Higher Education Regulatory Approach

Debate between Lord Wallace of Saltaire and Baroness Smith of Malvern

Tuesday 21st January 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)]

My Lords, Liberal Democrats welcome this Statement, but for entirely different reasons from those that noble Lords have just heard from the Conservative Front Bench. This provision removes parts of the Act that we opposed during its passage through Parliament, and we welcome that; we were not persuaded that the Act as such was necessary. It was driven by the right-wing culture war against the “liberal elite”, with the Conservatives taking their cue from the Republican right and Fox News as, sadly, they so often have done in recent years.

The Act contradicted Conservative and Liberal principles of respect for autonomous bodies and limits to government regulation and state interference. The costs of litigation imposed on cash-strapped universities threatened to be heavy. The burdens on student unions were likely to be beyond their capacity to manage. The proposed duplication of complaints schemes was badly designed. The requirements for accepting outside speakers virtually unconditionally potentially opened the door to Holocaust deniers, as well as to extremists of the right and left.

A number of universities clearly made mistakes in responding to student attempts to cancel academics and visiting speakers with whom they disagreed. I recall at least one vice-chancellor admitting in a private conversation the mistakes that he had made in responding to conflicting pressures. But it is not the first time that university administrations have made mistakes in responding to student protests—this is not new. I have been on both sides of student protests and staff responses since the 1960s, with changing political crises and student generations protesting on South African apartheid, Vietnam, civil rights and race inequalities, fossil fuel investments and tuition fees.

Previous British Governments had wisely left it largely to universities as autonomous bodies to moderate intolerant demands and teach their students—and some of their staff—to disagree well and respect those with different opinions. Some of today’s student radicals have been determinedly intolerant in defending identity politics, but many on the right have also become determinedly intolerant in their anti-woke crusade.

The question of foreign funding is also difficult and delicate—but also not new. During my time at the London School of Economics, we had an embarrassing controversy over a large Middle East donation, but we later accepted a larger donation from another Middle Eastern ruler, after whom one of the LSE’s buildings is now named. There are potential problems about undue financial dependence on funding from any foreign state, especially if it is a non-democratic state. Can the Minister explain further what the reference in the Statement means when it refers to taking

“more time to consider implementation of the overseas funding measures”?

What sort of consultation with the HE sector is intended, and how long might it take?

The Act as passed was disproportionate in responding to incidents that had failed to respect freedom of speech. It was also disproportionate in the regulatory and financial burdens that it imposed on universities and student unions. I hope that the Minister will reassert that freedom of speech is a principle to be cherished, recognising how difficult that can sometimes be—and it is not a weapon to be used in a Trumpian “war against woke”.

[The Minister of State, Department for Education (Baroness Smith of Malvern) (Lab)]

I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, and the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, for their responses to the Statement. I am glad that the noble Baroness welcomed the decisions made by the Government, which, when I addressed the House previously in response to an Urgent Question on this issue, I emphasised would be informed by careful consideration of a difficult and challenging issue. I believe that that is what the Government have undertaken to do.

I also share the noble Baroness’s admiration for those academics, many of whom I have spoken to as part of the consultation that we have done on this, in identifying the challenges in this really difficult area and the need for some of the protections offered by the legislation. I share with them a view that there should be an absolute commitment, which this Government have, to freedom of speech and academic freedom. It was, of course, a Labour Government who first enshrined freedom of expression in law through the Human Rights Act and suggested that higher education must be a space for robust discussion, intellectual rigour and exposure to new ideas. If you go to university, you must be prepared to have your views challenged, to hear contrary opinions and uncomfortable truths, to be prepared to argue for your own beliefs, and to accept that others may hold beliefs that you disagree with. Academics must be allowed to test the truth of the ideas that shape society and participate in a free exchange of ideas, including where that causes shock and discomfort.

The noble Lord is right that those are long-standing principles. However, while they have been long standing and not negotiable, this is a difficult and contested area that has not always had the senior or thoughtful engagement that it needs from university leaders, as the noble Lord concedes. That must change. That is why we gave careful thought to which elements of the legislation were appropriate to be commenced, which areas we thought needed repeal and which needed amendment.

On the complaints system, I was struck by the number of people who argued for the need for a form of redress and by those higher education institutions which argued about the burdensome nature of the tort and the ability for anybody potentially to take complaints under the previous legislation. It was asked why we should distinguish between students and staff. The OIA already has responsibility for considering student complaints and considers some complaints about freedom of speech. It will be much clearer for students to know where to go for any complaints. I am confident that the OIA and the OfS will work closely on complaints that come to them at the same time, as the noble Baroness outlined.

On the change to the complaints system, I have a strong expectation that one of the requirements to consider a complaint will be that it has gone properly through new internal processes that universities either are setting up or will set up. It is therefore appropriate that the responsibility on the OfS for the complaints system should be a power, not a duty, thereby enabling it to choose that the complaints which get to it have the strongest thematic and sector-wide implications.

We have decided not to commence provisions that would impose new duties on student unions, which are neither equipped nor funded to navigate a complex regulatory environment, with all the potential legal and regulatory costs that will entail. Student unions are already regulated by the Charity Commission, and we fully expect them to protect freedom of speech and the higher education providers within which they operate to support their student unions to do so. That is an appropriate balance to ensure that student unions come within the ambit of the spirit of what is happening here.

On whether a JR will pose the same threat of legal action as the tort, a judicial review does not bring with it the threat of damages in most cases, unlike a civil claim. That threat, linked to the tort, caused higher education providers concern about the burdensome nature of the tort and caused them to instruct lawyers earlier. Frankly, we decided that we would rather see tight resources in higher education going to support students and staff rather than to instruct and fund lawyers.

On the point about foreign influence and overseas measures, I thought more of the noble Baroness than to trot out the slur that the timing of this had been influenced by the Chancellor’s visit. She knows that this has been under consideration for much longer than that. This Government are committed to ensuring that our world-leading universities remain free from foreign interference. Providers should expect the OfS to take regulatory action if they allow foreign Governments to interfere in free speech or academic freedom, and it can already request information from providers about overseas arrangements. We are working at pace on the implementation of the foreign influence registration scheme, which will apply to universities across the UK, but we also want to ensure that, as we work carefully on this, we keep open options around the commencement of the overseas funding measures. We will return with more information about our decision on that.

On the timing of the legislation, as the noble Baroness asked, we will come forward with more information in a policy paper on the details of how our proposals will be implemented and legislated for. That will include more information about timing.

Freedom of Speech in Universities

Debate between Lord Wallace of Saltaire and Baroness Smith of Malvern

Thursday 10th October 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

The noble Baroness probably understands that the speed with which the decision was made related to the timing of the commencement. It is right to be taking the time now and engaging in the way we are with those on various sides of the argument about the best way of proceeding on this issue.

I have spoken to some of the legal experts that the noble Baroness cites with respect to hate speech and understand their points. The fact that there is debate about the impact of this piece of legislation is part of the problem that we seek to ameliorate through the options we are considering. What I know is real is the strong concern among minority groups that the reality of the impact of the legislation would be to allow on to campuses people whose views would be reprehensible and would potentially constitute hate speech. That is what has brought the fear about. But this is not, of course, the only reason. There has also been considerable concern from universities themselves and from unions representing university staff about the disproportionate burdens. On the Jewish academics, I have met a lot of people already and I am more than content to meet with that group as well.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)]

My Lords, I remind the House that the story in today’s Telegraph about the inability of the Cambridge University Conservative Association to have Suella Braverman visit this evening says that it is on advice of the police, due to another MP’s visit to Cambridge, and not that of the university.

I remind the House that we on these Benches were deeply doubtful about the Bill and the disproportionate burdens it would impose. Any decent conservative would believe in the autonomy of civil society and of academic institutions.

This is not a new problem. The first lecture I ever gave as a university lecturer, in January 1968, had a large demonstration—because they thought the dean was giving it—against Vietnam and the then Labour Government. My wife and I, as undergraduates, had taken part in earlier demonstrations about South Africa, which the Daily Telegraph, of course, denounced at the time. We now have a culture war in the United States, in which Republicans are—

Erasmus+

Debate between Lord Wallace of Saltaire and Baroness Smith of Malvern

Thursday 12th September 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

The Prime Minister and the Government are working hard to reset our relationship with our European friends. The Prime Minister hosted the EPC at Blenheim Palace, where he was able to engage with all our European friends, and he has recently visited Germany, France and Ireland to progress that positive bilateral work. I think the noble Earl slightly underestimates the impact of the Turing scheme, which has enabled considerable numbers of young people to go overseas to work and study. The Government support it and will want to think about how we can develop it.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)]

My Lords, I understand that one of the objections to rejoining Erasmus+ is the imbalance between the flow of students coming into Britain and those going out. Would it not be sensible, given the crisis in modern language learning and teaching in English schools, to link the negotiations to rejoin Erasmus with a deliberate scheme to improve the learning and teaching of French, Spanish, German and Italian in British schools, and to encourage British students to go across to those countries and develop fluency in those languages? That would help the British economy and our relationship with other countries and would have a whole host of other benefits.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

The noble Lord makes an important point about the significance of languages. I am not sure that we are presently in a position to advise or inform in detail on the UK’s negotiating strategy. But, notwithstanding that, he is of course right about the significance of languages. That is why in the department we have, for example, a very good scheme for language assistants, which enables people from the UK to travel overseas to work as language assistants and those from overseas to come to the UK. It has been successful in helping to promote language learning. We are also very committed to ensuring that the great benefits that come for younger people from being able to take part in school trips, for example, are also facilitated despite the additional barriers that have been put in place by our decision to leave the EU.