thinks that condition D is not more intrusive. It is more intrusive, because a lot more people will be affected by it. I think the Government are hiding behind the idea that because it is not possible to identify what the individuals have actually seen, it is not really interesting. If that is the case, why have it in the first place? I know the reason for that, but it would be interesting to know what thought has gone into this and how many people will be dragged in. It obviously depends on how the provision would be used in practice. If we went down the street and said to people that we are giving these powers without any judicial oversight—the Minister will say that IPCO can always look at it, and I understand all that—I think that most people would be quite worried. We would give reassurance by providing that important oversight.

This provision certainly needs to be looked at. Is it of benefit and am I convinced that this is a new power that the agencies need? I am, and I think it is right, but coming back to the previous point, we have to ensure that we do not do anything that undermines what is done or that gives ammunition to those people who want to cast aspersions on what is actually done.

I think I know the arguments that the Minister will put forward. We will no doubt come back to this matter on Report, when there will, I think, be amendments from members of the Committee; and if we have an election wash-up, this is one proposal that I think will be pressed by the Opposition.

[Sir John Hayes]

To supplement what the right hon. Gentleman has said, this was part of the original legislation and it is and always has been a controversial aspect of it. There are two things that I would emphasise here. First, it is really important to understand that the kinds of inquiries that would necessitate the use of this power are exceptional. When we considered the original Bill in Committee, one of the arguments was around a criminal threshold: in what circumstances would the public bodies that we are talking about need to avail themselves of the powers? I am on the record as saying at that time that I entirely agreed with the then shadow Minister’s argument that it should not be permitted for minor crimes. In other words, the bodies that the Minister listed earlier would not be using the powers on a routine, daily basis for all kinds of things that they are lawfully entitled to do; they would take advantage of the powers in exceptional cases in which very serious matters were at hand. That would be a helpful way of assuaging some of the doubts raised by the right hon. Member for North Durham.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Jones]

Or we could have what was suggested earlier: when the power is used, that is reported to the Investigatory Powers Commissioner, so that it is aware of what is going on and can do something if it has concerns. At the moment, it is presented with a haystack and has to look for the needle.

[Sir John Hayes]

Exactly. That point was made when we debated the original Act, and I think that I committed at the time to those kinds of things being detailed in the annual report. To clarify a point that was made earlier, David Anderson was clear at the time, and has been since, that we cannot detail the operational purposes of the agencies if doing so would compromise them. The techniques and approaches that they necessarily use in the performance of their duties could be compromised if we were to talk in detailed terms about the character of their operational activities. However, we can speak in broader terms about the kinds of circumstances in which powers might be used—and all the more so for the other public bodies, in a sense, because even if a serious criminal investigation is taking place, those investigations are not typically as secret as they might necessarily be in respect of the security and intelligence community.

Perhaps those two grounds—greater sight of the processes in those bodies and clarity about the circumstances in which the powers can be used; in other words, exceptionally and for very serious matters—would be helpful ways of dealing with some of the points raised by my colleague on the ISC, the right hon. Member for North Durham.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Jones]

May I make a simple suggestion, then? “Necessary operational awareness” is clunky language; surely what is meant is operational experience. That would cover it, would it not?

[Sir John Hayes]

Given what the Minister said about a change in Government—I do not expect one, but I suppose it is a remote possibility—perhaps the words “operational responsibility or experience” would cover the point made and be slightly tighter than “awareness”. Also, there is the matter of notifying the PM. The Committee made the good suggestion that the PM should be notified as soon as practicable, which may be something with which the Minister agrees. If the Prime Minister were indisposed because of illness or whatever, they would be notified as soon as is practicable that a warrant had been issued.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Jones]

But, Minister, let us be honest: a lot of things that we would have taken for granted were ignored in Downing Street over the last few years. Until Boris Johnson became Prime Minister, it had been a great part of our constitution that convention was followed. Surely it would therefore be better to have the point about notification in the Bill; otherwise, we are leaving it to the free will of convention. I would have trusted convention, but we have had Boris Johnson as Prime Minister.

[Sir John Hayes]

I want to help the Minister, because I do not necessarily agree with the right hon. Member for North Durham; occasionally, he and I do disagree, despite the impression that we have created in this Committee. Notification could be covered in a piece of statutory guidance that supports the Bill. It could state that the Prime Minister should be notified as soon as reasonable practicable, exactly in the terms just described. How’s that?

Investigatory Powers (Amendment) Bill [ Lords ] (First sitting)

Debate between John Hayes and Kevan Jones

Committee stage & Report stage
Thursday 7th March 2024 Public Bill Committees

[Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve on this Committee with you in the Chair, Mrs Cummins.

My hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley Central said very clearly that there is general support for the Bill. The need for it is self-evident: things have moved on since the passage of the 2016 Act—indeed, they have moved on very quickly in terms of the amount of data there is, not only data that the security services have to deal with but data in general life.

Bringing the legislation up to date is important, but if we look at the Hansard reports of the debates in 2016, when the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings took the original legislation through the House, we see that there was then, quite rightly, concern that the state acquiring bulk data was intrusive into people’s private lives.

Having read those Hansard reports a couple of days ago, I accept that some of the concerns expressed in 2016 were overblown, as are some of the concerns expressed about this Bill. Frankly, if the accusations regarding what our security services are able to do were true, they would be 10 times, if not 100 times bigger than the actual security services we have today. Nevertheless, it is important in a democracy to ensure that the security services act proportionately—I am confident that they do—and that there is the necessary oversight of their actions and how they deal with the data they have. It is not just parliamentarians who need reassurance in that regard, but the public. The public need reassurance about the data that the state is holding.

Examples have been given, but frankly, they are a bit silly, because things such as the electoral register, which you, Mrs Cummins, I and everybody else can access, fall under the existing regime. The expectation that the data will not be made public is ridiculous, and the same is true of some of the other examples that have been given. For instance, some datasets for machine learning are open on the internet for everybody to see. I do not have any problem with that and I do not think that anybody else does.

Oversight, which we will discuss later, is important. We are giving the security services the powers to determine what is low and what is no. Do I trust that they will have the protocols in place to ensure that that process is done fairly? Yes I do, but I have been on the Intelligence and Security Committee for the last seven years; I know exactly how the protocols work internally in those organisations. To reassure the general public, we need a definition of how this process will take place. I will not touch on that now, but later I will raise the question of how we will have independent oversight of that process.

Neither I nor anyone else is saying that we distrust how the security services will handle those datasets, but one thing the ISC has been very clear on is that if we are going to extend the security services’ powers, there needs to be a corresponding extension of oversight to balance that. I do not want to put in place oversight that prevents operational effectiveness; it would be silly to give the security services powers and then make it impossible or too onerous for them to operate in practice, but striking a balance is important in a democracy.

We broadly got that balance right in the 2016 Act. Looking at international comparisons, we are way ahead of many other democracies in how we deal with oversight of those potentially very delicate issues.

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

I will not detain the Committee unduly, my Whip will be pleased to know. However, I feel it is important at this juncture—in part because, as the right hon. Member for North Durham says, I was responsible for taking the 2016 legislation through the House, and in part because of my current role on the ISC—to make some comment on the first part of this Bill, which deals with bulk powers. There are misassumptions about bulk powers. The Minister will be aware of how vital they are to the security and intelligence services and to the police. These powers are used in almost all investigations —95% of them—and they are critical if we are to deal with the changing character of the threat we face.

Contextually it is important to note that when the 2016 Act was passed, the nature of the threat was metamorphosising, and that is even more the case now. The scale and character of the threats are altering all the time, so the legal powers available to those we mission to keep us safe need to be fit for purpose and up to date. We knew that when we passed the 2016 Act; we knew that the legislation was dynamic and that it would be supplemented over time to take account of that metamorphosis, which takes two forms. First, the threat now is probably greater from state actors, and secondly, it is greater from those inspired to do harm via the internet in particular. That situation makes an implicit case for the kind of measures the Minister has brought before us today.

Furthermore, there is a paradoxical change in the methodology used by those who seek to do us harm. Because of the nature of technology, those people are now able to do things that they were not able to do when we debated the original Act that this Bill amends. I describe the change as paradoxical because those people have simultaneously learned that they can do immense harm with a vehicle and crude weapon; we know that from some tragic cases in recent years. Those inspired people do not need a sophisticated organisation with all kinds of capabilities; they simply need the perverse, indeed perverted, will to do damage. All of those factors legitimise the case for the measures in the Bill, which we will consider over the coming hours and days—but not weeks I am pleased to say, unless something goes badly wrong.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Jones]

I have no reasonable expectation that those posts are private. I am not suggesting that the security services will want to look at North Durham mornings, but those posts are something that I have put in the public domain. That is fine, but it is different from what the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East was talking about. We might share a photograph or information on a small Facebook group, but do we expect everyone to have access to it? I am not sure that we do. Where does that fit into the definition of “reasonable expectation”? Would the individual think that it was available? That is the point.

[Sir John Hayes]

The right hon. Gentleman is making a persuasive argument about public expectations of what is reasonable versus what the Bill says and what the agencies do. He is right that there are good operational validations through the agencies’ protocols, but perhaps the best way of explaining the marriage between expectation and what is real would be by example. It would be helpful to hear some examples from the Minister of how the powers that are currently used, and those that will be used under the Bill, are necessary and proportionate; for all these things are about necessity and proportionality. By example, we can probably put this matter to bed.

[Mr Jones]

Yes. A point was also raised about leaked data. If something is leaked on the internet or any other portal and everyone has access to it, do we then assume that the security services think that it comes under “reasonable expectation”, even though the individual whose data it was perhaps did not want it out there?

I accept that under proposed new section 226B(4)(b),

“the authorisation is necessary for the purpose of the exercise of any function of the intelligence service”,

which is fine. I do not think that people will go on fishing expeditions—we will come on to that issue later— but I note that the phrase “economic well-being” appears later in the Bill, but not in this part. When I have raised the point before, the Government have argued that the phrase is used in other legislation and that they want to be consistent.

If nothing is to be changed in the Bill today or on Report, the Minister needs to put something on the record so that it when somebody challenges this provision in future, which they will, the Government’s intention is clear now and can be interpreted later.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir John Hayes]

I endorse what the right hon. Gentleman said. It is a straightforward matter. The Government could give way on this—because they already have the power to ask for it under existing arrangements—by making it a routine, light-touch process. I take the point that we do not want to impair the alacrity that is necessary for the agency. However, I think a simple change would satisfy the right hon. Gentleman, me, and many others.

[Mr Jones]

I agree entirely with the right hon. Gentleman. If the amendment goes into the wash-up of the Bill, things like that will have to be included anyway. I do not understand why the Government are dying in a ditch on quite a small amendment that would make no practical difference at all to the operation of this Bill. There are certain people—not including the Minister, who is quite a reasonable individual—who want to make sure that the ISC cannot claim credit for doing anything, which I think is quite sad. If the Minister cannot agree to the amendment as drafted, I echo the suggestion of my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley Central that we draft an amendment that the Government are happy with on Report that fulfils our ambitions on oversight, but that is also practically and technically correct. [Interruption.]

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

Debate between John Hayes and Kevan Jones

Wednesday 22nd September 2021 Public Bill Committees

[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 (Seventh sitting)

Debate between John Hayes and Kevan Jones

Thursday 16th September 2021 Public Bill Committees

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

I beg to move amendment 72, in clause 1,  page 2, line 36, at end insert—

“(11) The governing body of a registered Higher Education Provider must present to the OfS, at least once a quarter, a report detailing the steps their organisation has undertaken to fulfil its positive duties under subsection (2).”

You anticipated my opening remarks, Sir Christopher, although of course your seniority in all we do permits that and makes it entirely agreeable to me, so I echo your sentiments about the Minister. We are delighted to have her with us today, and she will be delighted with the amendment in my name.

The amendment is entirely in tune with the purposes of the Bill. We have had a useful debate so far during our scrutiny, and I have been reminded of Dickens:

“An idea, like a ghost, must be spoken to a little before it will explain itself.”

The ideas that have been spoken to a little during our deliberations have affirmed in the minds not only of the members of the Committee, but more widely, the significance of free speech and, in particular, the importance in higher education of open discussion and debate as a means to explore new ideas—to explore and discover, one might say.

We have also established that the argument that this is not a problem—that, in the words of Professor Biggar, who was also one of our witnesses,

“Concern about threats to free speech…in universities is sometimes dismissed as a manufactured distraction”—

does not stand up to close scrutiny. He and other witnesses made it clear that, in his words,

“There is empirical evidence that freedom to speak and research of significant minorities of university students and teachers in the UK are being inhibited.”

He went on to write:

“For every individual who finds himself censored, ostracised, made ill, or bulldozed, there are hundreds of others who look on aghast and resolve to keep their mouths shut, lest they attract trouble.”

We could have a debate—though I do not think that it would be helpful to do so this morning, and I am not sure you would permit it anyway, Sir Christopher—about the true extent of that problem, but clearly there is a problem to be addressed. The Minister and the Government have recognised that—thus the Bill.

[Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)]

The right hon. Gentleman said that we will not discuss this, but is not one of the main arguments put by people who support the Bill that self-censoring is going on? In a lot of the evidence that we have taken so far, everyone has said that they cannot actually say what the scale of the issue is. If we are to use that as a central plank of the reason why the legislation is needed, is it not important for someone to come up with the evidence to support it?

[Sir John Hayes]

I will take that as a helpful remark in support of my amendment, for reasons that I will explain in a second. I have spent a great deal of time with the right hon. Gentleman in discourse of all kinds. In fact, I sometimes think that I spend more time with him than I do with my family, given the Committees that we serve on together, and the onerous nature of the business. We both take that seriously, and we feel that it is a worthwhile thing to do. I always listen to him carefully, because he is a former Minister and a distinguished Member of this House. The point that he is making is that, in order to gauge and to respond to the real extent, we need information. My amendment provides the mechanism by which that information can be brought forward.

In my amendment, I argue simply that universities should provide evidence quarterly, at least, of how they are coping with and responding to the legal demands that the Bill, which I presume will become an Act, enshrines. This is about really getting to the root of the problem and the root of the solutions to the problem.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir John Hayes]

With respect to the hon. Lady, the amendment is very simple, as she will see detailed in the papers before us. It simply adds to clause 1, line 36, a requirement that the governing body

“present to the OfS, at least once a quarter, a report detailing the steps their organisation has undertaken to fulfil its positive duties under subsection (2).”It does not say that all else in the university must be brought to a halt, or that this is the overweening or overwhelming priority of the university.

Universities have many statutory duties, as other bodies do. It is not uncommon for legislation to require bodies to report on their statutory obligations, so this is not in any way unprecedented or irregular. I agree with the hon. Lady that universities will have many priorities, and some of those will be fundamental to their purpose.

Good teaching and learning and good-quality research are at the very heart of the business of the university, but we have said repeatedly in this Committee, and it has been emphasised by Members across the Committee, that free speech, the free exchange of ideas and the formulation of innovative thinking are central—critical—to good higher education. If we think it is vital, and the Government must do, or they would not have brought the Bill forward in the first place, and if we think there is a problem, which again the Government must do, or else there would be no need for further requirements of this kind, then why on earth would we not want to hear from the frontline—in the spirit of the intervention made by the right hon. Member for North Durham—what the university was doing, which would, by its nature, reveal the character and extent of the problems we have discussed?

The spirit that has emerged across the Committee—the point was well made by the right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington—is that we are trying to make this legislation as effective as it can be. That must involve communication between universities and the new body that is being established to ensure that the legislation has its effect. My amendment quite simply does that. I do not think it is in any way unhelpful to the Government’s intention. I do not think that any university that is ready and willing to do its job will resent it. I do not think that it necessarily involves great bureaucracy, although I take the point of the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle that if it were to, we would need to review that. If a university said, “We cannot do this, because we have produced 10 pages, but the person who fulfils the new role wants a thesis or a book,” it would clearly have to be looked again. However, I am thinking a summary describing what the university is doing to meet its positive duties, as the amendment suggests.

I cannot see a reason in the world why, when the Minister rises to respond, no doubt preceded by the Opposition spokesman giving the amendment a warm welcome, she would not—I do not want to put words in her mouth, particularly given her new, elevated status—say, “John, we should have thought of this ourselves.” When she does, needless to say, I will immediately say it was simply a probing amendment intended to be helpful and supportive. In that spirit, I will leave further discussion to wiser heads than mine.

[Mr Jones]

I add my congratulations to the Minister on her promotion, although she tells me she does not receive any more remuneration for her extra work. We should possibly be arguing that she should join a trade union to argue for more, but I wish her well in her new role.

I look back nostalgically to a day when I knew where the Conservative party stood. It was the party of deregulation and cutting red tape, and at any Conservative party conference, attacking the monster of red tape that was strangling business and our public institutions would get a huge cheer. I find the world we live in today rather confusing because we have a Government who, in this Bill, seem to be intervening very clearly in universities and bringing in more regulation. The amendment from the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings adds more burdensome red tape for our academic institutions. It makes me wonder where the planets are aligning in the modern Conservative party, because the amendment would be onerous for academic institutions.

The problem is that this is a one-size-fits-all approach for all academic institutions, but we know they range hugely, from large universities to some very small further education colleges, whose capacity to take on this burden even annually would be limited, let alone quarterly. The party that used to pride itself on setting organisations free seems to want to restrain them, which is strange.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir John Hayes]

That is sensible. One reason why I tabled the amendment was to ensure a degree of consistency across universities. because everyone has to produce the report, and all universities will be expected to behave consistently. The right hon. Gentleman’s suggestion is a good one, and a straightforward means of achieving that consistency could be provided by the new office.

[Mr Jones]

It could but, again, there is a problem because that detail is not in the amendment. There is a difference between a huge academic institution and a small FE college, and I do not know how we get one standard format to deal with that.

There is another issue, which was mentioned in the evidence. The amendment says:

“a report detailing the steps their organisation has undertaken to fulfil its positive duties under subsection (2)”.

That is about freedom of information. It comes back to the problem with this legislation and what we define as freedom of speech. Not only would we need a form or standardised format across all the institutions, but we would need to try and get a definition of what that freedom of speech is. We struggled with that with all the witnesses. It is a bit like motherhood and apple pie: we are all in favour of freedom of speech, but trying to define it is very difficult, especially if we want to ensure that all institutions promote the same thing, because there might be very different interpretations of what the duties would be, and I can see practical difficulties in that.

The right hon. Gentleman, who I have great affection for and have worked closely with, said that the Government must think there is a problem. Well, that is the problem with the entire piece of legislation—it is legislation looking for a problem, rather than solving an existing problem. The onus it will put on universities and the higher education sector is impractical.

Also, what is the sanction if, for example, an institution does not submit its report? What happens if it does not do something? We need criteria in the reporting that says, “You have to do X, Y and Z to meet this threshold” or whatever it is we are trying to achieve. Again, what is the sanction? What happens if an institution says, “I am just not bothering to do this”, or, “I do not have time”? Some might take a principled stand and say, “We are not going to do it.” What is the sanction and where does it say in the Bill, “You have to do it”? So there is a problem there. Are we suggesting that funding or other things should be withdrawn?

That comes back to my big concern about the Bill. I have said it before and I will say it again: it is a very un-Conservative approach to this sector, for the state to interfere directly in organisations that should have the ability to self-govern. What they want to achieve is ensuring that young people have a fulfilling and rich academic education, as we all do. It comes back to the issue of where the legislation lies; as well-intentioned as it may be, there are huge problems with it. It would be not only burdensome, but practically impossible to implement.

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

I congratulate the Minister, although, having sat in the shadow Cabinet, I am not completely sure that she will enjoy sitting in the full Cabinet. The right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings said that he did not want to put words in the Minister’s mouth and then went on to put words in my mouth. I want to be absolutely clear, on every occasion, that I think the Bill is an unwarranted intervention. It is completely unnecessary and on the edge of being crackers. However, we will try to make the best of a bad job.

I understand where the right hon. Gentleman is coming from: there has to be a line of accountability. It should be public, open and transparent, and doing the reports is one way. However, my problem is that it is heavy on regulation. I thought that there was a rule in the Government: one regulation in, one regulation out. I look forward to hearing which regulation is coming out to accommodate this going in.

I have worked in local government, both elected and as a civil servant. We know what will happen to this requirement if it is on a quarterly basis. It will either be a simple checklist and that is it—almost meaningless—or it will become a burden that some institutions will fail to fulfil effectively. Therefore, I think it is best left to the annual reports undertaken by the universities and colleges, rather than quarterly reports.

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

Debate between John Hayes and Kevan Jones

Monday 13th September 2021 Public Bill Committees

[Sir John Hayes]

[Mr Jones]

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

Debate between John Hayes and Kevan Jones

Tuesday 7th September 2021 Public Bill Committees

[Mr Jones]

I beg to differ with you on that.

[Sir John Hayes]

Q I am grateful to Emma for drawing attention to my views of the relationship between consciousness and unconsciousness. That is a philosophical debate we could have. I am interested to talk about your views on trust and truth, and whether you think trust is found through synthesis or, as Hegel said, truth was—but let us talk about that on another occasion and in a different place. Dealing with truth and trust, how far has the culture in universities changed? Has this concern about free speech and openness altered in recent years, in your view?

Thomas Simpson: I can give my personal experience. I am cautious about drawing too strong conclusions from that. My personal experience was that as an undergraduate from 1999 to 2002, I felt free to argue a position in my final year dissertation that I knew my markers would reject, but would recognise the quality of the work on its own merits. I had the confidence to do that. The topic was whether God existed, broadly speaking. Cambridge was a very secular faculty at that time; I was examining a recent contribution to that debate.

I had a moment about three years ago where an undergraduate student in a different department from where I work was talking to me about their political philosophy paper. They had written all the ethics of migration, which is a sensitive subject. The philosophical debate is whether countries have the right to control who crosses the borders into their country. The two positions are what is called open and closed borders. The philosophical debate is already right on the edge of the Overton window for public discourse on that topic. It became clear in the conversation that the student’s personal views were in favour of closed borders, so I said, “What did you argue for in the essay?” The student replied, “Oh, I argued for open borders. It would be silly not to do that, because that is where the lecturers were coming from.”

That to me had a sense of tragedy: here was an individual who believes something different and thought they had arguments for that, but felt that the grade they would receive on the exam would be different because of the content of what they argued for. That sense of danger about particular viewpoints is something I have sensed grow within the university over the last five or six years. I think it roughly tracks some of the turmoil we have had in the public space more generally in that time. It is mitigating somewhat now, but the patterns are in place and we need to take steps to counter that.

[Sir John Hayes]

Q The implication from earlier witnesses, Arif Ahmed, Nigel Biggar and others, is that there is what amounts to a culture of fear. You are setting out the very reason why the Bill is pertinent now there has been a change. Is it that what is acceptable has been redefined, and what is unacceptable is now no longer permissible? It will always be true that there will be differences of opinion, and some people would find certain views agreeable, but is the change that ideas have gone from being disagreeable to, in effect, prohibited?

Thomas Simpson: I have been really inspired by the observation that Scalia and RBG, the two SCOTUS justices, used to go to the opera together. They were ideological opposites and I am sure that they even viewed the other person’s views as reprehensible at times, but there was a collegiality about their ability to do their work together. That collegiality exists in very many places, but it is under pressure, and that is the challenge that we are facing.

[Mr Jones]

Q Where is the evidence?

Thomas Simpson: I have already given the evidence.

[Mr Jones]

We need figures, facts and this, that and the other, but we are not seeing any of that.

[Sir John Hayes]

Perhaps a way of resolving the difference of view between the right hon. Member for North Durham and the witness is for the witness to cite some of that evidence in writing as a follow up? I would like to know about courses that have been cancelled, stopped or never delivered, speakers who have not been invited or where invitations have been withdrawn, and funding that has not been granted on the basis of all of those things being “unacceptable”. It would be very useful if you could provide some kind of note with that as a follow up, which will hopefully allow us to move on.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Jones]

John and I disagree on quite a lot.

[Sir John Hayes]

It could be unconscious bias.

[Mr Jones]

No, it’s conscious bias—[Laughter.]

Dr Harris: Yes, absolutely. For instance, in the determination of curriculum content, that is something where there absolutely must not be imposition of bureaucratic standards. The example that I cited in the written submission was that of the University of Oxford’s music faculty, which decided to decolonise its curriculum. I should say that that is a legitimate exercise of academic freedom, but it then said, “Members of the faculty must not disparage the curriculum.” Obviously, curriculums are changed by disparaging them—that is how they came to be decolonised in the first place—so we cannot stop the process.

There needs to be, and I think the Bill could include, a right of consultation. It is academic good practice anyway, and it slightly demeans universities that they need to be told that, because it should be part of academic ethics. There is also the right to criticise one’s institution. That is part of the international law standard of academic freedom. It is embedded in a number of university statutes. Whatever happens, the standard adopted by the Bill should be at least what is already best practice in the sector. I do not think it should go beyond that.

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

Debate between John Hayes and Kevan Jones

Tuesday 7th September 2021 Public Bill Committees

[Mr Jones]

[Sir John Hayes]

[Sir John Hayes]

[Mr Jones]

[Mr Jones]

[Sir John Hayes]

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir John Hayes]

[Mr Jones]

[Sir John Hayes]

[Mr Jones]

National Security and Investment Bill

Debate between John Hayes and Kevan Jones

2nd reading & 2nd reading: House of Commons
Tuesday 17th November 2020 Commons Chamber

[Sir John Hayes]

That is true. Vulnerability, of course, is also dynamic. That is why I emphasised, in intervening on my right hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells (Greg Clark), that the Government need to get better at assessing risk and modelling the response to it. This is what the Bill begins to do. It has been a long time in the making, but I emphasise that it is welcome because it begins to look at appropriate mechanisms for doing that. So it is certainly necessary.

[Mr Kevan Jones]

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that security and intelligence need to be at the heart of the Bill and that they should drive how we take decisions? That is why being located in BEIS might be a mistake.

[Sir John Hayes]

The right hon. Gentleman made that point in his contribution earlier and it seems to me to be a profound one. In establishing the new processes and the new governance associated with this legislation, it is vital that the interaction with the intelligence services, and all the skills available to the Government to assess risk, is built in to their considerations but also to the process. I am not absolutely convinced that the Bill does that. It may be that there is sufficient flexibility, to take up a point raised in an earlier intervention, to allow the Government to do so, but I hope the Minister, when he sums up the debate, will provide reassurance that the connection between intelligence and risk assessment is as sure as it needs to be. I am grateful to the right hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) for making that point.