Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Bill

Debate between John Hayes and Lloyd Russell-Moyle

Consideration of Lords amendments
Tuesday 7th February 2023 Commons Chamber

[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.

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

Debate between John Hayes and Lloyd Russell-Moyle

Wednesday 22nd September 2021 Public Bill Committees

[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.

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

Debate between John Hayes and Lloyd Russell-Moyle

Wednesday 15th September 2021 Public Bill Committees

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle]

I became quite fond of the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings during the evidence sessions, and during our discussions about the necessity for broader academic reform in our universities and about how tenure works. There is a lot of agreement on that. However, for three reasons, I am worried that the amendment creates an outcome that he is not actually seeking. First, Professor Stock described how her academic freedom and free speech was not limited just by—I would argue not at all by—the university and the institution, but by the harassment from colleagues, students and the academic community more broadly. They called her names such as TERF, which she found objectionable, and said that she was not academically rigorous. In effect, she described what we would call harassment, because she was exerting her right under sex protections to talk about sex, and they were harassing her for that. I disagree with her views on the sex agenda, but it is her right to express them without fear of harassment.

This amendment would be a harasser’s charter—a charter to harass her outside the university, making snide remarks online or in academic forums, degrading her and ridiculing her. We heard in the last evidence session—it feels like yesterday—how many academics feel mocked and ridiculed by their colleagues because of their activities, and that sometimes leads to harassment, because they have protected characteristics. This would be a charter for those academics to be harassed out of their practice. That would be very worrying. I do not think that is what the right hon. Gentleman wants, but I am worried that is what the amendment would do.

We also heard from Trevor Phillips, with whom I disagree on a number of matters, who said that the importance of the Bill is not about directing details but empowering a regulator to provide guidance about where these things need deliberation. Bizarrely, whereas the Minister has previously said, “This needs to be dealt with by the Office for Students”, and I have disagreed, on this issue I would take the line that the Minister has taken: this is an area where we need decent guidance from the Office for Students to ensure that universities are balancing that duty.

The right hon. Gentleman is right that sometimes universities incorrectly interpret the balance of where they should be on harassment and academic rigour. The clunky nature of this amendment might not fix that, but decent guidelines will change the way universities work, so I hope the Minister will say that she will push for them.

[Sir John Hayes]

The hon. Gentleman is taking us towards some sort of Hegelian synthesis of my intention, which is to ensure that, as Professor Biggar said, universities do not over-interpret their duties and define harassment so broadly that it closes down debate, while ensuring, on the other hand, that universities do the right thing, in the terms that the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle was describing, in protecting people from the kind of activities that the hon. Gentleman spoke of. Maybe, as he says, that is best achieved in guidance, because he acknowledges that there is a tension, or a risk of it, as I tried to point out,.

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle]

The whole Bill is full of tensions, which is why many of us would say this is not best put in legislation; instead, it could be done through other mechanisms, such as guidance and support for universities, given that we already have the Office for Students. That is the Opposition’s whole argument on whether we need a Bill. However, we have a Bill, so we need to create a framework to ensure that those tensions are dealt with sensitively.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle]

Six—I thank my hon. Friend. Those bans usually have national governmental guidelines behind them, because the organisations are proscribed under Prevent or under other duties. We need to be careful when we lambast the no-platform policy of the NUS, because it is a policy that furthers Government policy and guidelines for keeping our campuses safe. Sometimes the phrase no-platforming is used, but it is actually a policy that is implementing Government guidelines.

[Sir John Hayes]

Of course the hon. Gentleman is right that, where organisations are proscribed or by law prohibited from operating or existing, they should not come. Furthermore, it may be that other organisations are not welcomed into particular forums, but he will know that, over the years, no-platform policies have been used in all kinds of different institutions to prohibit a much wider range of outside speakers, including in some cases speakers from the Conservative party and other perfectly legitimate and indeed noble political organisations of that kind.

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle]

In a previous sitting, the Chair mentioned facing this issue when he was a student. That is exactly why the NUS has laid down a national policy that refers to six named organisations—so that individual student union branches or universities cannot erroneously put forward others. The right hon. Gentleman’s exact concerns have been implemented by the NUS, which has listed the organisations—only six, and all backed up by national guidelines. An individual student union cannot just say, “We do not like that Conservative,” or “We do not like that academic.” I agree with him that there is concern that that has been misapplied in the past. That is why we now have national guidelines. Again, that is an example of where these things are best settled under guidelines, through negotiations with the national unions and through the regulator, and not put in legislation, which might lead to unforeseen circumstances.

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

Debate between John Hayes and Lloyd Russell-Moyle

Wednesday 15th September 2021 Public Bill Committees

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Sir John Hayes]

I will in a moment, but now that I am flowing poetically I do not want the hon. Gentleman to break into the stanza. [Interruption.] All of these things are a matter of opinion, John. There is also a point about what I might describe as top-down pressure. We know—Members who have been involved in higher education, including many on this Committee, will be familiar with this—that there is often a tension between university management and particular university departments; between the academic staff and the senior management team who are often long detached from their original academic roots. It is a concern that sometimes university authorities will instruct academics to teach particular things, possibly even in a particular way. Defending the integrity of the people at the academic coalface is really important, and that is what the second part of my amendment seeks to do.

[Emma Hardy]

rose—

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle]

rose—

[Sir John Hayes]

To whom should I give way first? I am terribly old fashioned, so I shall give way to the hon. Lady.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir John Hayes]

I am pretty certain that the hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown is going to make a similar point, but I will let him do so when I give way to him.

Of course, the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle is right that it cannot be a free-for-all. Every academic knows what their professional duty is: to transmit a body of knowledge, but also to stimulate a range of ideas, to stimulate people to think freely and openly about the subject matter, which they are missioned to teach and their students are missioned to study. I take the hon. Lady’s point. The amendment is not saying, “Do what you like and it really does not matter”, because in the end academics have a responsibility to their students. That is an important professional duty as well as a responsibility. We must not be too permissive in our approach to what academics can or cannot say and do. However, I am just as concerned—in fact, I am more concerned—about the character of leadership in some universities.

We have talked informally outside this Committee about governance and accountability within universities. When the Minister has a spare moment after getting this Bill on the statute book and is looking for her next Bill, I think that all of us across this House, including those on the Front Bench, should spend time reflecting on and considering the very important issue of university governance.

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle]

I broadly agree with what the right hon. Gentleman says and with the subsequent amendments, some of which say similar things. My problem is around academic rigour, which universities must ensure is provided. Would he address the issue as it relates to basic instructional courses such as optometry, or any of the life sciences. I mention optometry because the University of Bradford has a very good optometry department. I have mentioned my connections with the University of Bradford, the University of Sussex and University and College Union before, and it is on the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. It might be dealt with better in regulation than on the face of the Bill, but might there be something to be said for the freedom of the academics to sit around the table and work out their plans without interference from management, rather than the freedom of an academic to decide what they do?

I put that forward because academics sit down together and work out a course of teaching, so they have a duty to sometimes challenge each other and say, “You need to teach this. You might not want to, but we need to get through it.” Could the wording around that be better? It would also address some of the right hon. Gentleman’s points on how academics have been removed from the management of course design over the years, and could restore their role at the heart of course design and teaching and learning. That would be a move forward.

[Sir John Hayes]

The hon. Gentleman is of course right about the changing balance of power within universities. Many senates no longer play the role they once did routinely. If anything, universities have become more pyramidical in their management structure. It is and always has been important to ensure rigour in the disciplines he describes, and validation of courses, including external validation, is an important part of assuring that rigour. I have been involved in that myself.

I take the hon. Gentleman’s point, but my worry is that these days there may even be ideological top-down instruction, so that one has to sanitise one’s curriculum in a particular way. It might be politically motivated, but it might be, as the right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington implied, about all kinds of other things. It is not all about politics; it is sometimes about non-political orthodoxies. The whole point about academic freedom is that one can challenge what are assumed to be a priori assumptions. That is what the greatest among us have done over time.

I think I can find further agreement with the hon. Gentleman. The wording added may require further work to reflect the sentiment he articulated, but my purpose in tabling the amendment is to get the Government to think again about the relationship between freedom of speech and academic freedom, which populated quite a lot of the evidence we received from witnesses. The concern that we, across the Committee, and the witnesses shared is that academic freedom should, of itself, be placed at the heart of the consideration. The Minister has been reassuring about that, and what she has said so far publicly and in Committee encourages me, but I wonder if we need something in the Bill to reinforce the point.

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

Debate between John Hayes and Lloyd Russell-Moyle

Monday 13th September 2021 Public Bill Committees

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle]

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle]

[Sir John Hayes]

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

Debate between John Hayes and Lloyd Russell-Moyle

Monday 13th September 2021 Public Bill Committees

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle]

That is very helpful—thank you very much.

[Sir John Hayes]

Q The witness immediately before you suggested that lawful speech on campus might be mitigated, restrained or even prohibited, and said that that job would perhaps fall to the Government or vice-chancellors. What is your view on that?

Nicola Dandridge: These sorts of decisions about what is lawful and what is not are both hugely complex and very facts-specific, so I think it would be very hard for the Government to anticipate those sorts of decisions. I think it is appropriate for that to fall to someone like the director and the Office for Students, who could take all the facts into account to make the appropriate decision.

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

Debate between John Hayes and Lloyd Russell-Moyle

Tuesday 7th September 2021 Public Bill Committees

[Sir John Hayes]

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

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

Debate between John Hayes and Lloyd Russell-Moyle

Tuesday 7th September 2021 Public Bill Committees

[Sir John Hayes]

I am a professor at the University of Bolton.

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

Q I have to declare an interest. I am a trustee at the University of Bradford union. I have received donations from the University and College Union. I was the UCU co-ordinator at the University of Sussex and I received money from that university to provide educational opportunities for their students. I would like to think that I work in the sector.

Professor Stock, thank you for your evidence. I must say, actually, that your vice-chancellor did sing your praises to me the last time that I met him and said how excited he was for you to be coming here to show the diversity of views at his university. He was very positive, actually, and I have the email to prove it. That might reassure you. He is leaving anyway, so we will see.

You have raised some really important points about making sure that there is diversity in views at a university. Is there a problem, however, if this is put in legislation, that that becomes too strictly defined as requiring balance? We have debates about the BBC and climate change denial, and the need to have equal airtime for people who disagree and for people who agree. Is there sometimes a necessity for a university to develop a course that is balanced not just numerically but also in terms of where the academic weight is?

Professor Stock: There is a useless way to balance and then there is a productive way to balance. The BBC is a completely different context, because often you have to present both points of view simultaneously, and they just start shouting at each other and nobody’s the wiser. However, on a course that extends through time, and possibly over years, it would be unacceptable not to balance. Balance just means going through lots of different points of view that disagree with each other and trying to work out what you think. It means telling the students that it is their job to work out what they think—that they are not necessarily supposed to agree with you just because you think something, but they are supposed to develop their own points of view.

What is happening at the moment, for me personally, is that—completely extraordinarily, relative to the norms of the sector—whenever I do manage to get an invitation to speak somewhere from some poor, hapless person who does not know my reputation in advance, complaints pile in, and they say, “We’ve got to find a trans person to be on stage with you for balance.” I have had the Francis Bacon keynote at the University of Hertfordshire completely changed in format—until covid meant that it did not happen anyway—just because this idea of balance was required. That is much more like the BBC kind of balance. I do not see why I should have had someone right there when no one else is required to have someone there.