Kinship Care Strategy

Kevan Jones Excerpts

Wednesday 6th March 2024 Westminster Hall

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

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Bedfordshire (Alistair Strathern) on securing this debate. I first became involved with kinship carers 15 years ago through a tragic case in my constituency of a young woman who was kicked to death in front of her two children, who were then left with no parent because the perpetrator was in jail. The grandparents stepped in, and that was my first experience of kinship carers. Since then, I have worked with them across County Durham along with the county council.

Kinship carers do not take on responsibility because they are looking for financial gain; they do it from love, but the state takes that for granted. While I accept the national strategy, in my opinion it is the wrong approach. We need a clear approach on the legal status, as the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) just said. When carers first find themselves with children, they are often left not knowing what to do and or what is the right approach. We need to integrate them into the benefits system so that benefits are paid automatically and we need to co-ordinate at a local level.

I congratulate Durham County Council, which has a great kinship carer unit that I have worked with for quite a few years. It provides not just practical, but financial support, but again that support is time-limited. One kinship carer turned up at county hall one day and left her kids there, because the two-year rule on their support was up.

I say to the Government that this is an investment in the future. If we get it right with these kids, they are less likely to get involved in the criminal justice system, be disruptive at school or go off the rails, because they have that bubble of care around them—usually a grandparent or sibling. If we have to look at it in monetary terms, investment early on will pay itself back. It will also allow grandparents to continue working. Some of them have had to give up work to look after individuals, and they often do not expect to be in that position at their age.

Although kinship care is on the national radar, let us have a local approach. Let us integrate carers into the benefits system, give them support and recognise that this is a long-term investment. We will not get results straight away, but over a period of time we will have better citizens, and the kinship carers themselves will be more productive if they are allowed to work and they are not under pressure.

For example, we need a national system for respite care. I have one kinship carer who is dealing with three boys under 12, one of whom has foetal alcohol syndrome. She is 67. These people are complete heroes; we need to invest in them, put money behind them and congratulate them on the work they do on everybody’s behalf.

RAAC: St Leonard’s, Durham

Kevan Jones Excerpts

Tuesday 21st November 2023 Westminster Hall

[Mary Kelly Foy (City of Durham) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the impact of reinforced autoclaved aerated concrete at St Leonard’s Catholic School, City of Durham.

I welcome the Minister to his place; I know that the right hon. Gentleman has a great deal of experience at the Department for Education and I look forward to working with him to resolve the situation at St Leonard’s. I note that only a week into his role he has already offered to meet me, and I thank him for that. That is far more than his predecessor offered.

There are four purposes to this debate. The first is to bring the Minister up to speed with the situation; the second is to ensure that there are no delays to building the temporary structures; the third is to deliver justice to the parents and pupils at the school; and the last is to accelerate the promised and much deserved rebuild of St Leonard’s.

First, I will supply a bit of history. In 2010, the then Education Secretary scrapped the Building Schools for the Future programme—something that he later regretted. Although that contrition from the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities is welcome, let’s face it: he is not the one suffering the consequences of a crumbling school—unlike the parents, pupils and teachers in my constituency, who were shocked when St Leonard’s was ordered to close just days before the autumn term began, due to the presence of RAAC.

Parts of St Leonard’s remain shut, 11 weeks on. That has had a serious impact on the lives of my constituents and the children at the school. I will shortly share some of the comments I have received from parents. This is an extremely important year for pupils in year 11 and the sixth-form students in year 13—a crucial year for GCSEs and A-levels. So far, the Government have offered no dispensation for those pupils, who have had more than 11 weeks of their education disrupted.

Let us not forget that, for those studying design and technology, music, sciences and specialist subjects, the disruptions are ongoing: there are no labs, no music rooms and no workshops available. Instead, pupils are being taught in a noisy sports hall and in classes of up to 60. In addition, Ofqual has told me that it is

“not in a position to agree adaptations”

even though items such as coursework and school books were not retrieved from the old building until 27 October. Full face-to-face learning did not commence until 30 October, with parts of the school remaining shut now. It is clearly nonsense that, on the one hand, pupils would be allowed mitigating circumstances if a fire alarm went off in the school during an exam, but, on the other, they are denied exemptions if their schooling has been disrupted for more than 11 weeks.

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

As my hon. Friend knows, many pupils at St Leonard’s travel from North Durham. I have had representations similar to the ones she has received from parents about the effect on exams. Does she agree that, in spite of that, some of the teachers are doing great work in trying to overcome the difficulties? They are seriously concerned about the effects of the disruption on those children’s exam results next year.

[Mary Kelly Foy]

I thank my right hon. Friend for his intervention. The staff have been working under such difficult circumstances. They have seen first hand the effect the situation is having on their pupils, who have worked so hard. We should remember that they are pupils who also suffered through the pandemic. We are urging the Minister to do all he can. I implore him to change Ofqual’s refusal to make any mitigations. He could perhaps amend the Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Act 2009, or give a one-off dispensation to the pupils in years 11 and 13—anything to help these pupils and their families.

I must mention a pupil at St Leonard’s, Henry Hague, who bravely questioned the Department for Education officials when they visited the school. Henry asked, “Will our difficulties be recognised for A-level and GCSE results?” The DFE said no. What message is that sending to Henry’s generation? It is that the Government are not prepared to help them and that their departmental officials gloss over this injustice. The King’s Speech stated:

“Steps will be taken to ensure young people have the knowledge and skills to succeed”.

Does that include the nearly 1,500 pupils at St Leonard’s? It does not seem that way.

Eleven weeks on, parents, pupils and teachers are fed up—fed up with the additional costs and the additional stresses that this situation has put them in. I do not blame them; I would feel exactly the same in their position. To add insult to injury, the school has been asking the DFE to intervene for years. It even lobbied the then Schools Minister, the right hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Nick Gibb), in 2017, but nothing came of it.

I have read that if the Tory-led Government—and let us not forget the Liberal Democrats, who supported this as well—had kept the Building Schools for the Future programme, every single school with RAAC, including St Leonard’s, would have been rebuilt by this year. I urge the Minister to lobby the Treasury and No. 10 to reintroduce that programme; perhaps the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities can join him.

I now turn to the comments that I have received from parents. Time does not permit me to share everything, but I want to challenge the new Schools Minister. I know that he has only been in the role for a week, but I ask him to please come to Durham and speak to the parents himself, not just to selected groups, and demonstrate to my constituents that he is on their side and will get this mess cleared up as soon as possible. What my constituents and their children are going through is an injustice. There are no other words to describe it. Parents at St Leonard’s appreciated that Baroness Barran visited and told us that money would be no object, but now they feel like they have been abandoned.

Parents are extremely concerned about the mental wellbeing of their children—not only that, but some have said that their child’s mental health is in decline. Let us not forget that there are additional pressures on children with special educational needs and disabilities, and for children who receive free school meals. I am really concerned because they receive only packed lunches at the moment, rather than hot meals.

This has taken a toll on the mental health of the parents, too. Both parents and pupils are worried about catching up due to lost time in the classroom. They are worried about exams and about the future, especially when so many of these pupils already had their educations disrupted by the pandemic. Parents have also told me that they are having to fork out for private tuition for their kids, and, to compound this stress, they are having to organise childcare and rearrange their own work schedules. Other issues, such as transport, are also eating into teaching time as pupils now have to travel to new locations. That is not at all helped by the greedy bosses at Go North East. Perhaps the Minister could have a word with his colleagues at the Department for Transport and encourage them to give bus drivers the pay rise that they deserve.

I must say that the parents, pupils, and teachers—and all the school staff—have amazed me with their resilience. It is privilege to represent them here. If only previous Ministers demonstrated the same fortitude as my constituents. On that note, I turn to ministerial accountability—or the lack of it. We had a statement from the Secretary of State for Education at the beginning of September, but that was the last proactive statement made by the DFE on the subject in this House.

Ministers had to be summoned via urgent questions from my hon. Friend the Member for Houghton and Sunderland South (Bridget Phillipson). Although we can use named day questions to hold Ministers to account, those are useful only if Departments actually answer them. On issues such as free school meals, I received copy-and-paste replies. On other issues, I never even received a response prior to Prorogation. Responses to my named day questions in the last Session were late, and in this Session one was over a week late. However, I note that the Minister provided a response a few hours ago.

In addition, there was a written statement on school funding in the final week before Prorogation, and again the then Minister had to be summoned to the House via an urgent question. I hope you will agree, Mr Vickers, that this is not a dry procedural issue; it matters to my constituents and their children. In this Session, the DFE and other Departments must up their game and show my constituents the respect they deserve.

I want to finish with some asks. On costs, can we please speed up the process of remunerating the trust? Although I am aware at the Government have paid some of the costs up front, including for Ushaw College, the trust has spent more than £500,000 for critical services, and only £50,000 has been reimbursed so far.

[Mr Kevan Jones]

St Benet’s in Ouston in my constituency of North Durham is affected by reinforced autoclaved aerated concrete. It is a feeder school for St Leonard’s, and no commitment has yet been given about whether it will be rebuilt. Pupils are already leaving the school, and its budget next year and, ultimately, the feed into St Leonard’s will be affected by that. Does my hon. Friend agree that early decisions need to be made about whether St Benet’s will be rebuilt, and that it should be compensated next year for the fall in pupils?

--- Later in debate ---

[Damian Hinds]

The second. I thank the hon. Member for City of Durham (Mary Kelly Foy) and congratulate her on securing a debate on this important subject.

The Government are committed to ensuring that every child in the country gets a first-class education and every opportunity to make the very best of their abilities. I understand that parents, schools and this House are concerned about reinforced autoclaved aerated concrete, and we are moving decisively to address it while minimising the disruption to education. Before I come to St Leonard’s Catholic School, I want to set out why we are taking this cautious approach to RAAC and how the Government are supporting schools and colleges across England.

Professional advice from technical experts on RAAC has evolved over time, and the managing its risks across all sectors has spanned successive Governments since 1994. Although local authorities, academy trusts and other bodies are directly responsible for school buildings, and we fund them as such, we have taken a direct and proactive approach to RAAC.

We have been talking to schools about the potential risks of RAAC since 2018, when we first published a warning note with the Local Government Association, which asked all responsible bodies to identify any properties constructed using RAAC and to ensure that RAAC properties are regularly inspected by a structural engineer. In February 2021, we issued a guide on identifying it. Concerned that not all responsible bodies were acting quickly enough, in 2022 we decided to take a more direct approach. Last year, we issued a questionnaire to responsible bodies to ask them to identify whether they had or suspected that they had RAAC, and started a significant programme of technical surveys. We have been sending professional surveyors to schools and colleges in England to assess whether RAAC is present. We have eight survey firms contracted to deliver technical surveys to all schools and colleges that have advised us that they suspect they might have RAAC, so that we can rapidly confirm whether it is indeed present.

Although building maintenance is the duty of councils, academy trusts and voluntary-aided school bodies, RAAC cases over the summer reduced the Department for Education’s confidence that school and college buildings with confirmed RAAC should remain in use without mitigations being put in place. Following careful analysis of those cases, we made a precautionary and proactive change. On 31 August, we updated our guidance to schools and colleges so that areas previously deemed to contain non-critical RAAC are now taken out of use until mitigations are put in place. Professional guidance makes it clear that wherever RAAC is found, it needs to be monitored closely. The technical guidance does not say that mitigations need to be put in place in all buildings that contain RAAC.

As of 16 October, responsible bodies had submitted responses to our questionnaire for 99.9% of schools and colleges with blocks built in the target era, and DFE has since resolved the remaining 17. Any required surveys of potential RAAC cases are carried out by one of eight professional survey firms, and the vast majority of schools surveyed to date have been found to have no RAAC. As of 16 October, 214 education settings had confirmed RAAC in some of their buildings. Thanks to the hard work of school and college leaders, 202 settings—94%—are providing full-time face-to-face education for all pupils, while 12 have hybrid arrangements that may involve some remote learning on some days. We are supporting these education settings to put in place mitigation plans, and the majority have now returned to full-time face-to-face education or will do so very shortly.

We will do everything in our power to support schools and colleges in responding to RAAC in their buildings. Every school or college with confirmed RAAC is assigned dedicated support from one of 80 caseworkers. Project delivery teams are onsite to support schools and colleges to implement mitigation plans. They will work with them to put in place a bespoke plan that supports face-to-face education for all pupils as soon as possible, based on their circumstances. There is not a one-size-fits-all mitigation plan, and what is right for a school or college will depend on a number of individual local factors. Mitigation plans include using other spaces on the school site, in nearby schools or elsewhere in the local area until structural works are carried out or temporary buildings are installed.

The Government are funding the emergency work needed to mitigate the presence of RAAC, including installing alternative classroom space where necessary. All reasonable requests for additional help with revenue costs, such as transport to other locations or temporarily renting local premises, are being approved. The Government are funding longer-term refurbishment or rebuilding projects to address the presence of RAAC in schools. Schools and colleges will be offered either capital grants to fund refurbishment work to permanently remove RAAC, or rebuilding projects where these are needed, including through the school rebuilding programme. The requirements for each school or college will vary depending on the extent of RAAC and the nature and design of the buildings, and we are working closely with responsible bodies to assess what the right solution is in each case.

I recognise the challenges being faced by the staff and pupils at schools that have had to vacate space due to the presence of RAAC, including St Leonard’s Catholic School in the hon. Lady’s constituency. As she will know, a particular challenge for St Leonard’s is the prevalence of RAAC in the school’s buildings, which has resulted in a significant proportion of them being taken out of use while mitigations are put in place. I thank the headteacher and all the staff at St Leonard’s for their hard work in supporting their pupils through this time. I recognise the pressure staff have been under, and I am committed to continuing to work with the school on how we can support it to respond to RAAC and minimise any disruption to education. The Department has been working closely with the school to implement mitigation plans in order to ensure that face-to-face education can continue for all pupils. This has involved structural works to some of the buildings in addition to arranging alternative, offsite accommodation. We have supported the trust in bringing pupils back into face-to-face learning as quickly as possible to lessen the impact on education. All pupils at St Leonard’s, as the hon. Lady said, have been in full-time face-to-face education since October.

Temporary classrooms are being installed on the school’s playing fields. RAAC has impacted on many of the specialist facilities, as she rightly said, including science labs, IT rooms and D&T areas. We continue to explore options for the delivery of those specialist places as soon as possible.

Pupils due to sit exams next year are currently using specialist facilities at other providers in the local area, with transport provided for pupils. We are working closely with the school to identify how all pupils can have access to specialist facilities. We have provided assistance and facilitated sector support to ensure that children at St Leonard’s have not been disadvantaged, prioritising pupils in examination years. Crucially, we are working with the school on extra education support for pupils. That includes sourcing extra teaching capacity at St Leonard’s with an educational support programme that may include tutoring available for pupils this term.

Qualification-awarding organisations have been working and continue to work with schools including St Leonard’s, although they may have specific difficulties in delivering assessments due to specialist classrooms being unavailable for a time. Awarding organisations have discretion to grant extensions to deadlines for non-examination assessment or coursework, based on a school’s specific circumstances, and will offer as much flexibility as they can when considering such steps. I know that St Leonard’s is meeting one of the awarding organisations with which it works tomorrow, and another is hoping to meet St Leonard’s later this week.

As I set out earlier, the Government are funding the emergency work needed to mitigate the presence of RAAC, and all reasonable requests for additional help with revenue costs are being approved. I note what the hon. Lady said about the timeliness of so doing. I will follow up on that, and we will have a chance to discuss it when we meet.

We are supporting St Leonard’s specifically on the funding of temporary classrooms on the school site, we are funding the use of specialist facilities at other providers in the local area, and we will continue to work with St Leonard’s on what further support may be needed.

[Mr Kevan Jones]

I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. Does he not also realise that the trust has a problem because, at the feeder school that I mentioned in my constituency, St Benet’s, pupils are already leaving and next year’s roll is going to go down, so St Leonard’s will have difficulty recruiting students next year? Will any compensation be given to the trust and the individual schools because their rolls have gone down through no fault of their own?

[Damian Hinds]

I will follow up separately with the right hon. Gentleman about St Benet’s specifically, and we can discuss it further. On overall funding, he will know that there is an established system whereby funding follows the pupil. In the case of St Leonard’s—I was going to come on to this exact point—there is also the prospect of the rebuilding to come, which is a great positive for the school. St Leonard’s is set to be rebuilt as part of our 10-year school rebuilding programme, which, overall, will transform hundreds of schools across England. In the meantime, we will continue to support the school in mitigating the impact of confirmed RAAC.

I am grateful for all the extensive time that the hon. Member for City of Durham has given to this matter, including to this debate. I look forward to meeting her—I believe we will do so next week—to discuss the support for St Leonard’s in more detail. I reassure pupils, parents and staff that the Government are doing whatever it takes to support our schools and colleges in responding to RAAC and minimising the disruption to education. I specifically want to thank the team and staff at St Leonard’s for their hard work in responding to RAAC. The Government have been working and will continue to work closely with affected schools and colleges, including St Leonard’s, to support them, to mitigate affected spaces and to minimise disruption to children’s learning.

Question put and agreed to.

Reinforced Autoclaved Aerated Concrete in Education Settings

Kevan Jones Excerpts

Monday 4th September 2023 Commons Chamber

[Gillian Keegan]

I do sympathise with the hon. Lady. The PFI deals that were put in place all over the country, and which still blight the public sector today, are a hangover legacy of the last time Labour was in power. There is a very good reason why we should not trust it with our public services again.

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

I have two schools that are affected: St Bede’s in my own constituency; and St Leonard’s in the City of Durham constituency, to which a lot of pupils travel from my constituency and which has been closed. Parents I was speaking to over the weekend are both concerned about their education, and frustrated and angry, frankly, at the way the Government have dealt with this.

The Secretary of State said in her statement that her Department had been working all weekend. I spoke to one of her civil servants this morning—a very nice gentleman, I have to say—and he told me nothing, frankly, because he had nothing to tell me. I also spoke to the head of St Bede’s school this morning, who made sterling efforts on Friday to try to get alternative provision in community centres and other buildings in the area, only to be told that the Department has to sign these things off. It is chaos, the way this is being dealt with in County Durham.

Can I just say something about St Leonard’s? If the funding earmarked for the rebuilding of St Leonard’s had gone through and not been stopped by this Government, who instead made the ideological decision in 2011 to bring a free school to the City of Durham, which then closed three years later, costing £4 million, that £4 million could have been spent on education in Durham.

[Gillian Keegan]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman, but just so that he is aware, and actually so that all Members are aware, this was announced on Thursday and today is Monday. In that time, we have identified the buildings, we have got the portacabins, we have written to everybody—

[Mr Jones]

No, you haven’t—not in Durham.

[Gillian Keegan]

We have got the contracts for the portacabins. In a few days, we have actually stood up a helpline system and a caseworker system. I think the schools, working with the caseworker, will be getting all the mitigations in place, but it is a policy that was announced last Thursday.

Education: Return in January

Kevan Jones Excerpts

Wednesday 5th January 2022 Commons Chamber

[Nadhim Zahawi]

I hope that the shadow Front-Bench team will continue to think about their position and change their mind.

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

May I wish you a happy new year, Madam Deputy Speaker? I also thank the Secretary of State for his statement. Local directors of public health have been important in the fight against covid, especially in schools in earlier waves. My hon. Friend the Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) raised with the Prime Minister the issue of real-time information getting to local directors of public health. Clearly, he did not give her an answer—he never does to anything—so I ask the Secretary of State directly whether he can give an assurance that the information from the testing that is going on in schools will be given in a timely way to local directors of public health, who can react to it to assist schools to drive down break-outs where they occur.

[Nadhim Zahawi]

The right hon. Member raises a really important question. This week, I deliberately had a Zoom meeting with pretty much all local directors of public health—more than 200 attended—because I wanted, first, to thank them, and secondly, to hear from them what they are seeing and picking up on the ground and to get that evidence. It is important for me and my team to ensure that we have that communication. I will go further and say that it is about local directors of public health working with school leaders, and the communication must be absolutely paramount. That is why I wanted to have that conversation directly with the directors so that they could hear from me how important they are in this whole endeavour. Local doctors who are responsible for public health are equally important.

School-based Counselling Services

Kevan Jones Excerpts

Tuesday 9th November 2021 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Will Quince)]

I congratulate the right hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne East (Mr Brown) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon) on securing this important debate. I am conscious that time has been short, but I would like to thank all those who have spoken for their constructive contributions to this debate. Colleagues will know me well enough to know that I have never refused a meeting with a colleague and, although I will not be able to cover all of the points raised today, I would be very happy to meet any Member from across the House to further discuss the points that they have raised. I have already accepted a request from my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Miriam Cates).

We know that mental health can have a profound impact on the whole of a child’s life. That is why the Government are committed to treating mental health with the same urgency as physical health and to deliver parity of esteem, and we are supporting mental health and wellbeing at all stages of people’s lives. We recognise that schools are in a unique position as they are able to help to prevent mental health problems by promoting resilience as part of an integrated, whole school approach that is tailored to the needs of their pupils.

Improving mental health starts with promoting good mental wellbeing and ensuring that children and young people get the help and support that they need. Schools with the right support from specialist services can play a vital role in that, which is why improving mental health support for schools has been a long-standing priority for this Government, with a shared approach led by the Department of Health and Social Care and supported by the Department for Education.

Supporting mental health and wellbeing is especially important at this time. As many Members from across the Chamber have referenced today, the covid-19 pandemic has had a particular impact on the wellbeing and mental health of children and young people. The Government’s national survey on the mental health of children and young people in England, which was published in September, found that rates of probable mental health disorder in six to 16-year-olds have risen from one in nine in 2017 to one in six in 2021. Those findings, which are helping us to ensure that the action we are taking is informed by the most up-to-date evidence, reinforce what we have been hearing from schools and colleges about how many children face issues and the need to continue to act.

Because of that, the Government have made children’s wellbeing and mental health a central part of our response to the coronavirus pandemic. Throughout the pandemic, we have prioritised keeping schools open above all else, as long as it was safe to do so, because it is so vital for children and young people’s wellbeing, as well as their education.

The Government have also invested £7 million this year in our Wellbeing for Education Recovery programme. That programme enabled local authorities to provide further support to schools and colleges to develop their curriculum and pastoral care provision in the context of the pandemic. The programme built on our £8 million Wellbeing for Education Return programme in 2020, which provided free expert training, support and resources for education staff dealing with children and young people experiencing additional pressures, including trauma, anxiety, or grief. Around 12,000 schools and colleges across the country have benefited from that support, which was delivered through local authorities.

In addition, we are investing up to £5 billion to support recovery for children and young people who need it most. That includes an additional £1 billion of new recovery premium funding for disadvantaged pupils. Our guidance is clear that schools can use that funding, as well as other funding such as pupil premium, to support their pupils’ mental health and wellbeing, including for counselling and other therapeutic services, alongside supporting their academic attainment.

As we move forward, the Government remain committed to improving the support available to schools by helping them to put in place whole school approaches to mental health and wellbeing which are tailored to the particular needs of their pupils. We know that school-based counselling by well-qualified practitioners can be an effective part of a whole school approach and that many schools already provide access to some counselling support. Our national survey of school provision, published in 2017, found that 61% of schools offered counselling services, with 84% of secondary schools providing their pupils with access to counselling support.

To further support schools that have decided that counselling support is the appropriate path for their pupils, we have produced guidance on how to deliver high-quality, school-based counselling. In the light of the impacts of the pandemic, we have committed to updating that guidance to make sure that it reflects the current context.

The guidance sets out our strong expectation that, over time, all schools will offer counselling services, alongside other interventions, because evidence suggests that counselling can have a positive effect, in particular on children’s psychological distress, self-esteem and general wellbeing. However, we have not mandated that all schools should provide access to counselling services as we believe that it is vital that they have the freedom to decide what support to offer their pupils based on their particular needs and drawing on an evidence base of effective practice.

We are taking action to help schools to build their capability to promote children and young people’s mental health and wellbeing, as well as ensuring that those who need help with their mental health receive appropriate support. The Government are providing £9.5 million to offer senior mental health lead training to about a third of all state schools and colleges in England in 2021-22. Part of the commitment that we made in our 2017 Green Paper, “Transforming children and young people’s mental health provision”, was to offer this training to all state schools and colleges by 2025. The senior mental health lead is a strategic leadership role, with responsibility for overseeing the school’s whole school approach to mental health and wellbeing.

As part of this training, leads will learn about how to develop a culture and ethos that promotes positive mental health and wellbeing, as well as how to make the best use of local resources, including counselling services, to support children and young people who are experiencing issues. I am pleased to report that nearly a quarter of schools and colleges in England—about 6,000—have already applied for one of these £1,200 grants. Many senior mental health leads have already started their training, which will enable them to start to apply their learning this academic year. That will help them to build on the incredible work that they and their colleagues have done throughout the pandemic to promote and support the wellbeing of their pupils.

Another important part of the whole school approach is ensuring that all pupils understand how to promote their own mental health and wellbeing, and that they have the knowledge and confidence to seek additional support when it is needed. That is why, in September 2020, we made health education compulsory—

[Mr Kevan Jones]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Call me old-fashioned, but I thought that in a wind-up the Minister was supposed to respond to the debate. He has now been on his feet for seven or eight minutes, and all we have heard is a pre-prepared, read-out speech.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

The right hon. Gentleman knows that that is not a point of order for the Chair. If he does not like what the Minister is saying, he is at liberty to intervene on him and suggest that he says something else. The Minister also has plenty more time to make plenty more points.

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

Kevan Jones Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd September 2021 Public Bill Committees

[Matt Western]

Exactly that—it is about how this Bill will play with existing legislation and how the responsibilities will be balanced. The fact, and the overriding argument, is that institutions in the higher education sector have done an amazing job of balancing the obligations and the competing freedoms that exist on our campuses, and they have done so with very few problematic exceptions. It will be interesting to see how this individual and their department will handle that. I do not hold out a huge amount of confidence and hope in what they will do, but I will be interested to see what the Minister says in response to the amendment, and we will hold fire until we have heard her words.

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

I have a problem with the amendment, because I think there is a lot of misunderstanding around the Prevent agenda. It is one of the four p’s—prevent, pursue, protect and prepare—which are, as the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings has just said, part of the Government’s Contest counter-terrorism strategy. The principles that underpin it are democracy, the rule of law, individual liberty and the mutual respect and tolerance of different faiths and beliefs, and of those who hold none. I do not understand how it would be a problem for the director or any other institution to have to take into account issues surrounding Prevent.

It would be problematic if we started to take people out of legislation. Prevent is clearly designed to identify individuals who are at risk, and having met—in another role—the people who co-ordinate Prevent, I know that they are very skilled at ensuring that only those who need the programme are put through it. I accept what the right hon. Gentleman said about the vicar, but I am not sure that the amendment would prevent him—pardon the pun—from being referred anyway; that is more about training and ensuring that those whose duty it is to operate Prevent actually understand it. Will we get the odd case of people being referred when they should not be? Possibly, but that does not mean that those cases will be taken any further. I am sure the vicar was not taken any further just because somebody thought that he had failed in the Prevent duties.

I do not think there is any need for the amendment. The principles underpinning Prevent go to the core of the Bill, which talks about freedom of speech, democracy and everything else.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle]

When I first saw the amendment, I was slightly confused about its purpose. The idea that the Bill ought to refer to contradicting or overlapping—however one might phrase it—legislation and sets of guidelines is something that we have proposed in previous amendments, which I feel were slightly better worded.

I put it to the Minister that we need in the Bill a recognition that there are contradictory guidelines and that there will be guidelines to explicitly outline how duties and laws at universities will interact. That would relieve of a lot of pressure. We want surety that the guidelines will have that element to them in perpetuity, so that whatever new Government or office comes in, the guidelines will always outline how the Acts and duties interact with each other.

In that sense, I understand and agree with the spirit of the amendment, but the Bill probably needs something that goes further and has more detailed wording. I also understand that there have sometimes been cases in which either the Prevent duty as it is now, or the Prevent programme as it was, was used and had a chilling effect. We have heard that from different organisations. The Nottingham Two have been mentioned; that was a case of a PhD student researcher and a lecturer at the University of Nottingham. The university felt that it was its duty to report them to the police; they were arrested for downloading and disseminating the al-Qaeda manual and were refused bail for a period of time. There has been a lengthy court case on that. Compensation was paid to the two individuals because they were researching how terrorists radicalise people—the very thing we need researchers to be working on.

The law has helped to correct itself through the court process. I am not diminishing the awful effect it must have had on the two researchers, but they have received compensation and to some extent, unfortunately, these things do happen. Most institutions have already corrected their reporting mechanisms to ensure that that kind of thing does not happen. I am sure the example right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings gave us of the chaplain will be a one-off example that will help us to correct in the other direction as well. Those correction moments are sometimes needed, rather than using statute or legislation to do it.

One thing that should perhaps be included in guidelines is some idea of a process for when you are dealing with contradictory things, such as something that might breach the Equality Act but is necessary to talk about difficult issues that are discriminatory, or that might breach the Prevent programme in a literal reading, rather than its intended spirit. It is the same in universities when dealing with issues that might trigger a safeguarding process; a lecturer or researcher would write to the university to explain what they plan to do in order to get prior authorisation.

[Mr Jones]

There are no key principles for how somebody gets referred to Prevent; it is actually about assessing someone’s vulnerabilities and a pattern of behaviour. There may be an example raising one issue that would automatically get people put into Prevent, but I think the structure is already there.

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle]

I totally agree. However, an example might be if a lecturer wishes to run a course about Islamic radicalisation. They might say to the university, “I need some extra safeguards put around this course because of the students it might attract and the topics we might be dealing with. It is important to teach this course for academic rigour, it is important to understand these issues, but it might attract people to join the course for undue reasons.” That is not to stop them from doing it; it is just to make sure there is a safeguarding approach. All of that kind of stuff needs to be in the guidelines, not here. I hope that that is what the Minister will say. I think a safeguarding, prior notification approach is what is needed here.

I did want to touch on the interesting contradiction brought up by this amendment. Prevent—although there is debate about its understanding and its use, I do not think that is relevant here—is an important programme to try to safeguard and stop the radicalisation of people in our country. However, it applies to the institutions, and the institutions cascade to bodies that work within them, such as student unions. It does not apply directly to student unions in terms of the duty. This does, which is an example of where this Bill overreaches.

If the Bill is going to have a deeper, more intrusive reach than the Prevent programme, we need either to revisit the Prevent duty or to say that this Bill is a bit of an overreach, that it is not necessary for it to be regulating as deep down as student unions and student clubs. This amendment helps to highlight that. That is an argument I have made many times in this Committee, so I will not go any further on that point.

--- Later in debate ---

[Fiona Bruce]

New clause 5 would ensure that employment tribunals had jurisdiction to hear claims relating to the duty in new section A1 of the Higher Education and Research Act 2017. This Bill has been introduced in part because of the high-profile instances of academics being dismissed. Many of the controversial examples have involved extramural speech rather than research or teaching, which again emphasises the importance of our earlier discussion grappling with the proper ambit of protection of academic freedom

The Committee will recall that Kathleen Stock, who gave oral evidence, faced calls for her dismissal due to her gender critical views. In 2019, we heard about Sarah Honeychurch, a lecturer who was sacked as editor of the academic journal Hybrid Pedagogy after signing an open letter to The Sunday Times criticising LGBT training in universities. What legal remedy do such academics currently have? One may argue that higher education providers, as public authorities, could be judicially reviewed, but judicial reviews are often prohibitively expensive, particularly for junior academics. Moreover, judicial review does not ordinarily review the merits of an decision, but more usually involves consideration of whether the correct procedures have been followed, which may still not capture some of the mischiefs identified by the Government before introducing the Bill.

Crucially, there is a real risk that, even if they were able to pursue a claim in the High Court, a dismissed academic may not be able to claim dismissal-related losses if they were dismissed due to an exercise of their lawful free speech and academic freedom. In the case of Johnson v. Unisys Ltd, the House of Lords took the view that the clear intent of Parliament was that dismissal-related cases and claims of a similar nature

“should be decided by specialist tribunals, not the ordinary courts of law.”

That is why I have tabled this modest but hugely significant amendment. We must ensure that those who have been dismissed due to the exercise of academic freedom have an appropriate route of challenge in the employment tribunal—a venue that has the relevant specialisms to deal with dismissal claims, recognising the spirit of and understanding the letter of the law the Bill will introduce. Employment tribunals also have appropriate procedures to simply and significantly reduce the cost burden of claims, especially when compared with the complexity and expense of claims in other proceedings, such as judicial review proceedings.

It may be argued that employment tribunals already deal with claims concerning free speech and that is correct, but invariably such claims must be linked to a protected characteristic, in particular freedom of religion or belief, which has a very specific meaning in equality and discrimination law. I anticipate that most academics would not ordinarily be able to argue that their academic viewpoint springs from their philosophical or religious beliefs, and nor should they have to. Academic freedom is there to ensure that academics have the space to rigorously test and develop new ideas. Dismissal on that basis ought to qualify for specific and special protection with meaningful remedies.

The amendment would address that problem and is consistent with evidence we heard, such as the recommendations from Tom Simpson, who said, for example,

“would seriously support considering introducing the employment tribunal as the first court to consider cases of dismissal in that situation, in addition to the existing measures in here.”––[Official Report, Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Public Bill Committee, 7 September 2021; c. 72, Q149.]

I spoke about the Bill to associate professor in the faculty of law at Oxford, Paul Yowell, and I thank him for his time. He particularly emphasised how important he considers such an amendment. I take the opportunity to refer colleagues to his Policy Exchange paper published in the last few days, “The Future of Equality”.

In his evidence, Professor Goodwin astutely pointed out:

“If the current system with regard to sacking and dismissal were working, we would not be having this conversation. We would not have had dozens of academics appearing in the newspapers. There was another one this weekend from the University of Bristol who was accused of being Islamophobic. The university had ruled that he was not Islamophobic, but had none the less removed his course in response to student satisfaction.”––[Official Report, Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Public Bill Committee, 13 September 2021; c. 96, Q195.]

He said “satisfaction”, but I think it might have been dissatisfaction. In any event, the academic’s course was removed in response to comments from students.

[Mr Jones]

Like the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings, the hon. Lady obviously reads a lot into individual cases that are highlighted in the press. I have some sympathy with her new clause, but it would not prevent people from being appointed. People would find other reasons for debarring people from applying. Could she address the issue of tenure? Employment tribunals deal in contract law—contracts between individuals—but tenure is slightly different. Would the new clause require a change to the way tenure is given to academics?

[Fiona Bruce]

That may require some consideration, but as I am sure the right hon. Member knows, tenure is attained only after very many years of often insecure academic life on the part of academics, and that is one of the issues of which we need to be acutely aware when looking at the Bill.

[Mr Jones]

I am aware of that, but if somebody who has tenure is dismissed from a university because of their views, they would not actually be protected by new clause 5. Although I agree with what the hon. Lady is trying to achieve, it may be difficult to achieve because of the issues around tenure.

[Fiona Bruce]

I am not entirely taking the right hon. Gentleman’s point—it probably requires some reflection on my part—but I thank him for raising it, and no doubt the Minister might do the same.

Professor Nigel Biggar noted that

“appeal to the courts is expensive and risky. It seems to me that academics who have lost their job ought to have readier access to lodge a complaint than through the courts.”––[Official Report, Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Public Bill Committee, 7 September 2021; c. 31, Q62.]

I hope the Minister will consider my comments.

[Matt Western]

I understand the points that have been made by the hon. Member for Congleton, and I appreciate the sentiment, but I disagree with how new clause 5 is worded, because implicit in its words is quite a narrow conception of unfair dismissal. New clause 13 is broader and affords greater protections, and I hope that the hon. Lady will support it.

Several witnesses underlined why the inclusion of employment law provisions in this conversation is so important. When questioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown on whether employment law would be a better basis for defining some of these rights, Professor Stephen Whittle responded with a categorical yes. In her evidence, lawyer Smita Jamdar said:

“there are often cases where there is a very vigorous disagreement about whether something was an exercise of academic freedom or not when it relates to criticism of the institution.”––[Official Report, Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Public Bill Committee, 7 September 2021; c. 57, Q110.]

Employees need the full protection of the law, which is what new clause 13 seeks to provide. Employees would not have to conform to the stringent requirements for bringing an unfair dismissal claim—usually, a two-year qualification period and a range of reasonable responses test, which is construed broadly, often in favour of the employer. They also would not be subject to capped damages awards. There was cross-witness support for this, including from Thomas Simpson, who said:

“I would seriously support considering introducing the employment tribunal as the first court to consider cases of dismissal in that situation, in addition to the existing measures in here.”––[Official Report, Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Public Bill Committee, 7 September 2021; c. 72, Q149.]

On Second Reading, the hon. Member for Devizes (Danny Kruger) said:

“We should allow academics to appeal not just through the civil law but to an employment tribunal if their academic freedom is restricted.”—[Official Report, 12 July 2021; Vol. 699, c. 76.]

New clause 13 is actually an extrapolation of new clause 5. We think that it is broader.

[Mr Jones]

I have a lot of sympathy with this, but will my hon. Friend address the issue of tenure, which is quite a unique employment status. Will it be covered by new clause 13?

[Matt Western]

I am not a lawyer. I would hope that it would be, but my hon. Friend may well be right that it may not be covered. That would be its intent. The concern is about the vulnerability of academics in terms of their tenure and whether they will have the protections that others already have.

I hope the amendment covers that. If it does not, then perhaps this is something we should revisit. I hope the hon. Member for Congleton will recognise that our new clause is an enhanced version of what she is proposing and vote with us.

[Michelle Donelan]

New clauses 5 and 13 seek to provide that a dismissal and breach of the new section A1 duty is specifically to be treated as an automatically unfair dismissal under the Employment Rights Act 1996. New clause 13 further seeks to disapply the two-year qualifying period for unfair dismissal in these cases, removing the limit on the level of compensation that can be awarded and applying provisions allowing claimants to seek interim relief, pending determination of their claim.

Let me be clear that the Bill does not stop employees in higher education from taking their claims to employment tribunals. In doing so, employment tribunals may consider questions of freedom of speech and academic freedom and alleged breaches of the section A1 duty in that context, although the Bill does not give them the jurisdiction to hear freedom of speech cases.

The current two-year qualifying period for unfair dismissal is intended to strike the right balance between fairness for employees and flexibility for employers, to ensure that employers are not discouraged from taking on new staff.

[Mr Jones]

I am very interested in what the Minister just said. It is clear that an employment tribunal can be held on sex discrimination grounds or on other grounds, but could she point out in present employment law where it states that someone would be able to bring an industrial tribunal on the basis that they were discriminated against because of freedom of speech? I am not aware of such a law.

[Michelle Donelan]

As I said, tribunals cannot take a freedom of speech case per se, but if there were evidence of discrimination on the grounds of freedom of speech in the case that they were taking, that could be heard. I can come back to the right hon. Gentleman with the details of that after the Committee, but I cannot point out the exact line of the legislation on the spot.

[Mr Jones]

As I understand it, an industrial tribunal case could not be taken on the grounds that someone had been dismissed because their freedom of speech had been infringed. That is a problem that came out in the evidence. A tribunal could be brought on the basis of sex discrimination and for other reasons, but if the sole reason for a tribunal was that someone thought they were being dismissed because of their views and that their freedom of speech was being questioned, I am not sure such a tribunal would have jurisdiction over that, given present employment law. If the Minister does not know, I am happy that she writes to the Committee.

[Michelle Donelan]

The point I am trying to make is that an employment tribunal will determine whether a dismissal was fair or unfair, depending on the specific circumstances of the case. Therefore, it may take into account breaches of academic freedom of speech. The Bill does not amend employment law in this regard and we do not think it would be appropriate to make dismissal because of a breach of the new duties an automatic unfair dismissal.

The Bill does, however, give new protections to academic staff, including those who may not have employee status or who have been employed for less than two years. It therefore broadens the scope of the current provision section 43 of the Education (No. 2) Act 1986, to ensure that visiting fellows, for example, have the freedom to research and teach on issues that may be controversial or challenging, without the risk of losing their post.

The Bill provides new specific routes of redress for those without employee status, including a complaints scheme operated by the Office for Students and a statutory tort. I hope that Members are reassured that the Bill strengthens protections for academic staff and employees. It expands the range of available routes of complainants and ensures that a wide range of individuals are able to secure redress.

--- Later in debate ---

[Fiona Bruce]

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

[Mr Jones]

I am now a bit confused by what the Minister has said. Tribunal cases are done on case law. I am not aware of any case law in which unfair dismissal has been upheld on the basis of a freedom of speech issue, so I am at a loss as to what the Minister has said. However, I agree with the hon. Lady that this is something that needs to be looked at in detail on Report.

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

Kevan Jones Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd September 2021 Public Bill Committees

[Matt Western]

Of course, we all want to believe in those processes, but when the processes end up consistently with mates of the Prime Minister being appointed, it is pretty disturbing.

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

What the hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner said about transparency is correct. There might be a Select Committee looking at the individuals, but unlike the US system, there is no power of veto to stop those individuals being appointed. If a party has a majority, it will have its person, whether other people like it or not.

[Matt Western]

My right hon. Friend makes a very important point. That is one of the failings of our process in this country. I came across that when looking at international trade and the trade deals that might be struck by the US representative body. In the US, a trade deal would go before another Committee, which would have a veto on the criteria of the deal and whether it should be approved. The same thing should apply to this as well.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matt Western]

I am not saying that the US has a perfect system; far from it. I am saying that the parliamentary process, or the process that involves bodies from within the democratic systems of this place, generally pales in comparison to the way the US does this.

[Mr Jones]

I agree that the US system is not perfect, but would my hon. Friend support something like the NHS appointments commission, which the Labour Government introduced? It took Ministers and politicians out of the process of appointing people to health boards, and took as its bedrock the principles on standards in public life, which were the main criteria in taking decisions. Would that not be a better system, rather than allowing the Government of the day to appoint who they want?

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[John McDonnell]

To follow up on that point, we and a large number of organisations and individuals will be extremely interested in the appointment of this individual. If there is any whiff of a political appointment, it will completely undermine the Bill and the Government’s intentions, whether we agree with them or not—I caution them on that point. That is why building additional safeguards into the Bill is important.

I have been a strong supporter of the establishment and development of Select Committees. As shadow Chancellor, I argued for a greater role for Select Committees in the formal appointment of the Governor of the Bank of England and others. If we cannot secure the role of the Select Committee in the confirmation of an appointment, it would be valuable to hear the Minister’s views on a pre-appointment hearing. As the hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner said, that would at least provide an opportunity for greater scrutiny of the individual and the process.

I caution the Government. There is often an element in a piece of legislation that can unpick the whole of the legislation’s import. I think this is a banana skin waiting to be stood upon if the Government are not careful and do not ensure that the process is above reproach and free from any party political interference. That could poison the well altogether.

[Mr Jones]

As I have already stated, I have deep concerns about the Bill. It comes back to what we define as freedom of speech. In the evidence sessions, we found different views and different incidents, in terms of no-platforming and organisations being stopped from using buildings. The hon. Member for Congleton raised Christian Concern. I have read its website. It holds some quite extreme views, and I could understand why it would cause offence to certain students. In my opinion, it is down to the institution whether they allow such an organisation’s event to take place. For example, a gay student would be concerned that the organisation in question was questioning things such as the ban on gay conversion therapy. I understand why people might think that is what their institution should be about—disagreements.

[Fiona Bruce]

I am actually very glad that the right hon. Member mentioned that point. That is the other issue that was mentioned in the press report that appeared to cause concern to the students who complained about it. Conversion therapy is going to be the subject of a Government consultation. It is a current, contentious issue, on which people have different views.

[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?

[Emma Hardy]

On the point about qualifications for the job, it would be helpful if the Minister could say whether those involve having legal knowledge and an understanding of the sector, which are things that much of the written evidence stated were needed.

[Mr Jones]

Another qualification might be being a very keen supporter of the Prime Minister on Brexit. However, in response to my hon. Friend, yes, we need that, and we are flying blind on the job description. It is quite common for public appointments to have a job spec. I have been involved in appointments, and we usually use that in the process.

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

Kevan Jones Excerpts

Monday 20th September 2021 Public Bill Committees

Then we are having another regulator. We already have the HE regulator. The case law starts with Baldry v. Feintuck, which was one of the biggest cases. Baldry was a Conservative MP, and Feintuck was president of Sussex’s student union, and then he went on to be my primary school teacher.

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

That explains a lot.

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle]

It does possibly explain a lot. He was also clerk to one of the parish councils that I served on, so our lives have been intertwined.

That case said that student unions are excepted charities. As a result of the Charities Act 2011, student unions are not only excepted charities and therefore exempt, but regulated directly by the Charity Commission. As charities, they have a duty to be non-partisan, to be balanced and to ensure that they fulfil all the requirements of the Charity Commission, and we know that the commissioners have great powers to step in if charities are being partisan. So we have a great deal of regulation for student unions already.

Of course, in the HE sector, which this clause covers, student unions are part of that broader assessment that Ofsted has to make when assessing the student unions of the further education college, so now we have a fourth piece of regulation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle]

Because, so far, student unions have not had that contractual relationship, with the ability of students to take them to court for failing to fulfil a service. That is my point about where the money comes from. At the moment, the student gives the money to the university. The contract for a basic service is between the student and the university. This extends that, so the student then has a direct contractual relationship with the student union.

If the hon. Member thinks that every single student will agree with what their student union is doing, and that no student will try it on, then I am afraid that his university experience was far too bland. My experience was of debate and contestation, and of people arguing and wanting to push the boundaries—quite rightly. This will not help that, because it will regulate student unions in a way that means they cannot then defend themselves properly. The reason for that is the financial point, which I was trying to come on to.

The university gets money from the student. They then give a grant—usually a small one—to the student union, which then spends, effectively, the university’s money. My understanding is that, according to the Education Act 1994, the university has an oversight role for how that money is spent. Yes, the student union can spend it how the students want, but within a framework that the university sets out and lays down. If the student union is liable, whose money are they liable with? That is what I am trying to get at.

If the OfS puts forward financial sanctions, whose money are they sanctioning at the student union? The student union’s money is just the university’s money, held in trust and spent on behalf of the university. Would student unions need to raise unrestricted monies, somehow? We know that most student unions do not raise unrestricted monies any more, because gone are the days of the bars. Or would student unions, if they were fined by the OfS, need to use their restricted university grants on this? If so, that clashes with the concept that that university grant is restricted to only the educational activities of the student—not for liability claims against the union. It seems strange that they would face this double regulation, and money able to be drawn from all different quarters, when they have no money themselves.

[Mr Jones]

It is a bit unfair to call the hon. Member for North West Durham—my neighbour—“bland”, but anyway. Surely, what will happen is that student unions will take out indemnity insurance, whether they need to or not? That, again, is more money going away from education and into the coffers of insurance companies.

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle]

Either they will get indemnity insurance, or they will find a way to be covered by the institution’s indemnity insurance, which, again, defeats the whole point that student unions are regulated directly. We might as well regulate the institution, which would then have a duty—as they already do—to ensure that the student union is following the rules.

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

Kevan Jones Excerpts

Monday 20th September 2021 Public Bill Committees

[Matt Western]

Yes, that is a good example of what can happen where individuals or organisations are so well funded. It can be really overwhelming and frightening to an individual or organisation when they are faced with that. Universities will be extremely concerned about this. Local government is shying away from taking on developers or other organisations because it does not have the funds. It cannot justify to the public defending whatever position it has had to take for good, democratic reason. However, it then finds itself up against it because the developers have much deeper pockets.

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

In a lot of cases, won’t the universities settle anyway just to stop litigation, so money will be going out of the university sector? But my concern, which I raised with the witnesses, is that state actors such as the United Front, which is active on our campuses promoting the Chinese Communist party’s philosophy, have very deep pockets to fund whatever they want to fund.

[Matt Western]

I thank my right hon. Friend for his point. I know that he is very well informed on that issue. There are bodies out there that would wish to do institutional harm on our campuses. But there is also the reputational damage that these actions can cause. Many will seek resolution out of court, and that will become more and more obvious. It is a real concern that this will see haemorrhage much-needed funding away from our universities and student unions.

Universities UK made the point that these measures will bring about a “compensation culture”, and it was not the only one. Many have said that the great fear is that they will lead to the rise of spurious or vexatious claims and that the Bill provides little protection from a funded and co-ordinated campaign, which could be launched against several institutions, as my right hon. Friend the Member for North Durham alluded to.

Many universities and student unions are concerned that they will spend significant time and money fighting these battles. They have just emerged from the pandemic; funding is challenging, and the viability of student unions, in particular, is threatened. The prospect of the £48.1 million cost—of providing information to students, of the reporting and of the potential claims—is extremely concerning.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matt Western]

I understand that. My understanding of that student survey is that they complete it and assign a score, on different categories and measures, to how the university has met their expectations, to try to quantify that experience. It covers teaching, accommodation and how the curriculum has been delivered compared with their expectations. That is a positive thing.

The Opposition do not believe that there is a need for ranking. It is a qualitative measure and I think it is a stick to beat and bully those the Government may not like. I have real fears about the Bill. Increasingly, I sense that it is the work of the McCarthyite tendency, and the amendment would simply aid them in their subjective assault on the sector.

[Mr Kevan Jones]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Cummins. I say to the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings that God loves a tryer. He has come back with another amendment to try to quantify the need for the Bill. As I said last week, I feel uncomfortable with the Bill’s intervention in areas where it should not go.

I look back, possibly with rose-tinted spectacles, to the halcyon days when Conservatives argued for smaller states, less intervention and less red tape. The Bill—and the right hon. Gentleman’s amendment—puts more red tape and bureaucracy on institutions. We have just had a discussion on tort. I look back fondly to great Conservative speeches that argued for less regulation and how we should keep lawyers out of things wherever possible. Today we have a Government who argue for giving a freedom charter to lawyers, which I have never been in favour of.

There is a—perhaps inadvertently—useful part to the amendment: it might produce the evidence for the need for the Bill in the first place. One of the problems with the Bill is that we have seen very little evidence, in terms of figures, for why it is required. If the amendment is an attempt to provide that, it seems to put the cart before the horse. One problem, as my hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington said, is how we quantify this, because these will be value judgments that vary from year to year for institutions. Let us be honest: the institutions themselves will have no control over them at all, because student unions and other organisations will invite speakers and get challenged, which will be problematic.

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

Kevan Jones Excerpts

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.

[Emma Hardy]

I am so pleased my right hon. Friend mentioned that, because when we think about higher education institutions we tend to think about those in the Russell Group such as Oxford or Cambridge, and not Hull College’s further education department, which has only a few hundred students and yet would be bound by everything in the Bill.

[Mr Jones]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. There are many such institutions up and down the country. The Minister now has responsibility for the FE sector, which—this always annoys me—is treated as the poor relation in education by Governments. When we were in government, we did not do enough in that sector, but we know from my own constituency and others that many people would not get access to life chances and qualifications if it did not exist. More importantly, the colleges are community-based and have a good reputation as providers. Anything that adds to their burden is wrong.

Another problem is that there is no detail on what will be in the report. We would surely have to have a standardised, meaningful report. Somebody will have to come up with a matrix or form for it to be equal across all institutions. It will be pretty meaningless if it is left to institutions to decide.

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)]

I add my personal congratulations to the Minister on her expanded responsibilities. After yesterday’s sitting, I hope that she will have a lot of time to apply to the guidance that we discussed, in addition to all her new responsibilities. I am sure she will, and that she will have many more staff to support her. I wish her well.

I understand where the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings is coming from with the amendment. As we have heard throughout our proceedings, this piece of legislation is not only burdensome—and, we argue, not necessary—but has not been fully thought through. It seems to have been rushed. The 90-odd—whatever number—amendments we may be up to now seem to suggest that there is a lot wrong with the Bill.

My concern, as has been articulated by my right hon. Friends the Members for North Durham and for Hayes and Harlington and my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle, is about the additional work that the Bill will lead to for students, student unions and universities, as was well said. I think back to the days of 2010 and what might be described as the Cameron Government, and there was a great blaze of “We are going to rip up legislation”, or, “We are going to reduce all the red tape and burden on business and organisations”, and yet here we are with a Government who seem to be acting in quite the reverse way. They seem to be putting more and more constraints on businesses and the public sector.

[Mr Jones]

I remember those days with affection, because at least we knew where the Tory party was. The Tories said that they would have a “bonfire of red tape”. Now, not only do we have an Administration for which that is smouldering embers, but we have the Government putting fuel on to that fire, rather than putting it out.

[Matt Western]

I agree entirely with my right hon. Friend. I am just not sure where this reporting will end. Will we end up with universities having to report about whether people are tweeting from a particular political persuasion, or the political leanings and make-up of those on the governing board, and so on? I think that is an alarming direction to be going in.