House of Lords Reform

Lord Mann Excerpts

Tuesday 12th November 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Mann (Lab)]

My oh my, democracy is a bit of a pain, is it not? This Palace has been here for 1,000 years. Eventually women were given the vote, and by 1970, 18 year-olds were given the vote. It took a bit of time. We have been patient.

The preamble to the Parliament Act 1911 had something else in it. It described it as an interim measure until the second Chamber could be

“constituted on a popular instead of hereditary basis”.

We have had plenty of opportunities since 1911 and plenty of manifestos—including from the Labour Party. I was elected in the Commons by the people in 2001. I had a look today to see how many people still in the Commons were there before I was. There are 33. All the rest, the vast majority—diligent, hard-working, decent people—were slung out. The electorate removed them. Some constituencies removed many in that period and some did so in pretty much every recent election. That is democracy: decent people removed by the people.

Should any noble Lords ever choose to go on the many parliamentary tours that I do, they may not approve of my explanation of the history of this country. Succinctly put, I explain how our democracy emerged. We had kings. They wanted to be king of France as well. Our democracy basically emerged as kings fought wars with France to grab a bit of France and then fought wars to keep that bit of France. To fight wars, they needed taxes and soldiers, so they got soldiers—or money for soldiers—saying in return, “We’ll give you a title. You can have Scotland or Lancashire as well as part of the deal”. That is a simplification, but it is not an exaggeration of how this place built up over the years, with a few scandals built in as well—we were not in the days then of DNA testing to prove who had the entitlement.

That has passed on down the generations to determine the laws of the country. It might have been good enough for 900 years, but in the last century we started to evolve into something called democracy: that the people choose. I caution against referendums. Extra questions should be added. “Should the House of Lords be abolished immediately?” I am not sure that it is in the interests of our sustainability to put that question to the people. We could decide each to fight our own by-elections with the people but have “none of the above as an option”, but there might not be many left if we went down that route. So the move towards democracy also includes someone winning an election on a manifesto and saying, “Here is what we are going to do”.

I put it to the House that people are a bit fed up with politicians who win elections and then do not do what they have promised to do and that people have voted for. It may not suit people in here that the people of this country have voted for the abolition of hereditary Peers and an age limit in here, but they have.

There are weaknesses in democracy, and people argue and say, “Ah, they voted for other things”. If we want the people of this country to trust our Parliament, it gets quite simple when there are simple propositions. Therefore, if there are alternatives, those alternatives have to be absolutely in the spirit of what was in the Labour manifesto, not washing it away and pretending or negotiating but delivering it or coming up with something equally good as an argument. I am not hearing those alternative arguments today: I am hearing special pleading. We have had hundreds of years of special pleading, and, for democracy, that is not good enough.

Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill

Lord Mann Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 20th March 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Mann (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, a widow in Thoresby, in Nottinghamshire, is currently being evicted by the office of the Thoresby estate, having lived for 62 consecutive years in a rented property on that large estate. The reason given by the estate managers is that the new higher environmental standards required of landlords by government mean that doing up the property to an appropriate standard would be too expensive.

Therefore, this widow—after 62 years of renting and living in the same property—is currently being evicted. If, as in this case, a multi-landlord—and a recipient of many state grants over the years, as well as lottery money—has not invested sufficiently during those 62 years to bring the property up to a decent standard, there needs to be leverage for the local authority—in this case, Newark and Sherwood District Council—to ensure that a failure by the landlord to upgrade a property over a 62-year family tenancy does not result in an eviction and the emptying of a property. If the amendments in this group are not acceptable to the Government, how will they ensure that some decency prevails and that there will be effective use of existing properties which will become empty under current plans? What precise leverage will they give a local authority to ensure that this absurdity and injustice can be remedied by the local authority?

[Lord Blunkett (Lab)]

Before the noble Lord sits down, perhaps he will indulge me for a second. I know he knows the area very well and that the Dukeries have very large landlords and estates that he has described. Has he any knowledge in this tragic case as to whether it is likely that such an estate would sell the property, having evicted the tenant and renovated it, or is it likely that it will put it on the market as a holiday let?

[Lord Mann (Non-Afl)]

As reported in the last few days, the estate is saying to the local media that it does not have the money to renovate so the property will become empty. Over the years, I have seen on other comparable estates similar properties: properties in an appalling situation in terms of utility and investment. It is the failure to invest by landlords that is the problem. I repeat to the Minister: what remedy is open to the local authority to ensure that this property remains available for someone to use—preferably so that this widow of 62 years’ tenancy is able to continue to live in what I think it is reasonable to describe as her family home?

[Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)]

My Lords, this group of amendments concerns second homes, holiday lets and empty properties. I declare my interest as set out in the register as the owner of a second home in Wales.

In relation to Amendment 166, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, I share her commitment to ensuring that we have the best-quality data to inform our policies. Indeed, I also share some of her concerns. I can assure her that we already have good systems in place; for example, local authorities report annually on the number of properties that have been classed as empty for more than six months. This data is published as part of the council tax base statistics. It is also used as the department’s measure of long-term empty dwellings that are published in the live tables on dwelling stock. This latter data includes the number of properties vacant on a particular day, as well as the number of properties that have been empty for more than six months.

As part of our council tax base statistics, we also detail the number of properties that are subject to the existing long-term empty property council tax premium. This shows the number of properties subject to the premium in each local authority area, broken down into the different levels of premium that apply, depending on the length of time that the property has been empty. We will continue to further refine the data we seek from local authorities to ensure that we have data on how many properties are subject to the extended premium, having been empty for more than 12 months. I hope that the noble Baroness is satisfied with that assurance on data that we already collect and propose to collect.

Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Bill

Lord Mann Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 2nd November 2022 Grand Committee

Moved by

[Lord Mann]

29: Clause 1, page 3, line 13, at end insert—
“(ca) an explanation of how to guarantee freedom of speech while fulfilling the provider’s duty of care for all students, academics and staff,”

[Lord Mann (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, in moving Amendment 29 I shall speak to the three amendments in my name; they are identical in wording and impact but are in different parts of the Bill. I do so having personally met, on this related issue, the majority of university vice-chancellors across the United Kingdom over the past two years in advance of the Government’s decision, made by the then Education Secretary, to write to universities asking them to adopt the internationally recognised definition of anti-Semitism and build it into their workings. I have been delivering on that successfully across the vast majority of universities across the UK; that work continues.

I want to highlight some examples of why a duty of care is an essential element of strengthening free speech, not as a balance but as an addition. The principle behind it is very straightforward. I referenced the international definition of anti-Semitism because the argument falsely put by a number of people against it was that it aimed to restrict academic freedom and what people said, particularly in relation to Israel. That is factually and practically untrue. There are no examples of where that has happened. It is neither designed nor written to do so. The reason I have needed to meet so many vice-chancellors, and others at the top of universities, is to ensure that they understand what it means and what it does not mean so that they can apply it appropriately, and so strengthen freedom of speech.

If I may, I will give a couple of examples of where the duty of care comes into its own. A famous filmmaker and political activist, Mr Kenneth Loach, was invited to speak at his old college, St Peter’s College, Oxford. A number of the Jewish students in the college were unhappy at Mr Loach’s previous commentary in relation to the Jewish community. That was their perception and, using traditional student language, they suggested that he was not welcome in their college.

There was a complication, as this was during Covid. What normally would have happened is that Mr Loach would have appeared, and there would have been a noisy protest to signify to him that he was not welcome by a number of the students because of what he had said, and he then would have spoken and life would have moved on. Here, because it was online, the university failed to find a way for those students to register the protest that would have happened in real life. This illustrates brilliantly that one person in that situation had free speech and others objected, but what they required, and are entitled to, was the ability to have their speech; that might have been through a protest—very traditional in student environments—or a countermeeting, but they have an equal entitlement to free speech.

Take that instance as an example. What might a university do now? If that meeting had been timetabled for a Friday night, it would have inhibited the ability of any religiously observant Jewish student to participate in a protest or countermeeting, and so their freedom of speech would have been inhibited by the timing. If the meeting had been located in St Peter’s, that would have been neutral territory, but if it was located, say, next to the Jewish chaplaincy, there would have been an increased aggravation on behalf of those Jewish students, and the protest would perhaps have been wider and stronger. That might suggest that Mr Loach’s freedom of speech, which was not in itself being challenged, would be an impingement if the location of the meeting had been somewhere that was seen to be hostile to a section of the community—in this case, the Jewish students. The publicity for the meeting was “Ken Loach speaks on whatever”, but if it had included swastikas on the head of the Prime Minister of Israel or on the Israeli flag, there would have been an increased incentive for people to shout loudly in protest and demand that he did not speak.

All of that would fall into the category of a sensible duty of care to those students, so that their ability to have their freedom is equal to that of someone who they regard as a controversial speaker—not to restrict the content of what Mr Loach would say, to break up the meeting or to prohibit his right to speak or someone’s ability to invite him. That is an example from before this Bill came forward, but one whereby, if the principles of the Bill are got right, then two sides in an argument can have equal freedom of speech. They may not all be 100% happy but everyone can have their say.

I will give another, more vivid example. I will not give too much detail but it is a real example. Let us say that a convicted terrorist is allowed into the country. I have the ability to go to the Home Secretary—and I have occasionally done so—to say that this person should not be allowed in because they are a threat. If they are allowed into the country, by definition—even if they have served a prison sentence as a convicted terrorist—they are able to speak, including at one of our universities. What happens if a student at that university is the cousin of one of the people murdered by the group of which the individual who is about to speak was a member when the terrorist outrage took place? So we have a student, in this case a Jewish student, whose cousin was murdered, and a member of the group convicted and imprisoned for that offence—with no argument or ambiguity about that—is speaking. Here, the Jewish student demanded that this convicted terrorist not be allowed to speak.

I have argued, previous to this Bill and now, that freedom of speech is absolute; the person is allowed to speak. But there is clearly a duty of care on a university when you have at least one student extremely distraught, for rational reasons, about somebody who was involved in the murder of their cousin speaking in their university. That is not to say that we should ban, stop or restrict, but we must make sure that that student also feels empowered in the situation—perhaps they want to be part of a protest or have a countermeeting. They may need other welfare support in that context. That strengthens freedom of speech; it does not contradict or balance it. This is not a balancing act—it is about everyone having the right to freedom of speech.

I will give a milder example. In the last week I met the vice-chancellor of a university, one of whose very good policies—I will not embarrass or praise them, however you judge it, by naming it—is that all of its academics have been told that it is unacceptable to use the term “Tory scum” in their lectures. It is being directed at government Ministers primarily, whom they clearly oppose on various grounds. One can envisage what might be going on there. The reason this has been done by that vice-chancellor, with due regard to great and wonderful government Ministers, is not the sensitivity of government Ministers but the result of going through the process of thinking through the duty of care. If you were an 18 year-old Conservative-supporting student in that lecture, perhaps in your first term at university, you might be listening to lecturers calling one of your favourite Ministers “Tory scum”.

That is a milder example, but it shows rather good practice. If one wants to put an argument against the Government, turning to abuse to do so is not very effective. It becomes a weaker argument. The student in that position perhaps thinks—I am not making a political point—that there are not masses of Conservative students in solidarity with each other, certainly not in their first year, in certain courses at certain universities. The likelihood is one Conservative-supporting individual among a cohort who they might think are not—who might be delighted at such language and want stronger. But their rights to be empowered are equal. A simple duty of care there does not restrict free speech but improves it.

I will give a final example. A lecturer makes a controversial speech and then, as is very common, there is an immediate external pile-on. The same thing happened to the Jewish students I mentioned in regard to Mr Kenneth Loach. They protested; they were not trying to block him but some of the language used—“We don’t want him in our university”—implied that they were. That was not what they were trying to do, but they got some horrendous anti-Semitic abuse, almost exclusively from people outside the university, because they had dared to challenge Mr Loach.

In this case, a lecturer made a speech which did not appear that controversial when I read it but was deemed so by some. There was a huge email pile-on against the university, attacking that lecturer. The university did not, shall we say, handle it very well. Again, there is a duty of care to the individual. It is one thing to have the right in law to freedom of speech, but the consequences of the speech can be that some people are greatly distressed by the content, or that the speaker is then targeted and needs some support.

Some people—politicians in particular—can thrive in the adversity of debate, but others are more normal human beings. If they are getting abused by thousands of people, or thousands of people are demanding their sacking because they have said something, their reaction will be different. This is not a case in the public domain but one that I am very familiar with; I am happy to give the Minister private detail on it if he wishes. I could go on to give lots of other examples but this is sufficient to make my point.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Falkner of Margravine (CB)]

My Lords, first, I want to refer to the remarks of the Minister to clarify something; I have not had the opportunity to look at Hansard immediately since he spoke on the previous group of amendments. I think I said on Monday that I was speaking in a personal capacity. The Minister has put on the record that I chair the Equality and Human Rights Commission. However, I was not speaking as the chair of the Equality and Human Rights Commission, but in a personal capacity.

The reason this is important is because I have taken advice from the Registrar of Lords’ Interests. As the commission’s powers in terms of protected characteristics are so wide, I would be able to say almost nothing were I to adhere to his advice that I should not speak on anything where the EHRC has a policy. For the rest of this debate, to put that correction on the record, I would like to make it clear that I will speak only as chair of the Equality and Human Rights Commission when I specifically say so in my opening remarks, and I will always tell the Committee that I am speaking in a personal capacity when I so do.

I would like to speak in a personal capacity to warn the Grand Committee to be extremely careful about the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Mann, which seems on the face of it to be perfectly reasonable. We do not need to be concerned about his perfectly valid and good intentions, but his peroration has made one extremely concerned about what he would expect to happen through that amendment. The noble Lord referred to the fact that the opponents of a speaker have an equal right to protest or drown out what is being said. He says that their right to be empowered is equal.

[Lord Mann (Non-Afl)]

I am absolutely categorical that the drowning out and breaking up of a meeting would not be acceptable in a democracy, but the right to have a counter-speech or a protest is a fundamental part of democracy.

--- Later in debate ---

[Earl Howe (Con)]

My Lords, as we have heard, this group brings together a series of amendments that seek to clarify in the Bill how its duties will interact with other duties and responsibilities.

Amendments 29 and 44 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Mann, seek to ensure that providers and student unions balance their duty to take steps to secure free speech with their duty of care to students, staff and members. Amendment 32 would add this consideration to the duty to promote in Section A3.

I am grateful to the noble Lord for raising this important point and listened with care to the examples he gave. He is quite right that providers have a duty of care to their students under common law, as well as obligations to their staff under employment law. Student unions also have responsibilities to their staff under employment law. It is of the utmost importance that they can fulfil these obligations, providing an environment in which students, academic staff and members can thrive and taking reasonable steps to promote their health, safety and welfare.

As I mentioned, the noble Lord cited a number of examples to illustrate his arguments around the duty of care, one of which was a speaking invitation issued to a convicted terrorist. Inviting a convicted terrorist would likely require consideration under the Prevent duty in addition to the wider points he made on duty of care. I will cover the Prevent duty in more detail when I cover Amendment 69, if he will allow.

[Lord Mann (Non-Afl)]

I thank the Minister but, to clarify, the case I cited was not stopped by Prevent. Prevent was in place. This was an actual example, not a theoretical one, but I do not want to name the college or identify the student in any way. It was perfectly lawful under Prevent; Prevent did not stop it and was not party to it. As an actual example, I think it is a good illustration.

[Earl Howe (Con)]

I was making the point that the case he used to illustrate the issue would have been likely to engage Prevent even if the Prevent considerations had taken second place to the decision to promote freedom of speech. I do not disagree with the noble Lord in the way he suggests.

This leads to the general point that, to assist it to discharge its duty of care, a provider needs to ensure that it has in place effective and robust systems, policies and procedures for supporting and managing students, and that training and awareness-raising is provided for staff. Such a duty of care does not conflict with the duties in this Bill. The requirement to take reasonably practicable steps allows providers to balance that duty with other duties and responsibilities to students, staff and members.

Amendment 35 from my noble friend Lord Moylan would add a new provision to the public sector equality duty in the Equality Act 2010, whereby public authorities would need to have particular regard to their free speech duties. The amendment raises an important point. Providers are subject to different duties, and it is vital that they balance them appropriately. However, the Government are clear that the duties in the Bill will not override existing duties under the Equality Act, nor will those existing duties override the duties in the Bill. The noble Baroness, Lady Fox, cited the briefing from SOAS, which I have read. The briefing is absolutely incorrect to suggest otherwise. We need to remember that the public sector equality duty is a “due regard” duty.

There have been occasions when the Equality Act has been misinterpreted by providers—for example, as to whether the conduct is harassment—but the Office for Students will publish guidance to help bodies under this Act understand their duties and apply them. Providers will be required to take reasonably practicable steps to secure freedom of speech. In deciding what is reasonably practicable, they must have particular regard to the importance of freedom of speech. This does not mean that freedom of speech must always outweigh other considerations but indicates that it is a very important factor and will need to be weighed against other factors, including the public sector equality duty.

--- Later in debate ---

In conclusion, I hope I have reassured the Committee that the duties in the Bill have been carefully drafted to ensure that providers, their constituent institutions and student unions pay particular regard to the importance of free speech and academic freedom while retaining the flexibility, by virtue of the wording about steps being “reasonably practicable”, to balance the duty with their other obligations and responsibilities to students, staff and members.

[Lord Mann (Non-Afl)]

I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 29 withdrawn.

Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Bill

Lord Mann Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 31st October 2022 Grand Committee

To the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, and others who are sceptical, I say that that is necessary but the Bill is the bottom line. The more that we can clarify through this Bill that free speech is under attack and that the law will not allow people to be penalised for speaking out in terms of academic freedom, the better. But we probably have to clarify what we mean by free speech before it will work.

[Lord Mann (Non-Afl)]

I begin by saying that, although I do not know how many others here have, I have on more than one occasion been banned, or attempted to be banned, from speaking at a university. I was last issued a banning order by the University of Nottingham in 2009, I believe, which I ignored. Various people were running around with tape recorders. The argument put forward then was that I might say something offensive because I was speaking at the Jewish society.

In the 1980s I was banned, and I had to have a meeting reorganised in a local hostelry. I was banned then because—it was very simple and straightforward—I had had the audacity the year before to visit the state of Israel. I spent four days there with the Government, but I also spent four days with Fatah, the Palestinian liberation organisation on the West Bank. It seemed to me a balanced visit, and very interesting and educational. But I was banned from speaking at a university and in two other universities my publicity was withdrawn, which made it rather difficult for anyone to attend a meeting because they did not know that one was taking place.

So this is not a new problem—and nor is it a new problem in terms of debate. I recall well the speaker tour of the Paedophile Information Exchange across universities, which took place in 1978 and 1979. Many universities had such speakers; the content was not illegal but without question it was an organising campaign for that organisation, much more than an educative one. That was certainly my assessment of it. I recall in 1985 the banning of Jewish societies, on the basis that they were bound to be racist because they were full of racists and therefore should not be allowed any space in a university. I make the point simply to inform the debate—we are not talking about a modern phenomenon.

I want to pick up one particular point from these amendments: the proposal on Holocaust denial. It is true that Holocaust denial is not a criminal offence in this country, unlike in other countries, such as Germany and Austria—I think seven or eight countries across western Europe have that. To me, that does not seem a sufficient reason not to have such an egregious denial of history in this legislation. It would be a positive outcome if the Government wished to go further in terms of criminal justice. That would be done by a separate department, with separate legislation, and it may well get some support. In this context, it seems that provisions on the acceptability of entirely turning history on its head would be helpful to our universities, although the main problem we have these days is of course Holocaust distortion and minimisation. I would not suggest going further into a much greyer area, but I think this proposal ought to be considered very strongly by the Government.

[Lord Macdonald of River Glaven (CB)]

My Lords, I declare an interest as the former warden of Wadham College, Oxford, and as an honorary fellow there and at St Edmund Hall, Oxford.

I have a great deal of sympathy with the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, in which he identified a problem but suggested that this Bill was not the right way to confront it. As the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, rightly said, the problem is a very deep-seated cultural issue that I doubt will be dealt with significantly by this legislation, should it pass. It is my experience of running a college that has led me to feel rather queasy about some of the slightly nightmarish, as I see them, schemes and bureaucracies proposed by the Bill.

Of course, there is an issue. The case of Kathleen Stock is the most egregious example. In my view, she was disgracefully mistreated by her university and professional colleagues, not to speak of the students at the University of Sussex, some of whom seemed to be clearly breaking criminal law with the demonstrations they mounted against that highly respected academic. Young men—they seemed to be men—wearing balaclavas, holding flares and chanting threats against her seemed to me clearly to represent a breach of the criminal law, and it is a great shame that the university did not see it that way.

However, it is not just Kathleen Stock. The events in a Cambridge college over the past few days have also been deeply disturbing. The idea that a writer such as Helen Joyce, who I would regard as entirely in the mainstream, should be regarded by the most senior figures in that college as unacceptable as a speaker seems deeply depressing and redolent of a cultural problem, not just in that college.

An amendment put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, therefore attracted my interest. It is the one that relates to the question of a hecklers’ veto. The way I perceive it, the issue in universities is not so much that events are being stopped by demonstrators standing outside chanting and making a nuisance of themselves; it is the more or less cowardly response of university and college authorities who decline to host events when they fear or are warned that that sort of response will eventuate. This is a true hecklers’ veto. I have some sympathy with that amendment, although I share again the hesitation expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, that the Bill should contain a clause which is anti-free speech, if you like, rather than it being consistently pro-free speech.

I have great respect for the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, but I strongly disagree that Article 10 is somehow deficient for our needs in this area. On the country, it provides generous and comprehensive jurisprudence on the right to free speech; it is suitably qualified and well understood by our courts, public bodies and public institutions. It is certainly well understood in the University of Oxford, the university I have been most associated with. I think Article 10 is entirely fit for purpose and I strongly support the amendment from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, to reference it in this legislation. It would provide consistency and legal certainty, so I hope the amendment will not in the end be controversial with the Government.

--- Later in debate ---

[Earl Howe (Con)]

I am grateful to the noble Lord. I wanted just to cover another question that the noble Baroness put to me about retired professors. If a retired professor is an emeritus professor, they are protected by the Bill as a member. This is important if they still have a role in the university. If they have no such role, then in practice the provider will not have to take steps to secure their freedom of speech since they will not be speaking on campus or taking part in university life.

I turn to Amendments 22, 26 and 71, which seek to define academic staff for the purpose of the Bill. We have used the term “staff” to broaden the existing reference to “employees” in the Education (No. 2) Act 1986, as not all those who work at a provider have an employment contract or employee status. This term is already used in the current definition of academic freedom in the Higher Education and Research Act 2017 so is an understood term in this context.

“Staff” includes academics who hold honorary appointments for which they are not paid, for example honorary fellows. PhD students will be considered to be academic staff, for example, in so far as they teach undergraduate students. It will be a question of fact in each case whether they are covered as staff or students. The term covers staff at all levels, whether or not they are full time or part time, permanent or temporary. Visiting staff who are perhaps working at the university for a year are also covered. They must be distinguished from visiting speakers who are academics working at another institution, who are covered by the Bill as visiting speakers, rather than as staff of the provider.

I listened with care to the noble Lord, Lord Stevens of Birmingham, and his question about the way in which academic freedom interacts with academic standards. I said earlier that there is nothing in the Bill to encourage baseless or harmful claims or bad science on campus, but it is important to recognise that a provider in this context is an employer, and that its staff will have signed an employment contract and be subject to its employment policies.

[Lord Mann (Non-Afl)]

Under the Bill as currently worded, would the emeritus professor at Sussex University—who was not an employee but would have been covered—who was sacked four years ago for saying that 9/11 was an Israeli plot have had the option of suing the university?

[Earl Howe (Con)]

I do not think it is for the Bill—or indeed the Government—to specify an answer to that question one way or the other. It would depend on the policy of the university as to whether it wished to still regard that person as an emeritus professor if it took exception to what he said. I think that is as far as I can go at the moment, but I am happy to write to the noble Lord, Lord Mann—

[Lord Mann (Non-Afl)]

So, is the Minister clarifying that there is nothing in the Bill that would prohibit the university from sacking that emeritus professor if the university determined that it was appropriate?

[Earl Howe (Con)]

Exactly right.

I was making the point that a provider in this context is an employer and that its staff will be subject to its employment policies. Those policies must, of course, take account of the high regard that academic freedom is held in. However, depending on the circumstances, a provider may need to consider factors such as whether it is appropriate for the academic to continue to teach students; whether the academic has met accepted academic standards for their speech; and the ability of the academic to properly represent the provider in terms of its values and the reputation of the department and the provider.

The Bill recognises the nuances of the potentially difficult decisions that will need to be made under it. The “reasonably practicable” test allows for case-by-case decisions to be made, taking account of all the relevant factors.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Stevens of Birmingham (CB)]

The noble Lord, Lord Willetts, sends his apologies for an unforeseen family emergency, so I will formally move Amendment 5 and speak to Amendments 7, 8 and 38 to 41.

Given that these originate with the noble Lord, Lord Willetts, noble Lords can be assured that they are pragmatic and constructive amendments that will not necessarily detain the Committee for terribly long. Their aim is simply to make clear that universities should be allowed to move events around the campus without cancelling them, on the grounds that it should be reasonable to move a controversial and possibly noisy event so that it does not occur, for example, next to an exam hall at exam time. It is reasonable to move an event so that it happens on a part of the campus that makes event management easier or so that it does not conflict with other events at the same time.

Some people may argue that these flexibilities might mean the surreptitious or indirect cancelling of events, but other parts of the Bill address this concern. Indeed, to pick up the point that the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, made earlier, in fact they may make it easier to invite people and expand the number of speakers invited to campus, knowing that these flexibilities exist. Per the rest of the Bill, universities and student unions would remain liable to sanction if they had in fact cancelled an event, not merely moved it, and the Office for Students would be able to respond to a complaint.

In a nutshell, these practical amendments that we hope the Government might consider as the Bill progresses would simply provide sensible if narrow discretion to universities and student unions to decide where and when events happen.

[Lord Mann (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, my Amendment 6 is on the same principle: unintended consequences. The Government would be very foolish not to listen in and to amend the Bill accordingly.

When I was a student leader, I had a range of tactics. With this Bill, I could put those tactics into play very easily. At the moment I go around a huge number of universities in another role; I was at one this morning. A week ago I was at a very prestigious one, in the vice-chancellor’s office. I did a recce in preparation and spotted a meeting room. If I was at that university, or knew someone in a society at that university—such as, let us say, the anarchist society—I would get invited there and, if I wanted to be disruptive, have a rolling meeting. The meeting would simply continue and continue. Some activists and campaigners would do that. They may not glue themselves to the door, because that would be criminal damage and they would be removed, but it would be possible to keep a rolling meeting going. I can recall one that was kept going for six weeks, not in the vice-chancellor’s office but in the registrar’s office. That is possible. I suggest that that would be an unintended consequence of this.

There are also groups that could get themselves invited in with the sole aim of maximising disruption, in order that they get their meeting broken up—in essence, they get thrown out—and then they can sue. This would be, by definition, extremist groups on the fringes. That would be, and has been in the past, a tactic employed. There was a whole period of time when various extremist activists were trying to do this. With this Bill, they would have a perfect opportunity. So this small tweak, giving that flexibility to a university, would have a profound impact.

There is one other good reason. If one wanted to be politically aggressive, when booking a room one could insist that an anti-Israel meeting, to use one example, was located in a room next to a synagogue or the Jewish chaplaincy. That would seem egregious to me. It could be—this happens a lot in the United States at the moment—directly in and among the Jewish student accommodation, the Hillel accommodation, which would be more than egregious. To give universities the flexibility for that bit of common sense, which they apply routinely in these isolated examples, would be a way of stopping those unintended consequences and would help the Government in their objective and their free speech proposals.

[The Lord Bishop of Coventry]

My Lords, I support Amendments 5 to 7 in particular. I shall follow on from the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Mann, because I had similar concerns about unintended consequences. I wonder whether your Lordships would mind me sharing some rambling thoughts that have come through my mind. I was not going to, but the reference by the noble Lord, Lord Triesman, to nothing before 1680—I think it was 1680—strengthened me.

In many countries in Europe, today is Reformation Day. I happened to be in Dresden yesterday, where you cannot help but see the statue of Martin Luther, which I was admiring. That is not irrelevant to these discussions. The history of academic freedom in Europe—freedom of expression and of religion—will have different views about the Reformation, but I cannot help celebrating the fact that, 500 years later, the Roman Catholic Church and the Lutheran World Federation said that they agreed over the doctrine of justification by faith, which was the great thing that divided the Churches at that time. As this fascinating debate has continued, I could not help thinking that, if there had not been a suppression of academic freedom at the time, there may not have been that great bust-up, which caused a lot of tearing to society and Church. I simply share that to reinforce that which we are all committed to—academic freedom and freedom of speech—and to recognise that institutions did not always get it right. Certainly, the Church has not.

I have quite a lot of sympathy for what the Bill is trying to achieve and welcome these amendments. The flexibility that they suggest would be very helpful. They work with the grain of the Bill in trying to encourage and enable robust and vigorous discussion and debate, and there are some sensible proposals.

My concern, perhaps slightly similar to that of the noble Lord, Lord Mann, was that an unintended consequence could be that spaces designated for pastoral, religious and spiritual needs might find themselves appropriated by bodies that would be offensive to those. I do not imagine that that was necessarily a concern of the noble Lords, Lord Willetts or Lord Stevens. I am really grateful to the Minister and his team for the discussions that I have had with him, particularly those assurances that I have been given that taking such steps as are “reasonably practicable” requires a careful consideration of how other legislation applies here, such as the public sector equality duty or the Prevent legislation. I would be very grateful for any further assurances that the Minister felt able to give.

I welcome that the amendments would provide the flexibility to help providers know that they were not cancelling a particular body because of its beliefs, even though they might be offensive to a particular body, but rather providing another space. I would also be very interested to hear any further assurances the Minister might be able to give on how guidance to the Office for Students on navigating some of these matters might be best given, and what other wisdom or what other bodies might help to advise on that.

--- Later in debate ---

Tabled by

[Lord Mann]

6: Clause 1, page 1, line 18, leave out first “any”

[Lord Mann (Non-Afl)]

In not moving the amendment, I just say to the Government that sometimes, in government and politics, simplicity is best. If the word “any” stays in the Bill, people will read that and it will create additional conflict in advance for universities. I hope the Ministers will take that away and consider it.

Amendment 6 not moved.

Restoration and Renewal

Lord Mann Excerpts

Wednesday 13th July 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Mann (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I do not share the noble Lord’s optimism, having listened to and participated in debates over the past 10 years. When I hear the term “sponsor”, it appears to me that this whole thing probably should have had a sponsor’s name in the traditional style. British Leyland would probably be the most apposite sponsor, given how the whole thing has been managed and handled.

I am a bit nosy, and when I was first elected to the other House, I had the curiosity to ask random members of staff to show me around until I knew my way around everywhere. They were always quite surprised that anyone was asking them anything. A few years ago, I did a tour of the Victoria Tower. The gentleman who kindly showed me round had worked there for 44 years, and he showed me every nook and cranny. It was fascinating. At the end, I asked him how many Members—we are talking about the Commons here—had actually visited and looked around. He said, “Two.” I thought perhaps he meant two that week or two that month. No, it was two in his 44 years. Anthony Wedgwood Benn had previously done so with a camera crew; I was the second that he was aware of in that entire 44 years. When Members of the House of Commons cite their great knowledge of this building, my experience is that they know not what they talk about. They have not been around. They talk about a fantasy of the little bits that they follow, the little routes they go through.

The reason I have no optimism is that, having once had the privilege—sometimes the burden—of being elected, I know that their timescales are rather shorter and, therefore, decision-making is easier to put off because someone else can do it in the near future. But we have had a decant: two years, in essence, of a decant of pretty much the entire building. Can anyone demonstrate, since we undecanted, that governance of the country has improved or that our decision-making is better than it was? I put it to the House that, at a minimum, our decision-making was as competent when we decanted, pretty much en masse, as since. Indeed, when one looks at some of the alcohol-related allegations made about the other House, it has perhaps been rather worse—certainly for the Government—given what has happened since.

I did an international conference a few years ago in the Bundestag with the German Government. I had President Steinmeier, Chancellor Merkel and the leaders of all the main parties there. It was appropriate for various reasons that it be held inside the new Bundestag. But there was a bit of a difficulty, because I learned in many meetings over there that, when they rebuilt the Bundestag—their R&R—they did not rebuild it as was. They got rid of most of the meeting rooms. In essence, I had to have a conference in a corridor in order to be able to have a conference inside the Bundestag; it was the only place available. It was quite extraordinary. They went to great efforts to assist. It was on anti-Semitism, so there was a symbolism to why they wanted it inside the Bundestag, and so did I. But they had moved all their facilities outside—they did not rebuild and restore what was there.

I see precisely the intention. On the timescales, once there are major engineering works, they will take whatever time they have. That will cost the bulk of the money; of course, they must be done. Of course, the building will have to be decanted for however long, however many years.

But that leaves the rest. All these curious corridors and steps up and the offices that are there—do we need them all in the same way that they have been perceived to be there in the past? Do they all need broadband enabling, for example? Modern design is much more about the wi-world, as I believe it is called, with desks in open-plan and people going in to use a facility with their laptop—we can all have laptops, if we wish, now. That is where the world is already at. We could choose to be that. We are very peripheral, but it is symbolic.

Why would we keep different catering departments? Would we not rationally have one catering facility? As to whoever is agreed to use it whenever, I am not sure—we could occupy many hours on who, where and when—but why not run it as one, plan it as one and rebuild it as one? What do we need two Libraries for? Just because there has always been— I am sure there have not always been, but for the past 50 or 100 years there have been two Libraries.

I appreciate that for some Members of the Commons, these things are sacrosanct and we should not go anywhere near the so-called traditions, but this place has evolved over, essentially, 1,000 years in a vast array of different ways. I would be in favour of going back to the days when we said, “Let’s go to York”. It would be far more convenient for me and far more pleasurable, and it would be good for the health of us all. That is a debate I will not recreate, because I will not win it; but let us not just stay as we are. Based on the timescales, some of this place could be a semi-museum, which would be perfectly appropriate. Let us get to the core of the issue.

My final point for the Minister concerns corporate responsibility and liability. Who precisely will be responsible for corporate manslaughter if we do nothing? Which individuals will accept responsibility for the future public inquiry when there are deaths here because nothing has happened? Who will take that liability for corporate manslaughter? It is rather important that we know.

Elections Bill

Lord Mann Excerpts

Lords Hansard - Part 1 & Committee stage
Monday 28th March 2022 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Wheatcroft (CB)]

My Lords, I support these amendments, so comprehensively introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, in particular Amendment 194B. It is clearly right that overseas actors should be specifically banned from interfering in our political process and publishing propaganda online. It is relatively easy for them to do that.

Clause 39 imposes a duty on those publishing election-related material to make clear the source of that material. The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, has made clear that this is a loophole big enough for most people to get through; it is simply not enough. It would be naive in the extreme to assume that those who wish to influence our elections are not wily enough to circumvent these sorts of stipulations, and neither are they likely to be put off doing so by the fact that they would be breaking British law, as Amendment 194B would insist.

The bots that churned out online propaganda ahead of the referendum amounted to interference in our electoral process on an industrial scale. We cannot say categorically whether they affected the result, but we know they tried. Yet the Government have neither investigated what happened nor done anything that we can see to prevent such online terrorism. As the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, put it, “So far, so vague”.

As others have mentioned, the Russia report from the Intelligence and Security Committee was highly critical of the Government’s failure to examine what had happened and to take action, yet the Government continue to resist anything tangible. That is why a cross-party group of MPs and Peers, of which I am one, has filed a legal action to try to force our Government to investigate and protect the integrity of our electoral system. That action has today been filed with the European Court of Justice. It will, of course, take a while before it produces anything, and I hope that in the meantime the Government take action that would render such legal action—to prompt them into doing what they should do—unnecessary.

Does the Minister believe that Clause 39, even with this amendment, will prevent malign interference in the UK’s electoral process? Does he really believe that what is being done quietly is having any effect at all? Does he not think that the time has come, if the Government are taking real action, for us to be told about it and for the need for it to be enshrined in law?

[Lord Mann (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I would have rather welcomed being targeted by a foreign Government in the various elections I stood in. It would have been relatively straightforward to have turned that around—I would have used more traditional methods of communication—and exposed it. But I am not quite sure how we would be able to take North Korea, Mr Putin or whoever through the courts in this country for any remedy or preventive action. Donations, of course, are an entirely separate issue, but these amendments are on electronic communications.

I listened to the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, and I will respectfully give a different point of view on his Amendment 180A, which is very well intentioned but rather misses the point about transparency and where the digital age is going. The concept of putting in an imprint to demonstrate who has put a particular advert or piece of propaganda out there is very valid.

It is quite feasible that I will not be standing at the time of the next general election, unless some odd mayoralty is formed that I suddenly decide I should run for. I have had my day fighting elections. But if I was, I would think about how I could harness the latest technology so that people’s clothes would carry my name and slogan. Particularly at football matches, you regularly see straplines that change every few seconds; I would have them at strategic locations, firing out different messages. If others were doing so at prime locations and I had sufficiently robust funds to allow me to join in with using those advertising methodologies, I would certainly look to do that.

When it comes to proper transparency, it seems to me that the concept of, say, an agent having to have everything declared precisely on a website is far more useful for the efficacy of elections than anything that would anticipate that, for example, the latest high-tech jumper I am wearing, advertising a candidate, could somehow be spotted to have on it something that could then be used to hold me to account. It seems to me that some of the tried and tested methods could be more useful for the intention—here I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones—of ensuring that there is maximum transparency and legality in elections. I would be interested in the Minister’s views on whether this section of the Bill is sufficiently future-proofed for where technology will be next week, never mind next year.

[Lord Stunell (LD)]

My Lords, I will briefly intervene, having heard the noble Lord, Lord Mann. It is important to understand that, as far as Clause 39 goes, the amendment talks about making sure there is some way of identifying the message you have. Of course, if it says “Vote for Mann” it might be a reasonable presumption that it had been sponsored by somebody supporting the candidacy of Mr Mann, as it would be. But the evil, if I can put it that way, of much social media advertising is that it is not clear what it is doing. You have negative campaigning as well as positive campaigning. It is not necessarily done in a way that makes it obvious that what you are reading is not a news item or a fashion page—to pick up the point from the noble Lord, Lord Mann—but it nevertheless conveys an important message to a particular category of reader. So I ask the Minister to address the substance of my noble friend Lord Clement-Jones’s Amendment 180A.

“Reasonably practicable” has already been completely circumvented in Scotland, so we know it does not work there. It is inconceivable that whatever lessons were learned by campaigners in Scotland will not immediately transfer to campaigns across the United Kingdom. It is a good challenge for the Minister to explain what is wrong with “possible” and maybe, behind that, to say whether the Government have decided not to implement the clear advice of the Committee on Standards in Public Life and the Electoral Commission, both of which, I respectfully suggest, might be offering advice that is slightly more researched than that of the noble Lord, Lord Mann.

House of Lords: Governance

Lord Mann Excerpts

Wednesday 8th December 2021 Grand Committee

[Lord Mann (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I beg to differ with my friend, the noble Lord, Lord Sterling, that this by any benchmark is the “finest revising Chamber in the world”. I am not sure what the benchmark is. Perhaps we should put whether we should continue to the people by referendum. I recall several hundred votes against the people’s will on Brexit. That was not revising; that was hard politics. It was duplicating the role of the House of Commons, yet there was vote after vote after vote.

To be perfectly honest, having come here from the Commons, my observation is that the level of debate here is often as dismal as it is there because it is a replication. Our amendments are often replications. I am looking for the “revising” and I am seeing the political challenges in an unelected House. I have had plenty of disagreements with the Government but I am not elected here. There is the option to be elected in the House of Commons and, for better or worse, the people decide things. This is a gentleman’s club—although the one development over the years is that it now allows women in, so perhaps it is more accurately described as a private club. The only thing lacking from the traditions of the House in this debate is the brandy and cigars, with a butler to serve them.

There needs to be a level of reality. I suspect that nobody here would second a resolution for us to have a referendum to abolish this place. What vote would we get? It would be the overwhelming consensus of the British people that we should go. Frankly, the only problem would be those people who do not bother to vote; they would certainly be the majority because, a bit like with police and crime commissioners, most people care so little about us they would not even bother to vote to get rid of something they regard as irrelevant to their lives.

So what should we, as a non-elected Chamber that is bad at revising, do? We should change the way we think about this place. Who is debating the big changes in society? The Commons does not; it never finds the time or structure to do that. We are about to move to a society with cryptocurrencies and virtually no cash; it is one of the biggest social changes in our lifetime. Where is the debate on that? I do not mean debate for an hour, two hours or three hours—I mean weeks and weeks of it. Then there is the internet and how we cope with it. It should not be through party-political or government programmes and resolutions; we must think it through. Is that not where the expertise of those of us present and the rest of the House could contribute significantly on behalf of the country? I put it to your Lordships that that expertise is precisely why people are put in here, and yet we pretend to be a revising Chamber.

Even when it comes to managing the place, frankly, it is a nonsense that, in this Covid nightmare, I and everyone else have to go into the Chamber to try to ask a Question when we had a perfectly good system that allowed people to be selected to go in and reduced the number of people in the Chamber at any one time—I would call that a health strategy for this House. I thought that the voting system that was rejected, which led to this debate taking place, was excellent. But oh no, having a system where one could go through and vote by machine, paid for at great expense, is not for unelected Members.

This is the only private club where you do not pay to join but are paid to attend. Yet noble Lords believe it is valid that we get sound advice on a matter such as that but it is then for us, the Members, to choose whether we should have this, that or the other thing. It is a bit like Yorkshire County Cricket Club. It survived for 200 years and its members ran it but one day, oops, it is in disintegration. It may not even survive; it probably will, but only by cleaning out the stable, as the public might put it.

I do not think that we need that here. We have to wise up to where the world is at. Who runs this place? I will tell you: the Whips run it. There were 804 committee members when I last counted, and four of them are non-affiliates. I happen to be one of them—that is why I did the count, not that I am bothered about being on a committee. Non-affiliates make up 10% of the House, but only four out of the 800 committee members. It is the Whips who decide things. There is more power for the Whips here than there is in the Commons. It is a different kind of system—for example, they cannot force people to vote and there is no re-election—but the power is just the same.

As members of a private club, paid to attend, we should have a management structure. The only sponsor we could get for this building would be the Wildlife Trusts, given the amount of wildlife that wanders round the corridors—the mice, the rats—because this decrepit building needs an overhaul. I think the people of York are celebrating that we have chosen not to burden ourselves on them, but of course we should get out and let this building be modernised. It is not fit for the last century, never mind this one. If that is the professional advice, we should take it.

We should be embracing technology and having the big debates on the big issues. I do not mean that we should give away our revising powers—do not get me wrong—but let us not pretend that the majority of the votes in here are about improving legislation through revising it, because we know they are not. They are about party politicking and challenging legislation. I have been a party politician all my life, so I love that kind of thing, but it does not seem to me to be the fundamental role of this place. Let us have it properly managed. Let us move with the times. Perhaps then, we might even survive.

Business and Planning Bill

Lord Mann Excerpts

Report stage & Report stage (Hansard) & Report stage (Hansard): House of Lords
Monday 20th July 2020 Lords Chamber

[The Deputy Speaker]

The noble Baroness, Lady Stowell of Beeston, has withdrawn, so I call the noble Lord, Lord Mann.

[Lord Mann (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I thank the Government for the way in which they have listened on the amendments that have been tabled, particularly in relation to late licensing and the problem that occurs in many communities of police forces being overstretched by over-late licensing for tiny numbers. That seems to be a bit of a tradition going back three or four Governments. It was not just the disruption to local residents that was a problem, it was the huge distortion—in areas such as the one I live in—in how the police budget was used.

I recall an example where a late licence was given to one premises until 5 am. Tiny numbers would be drinking there but the danger of some form of anti-social behaviour between, say, the hours of 1 and 5 am was disproportionately high. Therefore, police rosters for an entire area had to be altered. It took a good two years of argument and pressing to begin to work that backwards. The consequential impact on other policing, when police numbers were very low, was great. I commend the Government on their approach and commend noble Lords who have proposed amendments that would have a similar impact on timing. The foreseeable consequence in relation to police resources, particularly in smaller communities, is huge. That displacement at the moment would be critical.

On the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, I propose to the Minister that the question of miners’ welfares always needs to be borne in mind. Whenever there is licensing, I always think miners’ welfares are a good litmus test of whether the law is any good. The miners’ welfares that I know very well are in a range of locations. Some have licences that fall comfortably within the concept of gardens and that kind of space. Some have at great expense designed spaces to capitalise on that. Others do not have that opportunity but have a similar kind of clientele—a highly responsible clientele who have been better in the responsibleness of their behaviour over the last three or four months and are able to drink sensibly and rationally.

What the Government propose seems far more sensible than the amendment. If there were to be an amendment, the one proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, seems the more rational option. It seems to me that, for some businesses that are on the cusp at the moment, simply restricting in would have unforeseen consequences for their business planning. I encourage those miners’ welfares to survive by providing an additional service. Despite the fact that I had great fears about potential late-night drinking, I have no fears about that in communities such as the one I live in. I think the Government have listened and commend their approach on this. I would be interested to hear the debate on what the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, has to say. He seems to have struck a middle ground but does not appear to be pushing his amendment to a vote.

[Lord Balfe [V]]

I have one question for the Minister and one point to make. In the city I live in, there are a number of licensed premises near the centre of town for which the local authority has made the licence to sell alcohol cease at 10 pm. Will that still be permissible under the provisions here? I confess that I cannot work it out. It did it to stop people coming out of local pubs and doing what is known as preloading—in other words, getting alcohol from nearby off-licence premises and either trying to take it back into the pub or drinking outside the pub. Will licences earlier than 11 pm still be able to be imposed?

The second point is that the banning of glasses is really quite important. Anyone who has been to the accident and emergency department of Addenbrooke’s Hospital in Cambridge will know that scarcely a Saturday night goes by without some sort of incident that has involved alcohol and broken glass—a bottle, a mug or a glass. I am concerned about this and would like the Government to rehearse why they feel they cannot agree to what seems to be a quite reasonable amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Paddick.

House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) (Abolition of By-Elections) Bill [HL]

Lord Mann Excerpts

2nd reading & 2nd reading (Hansard) & 2nd reading (Hansard): House of Lords
Friday 13th March 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Mann (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, what has changed since the late 1990s? I suggest that two things have. The first is science. Out there is an army of people like my good wife, who are busy taking the DNA of people like me and putting it on the internet to discover who we are and who our ancestors are. Without giving away too many secrets, I can say that there is no great certainty, even in the maternal line, but when it comes to the paternal line, I am discovering people related to me who do not seem to fit into a family tree.

I have no interest to declare and I confess that I do not anticipate having one because my antecedents appear to be the peasantry of Ireland, Scotland and England. But on my wife and my children’s side, it is rather more interesting. There is a possibility that we might discover an unknown connection—there may well be great castles, estates and titles due to our family, but held by somebody else’s. I am not proposing DNA testing before any hereditary peerage election, although I suspect that plenty in the other place would vote for that. But that is a change and at some stage, there will be big court actions. I hope that we will not have to self-isolate, but should we be away for a couple of weeks, my rucksack is packed for wild camping, self-isolating in the great estates of the Highlands so that I can size them up for my son, should that connection be found and that court action ever take place. That is a real change—not one that has hit yet, but it will come.

There is a second change: a political one. I confess that I did not listen to your Lordships’ great debates on this issue previously, but I did listen to many of the debates on Brexit. Whatever your views on the issue were and are, I make this observation: it was clear that, like a majority in the House of Commons, the majority of your Lordships did not fully grasp the mood of the country—and, indeed, found the election result a surprise, although it was no surprise to me. Again, that it was such a surprise shows a failure to grasp the mood out there. It is called populism.

I warn this place that, although this is not an issue on the doorstep, there will one day be a Prime Minister—perhaps sooner than one envisages—who, in a time of crisis, chooses to be populist. There is no easier item to pursue on a populist agenda that occupies the House of Commons than removing or replacing all or part of this place. The danger is that, if this place does not modernise, when we leave this building, we will not come back—that we will be no more during that period, because the Commons and the Prime Minister of the day find it expedient to make that populist, political, easy choice. The loss there will be democracy, rather than a measured, thought-out set of changes. It is modernise or die for this place. I therefore support the proposal of the noble Lord, Lord Grocott.

Bullying and Harassment of MPs’ Parliamentary Staff

Lord Mann Excerpts

Wednesday 17th July 2019 Commons Chamber

[The Leader of the House of Commons (Mel Stride)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the Gemma White report on bullying and harassment of MPs’ Parliamentary staff.

Let me begin by thanking Gemma White QC for her report, and paying tribute to all who came forward to share their personal experiences with her.

Each of us is directly responsible for the staff whom we employ. Without them we would not be able to carry out our duties effectively, and I am sure all Members will want to join me in expressing our immense gratitude for the hard work, support and loyalty that those who work in our offices provide for us day in and day out. We would not be able to serve our constituents without them, and, as such, they matter not just to us as Members of this House, but to the millions of constituents up and down our country whom we are here to represent.

I am sure that Members in all parts of the House will share my concern about a number of the matters to which the report refers. It highlights statements alleging deeply inappropriate conduct on the part of some Members towards their staff, and between staff. It contains serious allegations, including those relating to Members who

“shout at, demean, belittle and humiliate their staff on a regular basis, often in public.”

Reference is made to

“staff being subject to unwanted sexual advances, often accompanied by touching, sometimes forceful.”

We should not hesitate to condemn any occurrence of that kind as completely unacceptable, and as a failure to uphold the standards that we expect in our Parliament. The report constitutes a call to all Members of all parties to continue to act together to ensure that appropriate measures are taken to prevent and deal effectively with bullying, harassment and sexual harassment, and I reiterate that call today.

[John Mann (Bassetlaw) (Lab)]

The Leader of the House has made an appropriate point, but may I ask for clarification? A number of external members of the Labour party have been severely bullied and harassed, allegedly by people who are paid with Short money. Given that they are paid with parliamentary money, would they too be eligible to make complaints by means of parliamentary procedures?

[Mel Stride]

The hon. Gentleman has raised a very specific and interesting point, to which, I am sorry to say, I do not immediately know the answer. I always like to know all the answers. [Interruption.] I am being told by Members sitting behind the hon. Gentleman that the answer is yes, but I will clarify that one way or the other and write to him accordingly.

None of the points that I have made are intended to suggest that progress has not already been achieved, or that serious shortcomings in the management of, and behaviour towards, members of staff have been universal. Indeed, in her report Gemma White says:

“Most Members of Parliament treat their staff with dignity and respect”.

She says that she

“received a number of written contributions from people who wrote only to tell me about their positive experiences in Parliament.”

As she points out, that was despite the fact that her remit did not extend to inviting people to do so. She also says that during her work on the report, she heard or read of MPs who were

“MPs who were “a model employer”, “a fantastic boss”, “the best employer I have ever had”.

The report draws attention to areas of slow progress, but recognises that important progress has been made. The independent complaints and grievance scheme is praised as being

“an appropriate and relatively sophisticated means of investigating allegations.”

I echo the report’s praise for the dedicated implementation team who have made the scheme’s introduction, in the report’s own words, “a success”. Its operation is a clear improvement in the support that it offers to victims of bullying and harassment, and is also a firm indication of the seriousness with which Parliament views these matters. It shows the will and determination in the House to take strong and effective steps, working across the parties with the unified purpose of addressing inappropriate behaviour wherever it is found. It is important not to forget that before the introduction of the scheme, most complainants typically had recourse only to the Member about whom they were complaining, or to party political processes.

There has, of course, also been the Cox report. The White report calls for the implementation of Dame Laura Cox’s key recommendations, which include the removal of the June 2017 cut-off for historical complaints. That will be the subject of the motion that I will move shortly after this debate. If the motion is agreed, it will be a significant and important step forward. It will open up the ICGS to those who, for example, may have been bullied or harassed as recently as just before the last general election, and/or are no longer in the employ of a Member.

Although I recognise that there has been progress, there should be absolutely no cause for complacency, and Gemma White makes a number of important recommendations. Some appear relatively straightforward to consider and, potentially, implement, such as the recommendation for a review of confidentiality clauses within the standard contracts of employment of the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority; the recommendation that IPSA should send out staff exit surveys; and the recommendation that the House Service should address the

“fair recruitment and management of staff with disabilities”

in its training. Other recommendations will require more thought, and present significant further questions. For instance, there is the recommendation that a new human resources department should be set up to cover Members’ staff, and to include HR personnel located both centrally and out in the regions.

--- Later in debate ---

[John Mann (Bassetlaw) (Lab)]

My colleague next to me, my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders), has just reminded me of a point that I had omitted, but that I am now going to make. Let me clarify. From information that I have seen recently, it seems to me that, if a tribunal case were taken against an MP, the MP could use legal insurance to defend that case, and the only way that anyone would know would be the £500 excess that has been paid, which would be itemised as an expenditure. In other words, could a Member of Parliament use the parliamentary insurance system, and therefore very expensive lawyers, against an employee who had taken a case to tribunal? In particular, if the tribunal were to rule in favour of the employee, would the Member of Parliament be required to pay those legal costs back to the taxpayer?

The Leader of the House might like to clarify that point in his closing remarks, because that seems to tip the balance in favour of the employer and the Member of Parliament against the employee. The employee could, of course, attempt to get union representation. That used to be rather more difficult. It was the last Unite general secretary election when, mysteriously, just before the nomination process, I got removed from my local branch, where I have a little bit of influence, and put in the Westminster staff branch. The matter was not resolved until after the nominations were done. Having been a member for 40 years, I cannot imagine what administrative change led to me being moved out of one branch, in which I have influence, to a branch in which I have none.

There was a positive conclusion, however: I was able to demonstrate that I had found a whole range of MPs in the same union branch as staff in this building. That was clearly a total nonsense and it had been going on for decades. I managed to get that resolved by protesting about being placed there myself, and MPs were then excluded from that branch—reputed to be the largest union branch representing employees in this Parliament.

Even though these problems have emerged very publicly in recent years, the unions have not quite caught up, although one has. I was pleased to hear the comments of the hon. Member for Glasgow North (Patrick Grady), which were very appropriate, regarding the processes for selecting potential candidates for Parliament. I have previously given a bit of detail to the House about the exemplary role of the GMB in the east midlands in addressing sexual harassment. Following some press commentary, perhaps I ought to give a little more detail. In the recent past, David Prescott—a member of the Labour leader’s office—went for selection in Mansfield, and the GMB east midlands decided to give him an interview about sexual harassment to see whether he understood the issue. He did not pass that interview, so the GMB withdrew its nomination of him.

It seems that trade unions might have this remit within the Labour party because they have a significant role in the potential selection of Labour MPs, but this is an exemplary principle that should be the case everywhere. It ought to be a requirement for political parties to ask and interrogate their candidates about issues such as sexual harassment to ensure that they are up to the mark; as the GMB east midlands withdrew its nomination, it obviously determined that the individual I mentioned was not.

Last week’s shocking “Panorama” programme featured eight mainly young former members of Labour party staff, who went through the traumas of harassment and intimidation that they had been involved in. The allegations are primarily against people who are employed by Short money through Parliament. I have a list with me, so I can see that large numbers of them are employed by Short money. Now, it is essential that these former members of staff, who are external to the building, can use our independent complaints and grievance procedure if they have complaints against individuals employed through Short money who have allegedly been misusing their power to pressure people in relation to various activities. It is essential that we clarify and confirm that position, because that route could then be open to these people.

The situation is similar when it comes to external sexual harassment allegations. This report is very helpful in strengthening the systems, but it is still noticeable how reluctant people are to pursue issues. I have spoken to people who work in this place and have very specific complaints against Members of Parliament or other staff. Some have been prepared to go out there, but I hesitate to use the word “brave” because there is no less bravery from someone who is not prepared to go public about their situation but is prepared to say things about it. The role of the political parties remains the Achilles heel—the weakness.

We have cases in the Labour party where people—I have met some of them—have made allegations but no action has been taken for two or three years. Where is the decency in that? What about the rights of those who say they have been inappropriately treated or harassed, whether it is sexual harassment or any other form? If there is no resolution one way or another for years, what message does that give to people working here about how seriously the political parties take this?

Nothing exemplifies this more than the House of Commons Commission. The Whips have never suggested that I should sit on such a body; I wonder why. That is the problem with it. I would have been more than happy to submit myself to the will of other Members of Parliament. I might get zero votes to sit on such a body—fine—but there would be accountability built in.

Things are done behind the scenes. There are time bombs in all the political parties. I am not aware of any political party that does not have them ticking away, and there are some big, very serious ones. The political parties love to cover these things up and try to manage them, especially if it relates to Members of Parliament. They do not want a Member of Parliament having to resign in scandal and shame, because that is not the best way to fight a by-election.

The norm now seems to be, “Let’s wait until we get to a general election, then we can quietly drop people, and no one will notice because it’s in the general hubbub and excitement of a general election.” There is nothing wrong with dropping people. I can think of one Conservative who was mysteriously dropped in a recent election. I was delighted to see him dropped. It was done very discreetly and effectively, and I commend those running the party for doing so, but that has become the system—in other words, sending the message, “Hang on and hope for the best.”

There is no question but that it is shameful how some of the Whips have dealt with this in my time here. Obviously, I only know my own party, but I do not think that this is particularly a Labour problem, as opposed to a cultural problem here. I will give one example. I was told in a meeting, unequivocally, “If anyone’s got a complaint about sexual harassment within the Labour party, they can go to the police.” If someone wanted to go to the police, they would have done so already. I deal with a lot of people when it comes to sexual assault and child abuse who have come to see me and had my assistance and advocacy and who do not want to be named and be in the public eye.

There was an exposé in The Sunday Times two or three weeks ago about an MP who went to their party leader—my party leader—and he did nothing about it. He did nothing whatsoever. We found out about it because emails were leaked that exposed what was going on. Is that leadership? It is not my definition of leadership. It is exactly the opposite.

[Layla Moran (Oxford West and Abingdon) (LD)]

I am extremely grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way, and I pay tribute to the brilliant speech he is making. I recognise much of what he is saying from my experience in my own party. The Liberal Democrats have been through an incredibly painful process of coming to our own independent complaints procedure, which enables many of the issues he is raising to come to the fore. Most importantly, it was co-created by activists and, in particular, young women in the party who felt that the current processes were not working. I believe that the procedure is now much more robust. It is by no means done, and he is right that the buck stops with MPs and that we have to lead from within our parties. I commend him for his words.

[John Mann]

The Liberal Democrats have had problems, like every other party, but my specialism is dealing with antisemitism, and I will say that the only political party I have met in the last three years that has a robust process for dealing with antisemitism at the moment is the Liberal Democrat party. The reason why I can say that it is robust is that there are ways in which an external person—someone not in the party, and who may be an opponent of the party politically or electorally—can actually go in, make complaints and hold the party institution to account if it fails to take action. That does not mean it will necessarily draw the right conclusions in my judgment and it does not mean people will be coming forward, but it does mean people are far more likely to have trust in the system. It is a transparent system, and that is the key—it is not an opaque system—and it is impressive. The fact that it is transparent and that I and others were able to go in and say, “Well, you could perhaps change this, do it this way, consider this, speak to that person,” was also very healthy indeed.

Such a system would strengthen any political party. To be honest, it is in the electoral interests—in the medium term, not the short term—of political parties actually to get their act together, because it means they will keep far more young people, particularly women, and encourage more to stay. It will be easier for young people, and especially for women and minority groups, to progress within that party and feel confident in being able to do so. It is a sensible approach for any party that wants to be in power or expand its political base.

The “Panorama” programme shows where these things can end in terms of the impact on individuals. That could just as easily have been an exposé of members of staff in here about what has happened to them—just as easily. If all the emails, the WhatsApp messaging and the secret ways in which people deal with things, such as recordings from Whips Offices of meetings that I and others have unfortunately had to be in—not that they were recorded; I did not record them, anyway, but I hope that they were recorded—were put out there, such transparency would be of significance.

My appeal to this House is to speed up the processes, not to be scared of independence inside it and to get rid of the antiquated structures that are a blockage. We must make sure we have the widest possible definition of who can raise grievances, how complaints can be taken to the independent body and how they will be heard. We should be confident, if necessary and as necessary, in saying to people, “Well, the judge and jury has determined on you: out you get. We’re not having you in here as a Member of Parliament. You are not suitable because of the way that you have treated people.”

That would be a very good thing for democracy, because far too many people—brave people—are suffering anonymously and in silence, but they remain brave because they are refusing to be cowed by what has happened to them. There are far too many of them in here, and we need to think that we will get on top of it, which needs our action and our honesty and, for the political parties, leadership. Perhaps some political parties might be prepared to show some.