Skills and Post-16 Education Bill [ Lords ] (First sitting)

Emma Hardy Excerpts

Tuesday 30th November 2021 Public Bill Committees

[Mr Perkins]

I encourage my hon. Friend to expand on that point, because he is absolutely right. It is remarkable that the Government have been forced to introduce Government amendment 5, because it means that they brought the Bill forward without recognising any role for authorities that already have this funding devolved to them in the first place. It is a fairly dramatic change. The approach that Labour would take to local skills improvement plans is fundamentally different from that of the Government.

The Government are taking the approach that these are employer-led documents—that phrase again. They are documents of tremendous importance, so presumably the chambers of commerce will be holding the pen on them and will now, as a result of Government amendment 5, be forced to convince the Secretary of State that they have properly taken on board the views of those democratically elected to lead on skills policy in their areas. So many other important contributors are left on the side lines.

Labour’s approach would be to say that we need to recognise the importance of local skills improvement plans that will dictate the direction of skills policy. What we need is a local skills improvement plan that brings together the role of public and private sector employers; that brings in further education colleges; that brings in significant independent training providers within an area; and that is held together by those with democratic accountability, such as metro Mayors and local authorities. That holistic approach would deliver a skills policy that everyone would be able to get behind and recognise as representative.

The Government’s approach is very much about placing the chambers of commerce at the heart of this, but in fact they have had to bring forward an amendment to even put the metro Mayors and combined authorities back into that role. We support Government amendment 5, but it is remarkable that it was necessary at all.

I would like the Minister to expand on whether Government amendment 4 impacts clause 6 in terms of the duty placed on local skills improvement plans for compliance with section 1 of the Climate Change Act 2008. It is crucial that skills policy drives us towards a net zero future, so it is important to understand whether the intention is to undermine that commitment when it comes to Government amendment 4.

Again, we support Government amendment 5, although we are confused about why it is needed and why it was not central to the approach. As my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish mentioned, it is important that we recognise that mayoral combined authorities and the Greater London Authority already have responsibilities in terms of policy and funding for further education and skills, and that they both have good professional relationships with employers, colleges and training providers in their areas. I have been along to meet them in Manchester and have seen their excellent work on careers guidance and their constructive approach to independent providers and the FE sector. That is a great example of how devolved decision makers are better in touch with the needs of their communities than a centralised approach.

It is a shame that the Bill, the brainchild of the former Secretary of State, is a return to the centralisation agenda that has too often bedevilled Whitehall thinking. It was clearly a driving force in the legislation. It is inconceivable that local skills improvement plans could have flown in the face of decisions made locally. It is therefore important to understand what protections there will be for existing funding arrangements with regard to those put in place by metro Mayors. Will they be transferred to employer representative bodies or will there be a dual system?

The Government propose that employer representative bodies consider the views of mayoral combined authorities or the Greater London Authority but, as was said by the hon. Member for Ipswich on Second Reading, what does that say about those communities that are not within metro Mayor areas? The majority of my colleagues on the Labour Benches are in metro Mayor areas—I am one of the relatively few who are not—but many colleagues on the Conservative Benches are in areas that have local enterprise partnerships, which were originally meant to bring together many of the different power brokers. It seems that democratic accountability is missing entirely in areas outside the metro Mayor areas.

[Emma Hardy (Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle) (Lab)]

This is a crucial point, which I hope we will come to as our consideration of the Bill develops: how do we define regions and regional consultation? The hon. Member for Great Grimsby might have an idea completely different from mine about what constitutes the best region when looking at skills and skills development. I hope that the Minister will take that point away and look to define that later as we go through the Bill.

[Mr Perkins]

Absolutely. To return to the subject of the amendment concerning mayoral combined authorities, the phrase “due consideration” is noticeably vague. The kind of due consideration that the right hon. Member for South Staffordshire might have given to the views of the Mayor of Manchester would have left me—and, no doubt, the Mayor of Manchester—with sleepless nights. We hope that a more thoughtful approach is now in place and we welcome the change of tone, but we are not seeing a change in policy.

[Emma Hardy]

On that issue of “due consideration” and its vagueness, will the Minister agree to look at producing some guidance on what constitutes due consideration? Is that a consultation that has happened on one occasion, or on a number of occasions? How do we define “due consideration” to ensure that the democratic accountability to which my hon. Friend is referring is put at the heart of the Bill?

[Mr Perkins]

I agree with that absolutely. The next part of that—to extend what my hon. Friend is saying—is to ask whether there is a right of appeal for a combined authority or metro Mayor in the event that they do not consider that due consideration has been given to their views. If they think that the employer representative body has put together a local skills improvement plan that has not taken into account the representations made on one or more areas, will there be a right of appeal? Will the fact that the metro Mayor considers that due consideration was not given be able to pause the local skills improvement plan and bring people together?

What role does the Secretary of State consider that he will have? As I said, the previous Secretary of State was very much a centraliser—he wanted his hands on every single decision—and that clearly runs through the Bill. He had all these frustrations with the fact that individual organisations were not doing exactly what he wanted, so he wanted the power to tell them that they had to. Is that the sort of approach that this Secretary of State will take? Having appointed the chambers of commerce to make decisions before those who are democratically elected to do so, he appears to be positioning himself as the arbiter in a whole variety of local decisions. I look forward to the Minister’s response.

[Emma Hardy]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Miller. Looking at the room, I see that people on both sides are genuinely interested in education matters. I hope that this will be a good Committee that really scrutinises the legislation before us in a shared ambition to make the Bill the best that it can be.

I will be brief. I have already made an intervention about guidance on what constitutes due consideration and about the arbitration processes for conflict over whether someone believes they have been duly considered. Will there be a timeframe for that due consideration? Local engagement and agreement for the skills plans is absolutely crucial, so having that clearly laid out is fundamental.

I hope the Minister will clarify something. I may be misreading the Bill, but am I right in thinking that further education colleges have been removed from consultation, or is that part of a later amendment? The Lords tabled an amendment to ensure that local school improvement plans are co-developed with colleges, local government, elected Mayors, employers and so on. Am I right in thinking that colleges are no longer listed as part of the consultation process, or will that be addressed in another amendment? I may have made a mistake, in which case the Minister will correct me.

We are basing everything on employers and the jobs available now, but has the Minister thought about future-proofing the local skills development plans to include industries that will be developed in future, especially in relation to climate, green changes and so on? We might create the best possible plan for jobs that exist now, but that might not be the plan that we want in five years’ time, so will such future-proofing be included?

[Tom Hunt]

I will make just a few very brief comments. I think that the local skills improvement plans are a huge step in the right direction. It is clearly crucial that local businesses should play a role in shaping the curriculum of further education colleges. We need to have far more of an ecosystem approach when it comes to the role of employers, schools, FE colleges and further education. Too often, it seems as if they are kind of on the sides.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Gwynne]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Miller. My comments follow neatly on from those of the hon. Member for Ipswich, because the reality is that much of what the Government want to achieve in the Bill is starting to happen anyway in devolved combined authority areas where the skills agenda has been devolved. I welcome the emphasis on skills improvement plans and, now, the involvement of the mayoral combined authorities in them. It was perhaps remiss that that was not in the Bill originally, and I am pleased that the Minister has tabled an amendment to ensure that it is clearly in the Bill.

Devolution matters. It works, and it is working. It was a Labour Government who introduced the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009, which facilitates the devolution agenda. Greater Manchester, my own city region, was the first to have a combined authority in 2011. It had an interim Mayor in 2015—my hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale (Tony Lloyd)—and a Mayor in 2017: Andy Burnham. The skills agenda is at the heart of the Greater Manchester combined authority’s strategies. It has a local industrial strategy. It has the Greater Manchester work and skills strategy and priorities. In 2019, it had the adult education budget devolved to it. It has Bridge GM, which links schools and employers.

The thing that I am most proud of, and which fits neatly in the agenda of the Bill, is the Greater Manchester skills for growth strategy, which is designed to fill occupational skills gaps in the Greater Manchester city region, and provide young people and adults with the skills needed to fill the gaps.

However, we need to go beyond that, and I urge the Minister to encourage combined authorities to future-proof and devolve them the powers to do so. Technology is moving at a rapid speed. Our city region economies are changing dramatically in a short space of time, and we need to ensure that the workforce of tomorrow has the skills of tomorrow, not the skills of today. I welcome the fact that the mayoral combined authorities will be included in the Bill.

[Emma Hardy]

On the skills for tomorrow, there is a huge concern about amendment 4, which removes subsection (6) on future issues around climate change and environmental goals. Surely those issues will only grow in importance. Removing that from the Bill seems incomprehensible.

[Andrew Gwynne]

It absolutely does. My hon. Friend is completely right to highlight that, because they are not only the challenges but the opportunities of tomorrow. I firmly believe that the United Kingdom can be a world leader in developing the technologies and equipment to help tackle some of the environmental challenges that the whole globe will face in the years to come. That is certainly true of my city region. It is also true of Hull, where there are huge opportunities not just on renewable power but to develop the next generation of technology.

--- Later in debate ---

[Emma Hardy]

My hon. Friend has prompted me to point out that wind turbines are made in the great city of Hull, and we are going to be one of the green energy capitals of the UK. I wanted to get that in Hansard.

[Andrew Gwynne]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention—probably almost as grateful as she is to have had the chance to make that press release—and she is absolutely right.

I firmly believe that the skills agenda is linked to the industrial strategy agenda, not just for individual city regions, towns and counties, but for the country. If we want Britain to succeed, we must think not just about the here and now, but about the future. That involves bringing together skills and industrial strategy. In a small way, that is what we are doing in Greater Manchester through the devolution agenda.

--- Later in debate ---

[Emma Hardy]

Let me offer the Minister a concrete example of the situation in Hull. We have the Hull and Humber chamber of commerce, which reaches over to the south bank, and we have a newly formed LEP that serves just Hull and the East Riding. We have a careers scheme for Hull and the Humber, and separate counties that have no overall mayoral authority, but an elected police commissioner for the whole of the Humber. To say that is muddled does not go far enough. I really feel that the amendment should make allowances for areas that are as muddled as Hull.

[Matt Western]

That is a good illustration of just how complicated these matters can be. I hope that there will be greater clarity on how the measures will work in future.

We have heard from colleagues how well things can work, including my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish, who told us about how Manchester is just getting on with it. Having been up there recently, I have seen the extraordinary work of that cluster of universities and colleges, and how they are co-operating and collaborating in their brilliant work to bring skills to their known geography—I want to place on the record how mighty impressive that was. I agree with the hon. Member for Mansfield on counties and how they work in their regions; that must be clarified as well.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alex Burghart]

What an interesting debate to start off the Committee stage of the Bill. There are so many comments to come back to. As a general observation, it was very nice to hear the hon. Member for Chesterfield praise Conservative predecessors of mine for their comments about an employer-led system, which we have indeed been building up during our time in power. The Bill is simply the next stage in that process.

The fact that that process was required was first highlighted in a 2011 report by the Labour peer Lord Sainsbury. I do not want to get into the deep politics of it—we have the Bill to consider—but that report was written after Labour had been in power for 13 years. He felt that it was necessary to begin long-term reform of the skills system to make it more responsive to the needs of business and to make sure that students could get the qualifications they needed and the technical skills to go into the jobs that the economy demands. It is a great honour to present the Bill as a means of taking those ideas on to their next stage.

I am grateful to the hon. Member for Chesterfield for saying that Labour will support the amendments and the local skills improvement plans. However, I need to clarify a point made by a number of Opposition Members: the Government are not removing clause 1(6). That seems to be a point of confusion. Clause 1(6) stands part of the Bill. Government amendment 5 would insert subsection (6A) to clause 1, on page 2, in line 32. It does not do anything to clause 1(6).

[Emma Hardy]

On a point of clarity—forgive me if I have this wrong— amendment 4 does seem to leave out subsection (6). My mistake—it says

“leave out ‘subsection (6)’ and insert ‘subsections (6) and (6A)’”.

[Alex Burghart]

With that in mind, and in answer to the point made by the hon. Member for Chesterfield on the impact of Government amendment 4 on clause 6, there is no friction at all between Government amendment 4 and clause 6. The amendment requires the Secretary of State to have regard to clause 1(6) and (6A) when deciding to approve and publish a plan. I hope that has cleared that up.

The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle raised a point about LSIPs and colleges, which will be dealt with in statutory guidance. The Secretary of State will lay very good statutory guidance on how employer representative bodies will work and how local skills improvement plans will be written.

We expect the whole process to be collaborative. The hon. Member for Denton and Reddish spoke very well about the existing collaboration in the system. It is something that we recognise in all of our combined mayoral authorities. We do not see there being any great friction or need for friction. We want to see authorities, businesses and providers working in harmony, as many of them already do. What we are doing in the Bill, and in these clauses, is simply creating a process that helps establish that good working.

I was up in Salford not long ago, in MediaCity, where I saw some of the Government’s fantastic digital boot camps. Young people—and some not so young people—are learning the skills of tomorrow at speed in 16-week courses, getting apprenticeships in MediaCity and meeting people who have previously done the apprenticeships, who now have jobs in MediaCity. We saw that Government initiative backed by local business is not in friction with the good work the local Mayor was doing—instead, it complements it. We also saw the local economy boosted as a result.

Some of the remarks made by hon. Members suggested that there is always going to be a terrible tension between what local political leadership and businesses are trying to do, and what local providers want to do. I do not think that will be the case. In fact, there is an enormous amount of goodwill in the system and people are desirous of working towards the same aims.

On the points raised by my hon. Friends the Members for Ipswich and for Mansfield, do I see before me two future leaders in their respective areas? Well, one leader already, but who knows if they will become greater leaders still? Obviously, at the moment combined authorities have a greater responsibility for adult skills than local authorities do, which is why we put them on the face of the Bill. In the course of statutory guidance and as situations evolve, perhaps it will be possible for us to set out how we expect that work to evolve.

I do not recognise the comments made by some Opposition Members about this Government not having an appetite for devolution. Success has many fathers. The hon. Member for Denton and Reddish talked about how Labour’s devolutionary reforms led to mayoral combined authorities, but I remember the Manchester devolution deal being done under the Conservatives.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alex Burghart]

Thank you, Mrs Miller, and with your prompting I will refer to one more point.

[Emma Hardy]

I apologise if I am being tiresome, but just so I have understood this correctly, can the Minister confirm that the amendment leaves out subsections (6)(b), “adaptation to climate change” and (6)(c), “meeting other environmental goals”, but leaves subsection (6)(a)? Does the amendment remove paragraphs (b) and (c), lines 30 to 32, with those specific references to “climate change” and “other environmental goals”?

[Alex Burghart]

I believe I am right in saying that the amendment keeps clause 1(6)(a).

[Emma Hardy]

Yes, and removes paragraphs (b) and (c).

[Alex Burghart]

In the amendment, subsections (6)(b) and (6)(c) will not stand part of the Bill.

[Emma Hardy]

So that we are all clear, does that mean that “adaptation to climate change” and “meeting other environmental goals” are being removed?

[The Chair]

Minister, would you like to complete your remarks and maybe others can provide you with a little bit more information?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Perkins]

These are four significant amendments. Notwithstanding the assurances that we have just received from the Minister, they specifically take out what I think was a very strong amendment, supported by Members across the House of Lords, that added the importance of a collaborative approach to the Bill. For all the Minister said in that contribution, and the one before, about the importance of these partnership arrangements, it is not really a partnership arrangement. It is clear that all those consultees are subservient to the chamber of commerce which, ultimately, holds the pen and makes the decision. That report will then have to meet with the approval of the Secretary of State. The hon. Member for Mansfield raised in a previous debate the question of what happens, given the huge variety in the strength of different chambers of commerce, different local enterprise partnerships and so on, in the event that a local skills improvement plan goes to the Secretary of State and is considered not be adequate? Obviously, we can only assume that the Secretary of State would send it back.

Chambers of commerce are very varied organisations; I think everyone would recognise that there are some excellent ones—I count those in Derbyshire and the east midlands as an example of that. However, there are others that are much smaller and have very different areas of responsibility. Chambers of commerce are membership organisations that represent some of the businesses in their community; that is unlike chambers of commerce in Germany, which are compulsory for businesses to join, and therefore are representative, quasi-governmental organisations. In this country, chambers of commerce are one of many different business organisations that businesses might choose to join. Different chambers have different areas of priority and expertise and different industries that are particularly important to them. Even among their memberships they have, in my experience, a small number of members who are very active within them, and large numbers of members who take a much less active role.

What we have in the context of many of the consultees that the Minister referred to going into the guidance notes, are a number of organisations that are in some ways more consistent, and will definitely offer a breadth of approach. Therefore, the fundamental difference of the approach that Labour would take in the Bill, compared with the Government, is around whether it is a true partnership. The difference is whether it is a partnership that recognises the voices of public and private sector employers and of further education colleges, that recognises the power of those independent training providers that do such great work across the country, and that recognises statutory organisations such as jobcentres, all of which have a role in this, or whether, as the Bill says, they are all consultees, but the chamber of commerce ultimately writes this plan. We would like to see far greater parity in that power; we think it is a local skills improvement plan that would have more buy-in and more belief in the local community, and would be much more respected on that basis.

[Emma Hardy]

I am sure that my hon. Friend shares my concern, given amendment 6, that the specific reference to further education providers is removed from the Bill. Any local skills plan needs to be done in conjunction with further education providers; there is no point writing a Bill that does not have the capacity to deliver in that local area. It seems slightly odd that a specific reference to further education has been taken out of the Bill.

[Mr Perkins]

I agree with my hon. Friend. She is right that Government amendment 6 removes the words,

“in partnership with local authorities, including the Mayoral Combined Authorities and further education providers for the specified area”.

The Minister says that we should not worry, it will be in the guidance. However, the different approach by the Lords recognised that it was a genuine partnership. These organisations are now consultees that will make their representations to the chamber of commerce, and hope that the chamber of commerce smiles on the view they put forward. It is a totally different type of relationship. The relationship is either one of partnership or of subservience; the approach the Government choose to take is one of subservience.

[Mr Perkins]

In terms of areas that are not already devolved, that is absolutely right, and adult education budgets will be very relevant.

Hon. Members will be pleased to know that I will not dwell on the subsequent amendments, because we will have an opportunity to debate them, but I will touch on some of our concerns about the way in which the needs of learners might not necessarily be at the forefront of people’s minds in chambers of commerce. For example, to what extent will chambers of commerce be aware of the specific needs of people with education and healthcare plans or other disabilities? The amendments seek to reduce the extent to which it is partnership working and move to a hierarchy, with the chamber of commerce holding the pen and driving the bus, and others making suggestions about the route.

[Emma Hardy]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right as to whether it is a true partnership relationship or a relationship of subservience. I draw hon. Members’ attention to amendment 7. Not only does amendment 6 leave out specific reference to further education providers; amendment 7 leaves out specific reference to community learning providers, designated institutions and universities. Again, it is no longer a partnership, as was written in the Lords amendment. It becomes a situation in which central Government make the decisions and education providers are in a subservient relationship with them. My hon. Friend is absolutely right.

[Mr Perkins]

I thank my hon. Friend for saying that, and I agree. Government amendment 7 is consequential to Government amendment 6, and she is right about what that means. We have real concerns about how employer-representative bodies and LSIPs will fit within sectoral expertise in sectors such as construction and manufacturing, which transcend local areas but are incredibly important, particularly where our economy is hugely lacking in the development of the next generation.

It is really important to recognise that we have huge skills shortages in the public sector as well as the private sector. Health and social care is a classic example, but there are many others. The voice of the public sector must be heard, and we must ensure that it is able to support people who aim to get from unemployment into a trained-up place in the workplace, because they are also central to this sort of approach. I am interested to hear from the Minister what framework he envisages for LSIPs aligning with sectoral programmes and a national industrial strategy.

Government amendment 8 removes the words, “by people resident”, from the sentence about the skills required in a local area. The purpose of the Lords amendment was important: it was to ensure that LSIPs focused not just on the needs of employers but on the people resident in a community. What would happen in a situation whereby employers were satisfied with the extent to which they were able to access the skills that they needed, but a large number of people were employed and unable to get into the labour market? Ultimately, it is not the responsibility of chambers of commerce to address youth unemployment; it is the Government’s responsibility. If businesses consider that they are able to access the skills that they need, but there is still a large number of people who are unemployed, who takes responsibility for that? The Lords amendment ensured that the people who were resident in a local area were considered in the local skills improvement plan. The Government are taking those words out, which means that it goes back to being a plan put together by businesses to solve the needs of businesses, regardless of whether that addresses the problems of people struggling to access the labour market.

[Emma Hardy]

My other concern with the amendments, which I hope the Minister will address, is about areas with many small and medium-sized enterprises. Areas with large numbers of big employers can obviously exercise that strong voice, for example through chambers of commerce, but I am worried that in areas such as Hull, with predominantly SMEs, as I am sure Government Members will recognise, that voice will not come through as strongly.

[Mr Perkins]

My hon. Friend worries with due cause. Since the introduction of the apprenticeship levy, small businesses have found it incredibly difficult to access apprenticeships. There has been a huge driving down in the number of people getting apprenticeships within small businesses. In areas such as Chesterfield, where smaller employers make up the majority of the economy, the apprenticeship opportunities are much lower than they were a few years before. Ensuring that the voice of small business is heard within this is incredibly important.

The Minister did not really talk about this amendment at all, but the Government might say that the skills plan also needs to have a focus on those relevant to a local employer who are not currently resident—we might call it the “on your bike” amendment, with the Government saying, “We want an approach that identifies skills needs of people who are not currently here.” If that was their intention, then it could have been worded to ensure that there was a strategy for attracting new workers. Simply taking those words out means that this is a plan for the employer community that does not have to consider those questions around the learners who are excluded from the labour market if those employers consider that they are relatively satisfied with what they are able to attract.

There is an important point here. At the moment, shortly after Brexit, there is a lot of focus is on skills shortages and staff shortages, and the sense, which I totally agree with, that we need to make more of the people we have. However, there may be other times when there is a real surplus of unemployed people, and we need a strategic approach that, in those times, supports those people into work, even if there are not a huge number of vacancies in the labour market. I think that those words are important.

Government amendment 9 removes the words “and other local bodies” from the clause concerning post-16 technical education, which was an amendment that the much-respected Lord Baker of Dorking added to the Bill. The Lords amendment that this Government amendment seeks to undo was drafted to avoid being too prescriptive, but it would have allowed LSIPs to work closely with other agencies, including Jobcentre Plus and careers advisory services, in providing careers information, advice and guidance.

All those organisations are important to ensuring that they are able to get into schools and support young people to get representation and ideas from both the business community and environments that they have not been familiar with. I would have thought that an amendment recognising that the careers responsibility is not just a responsibility of schools, but something that should be open to businesses, would have very much fitted with the spirit of the Bill. It was an opportunity for the Government to enable other bodies to play an important role in that post-16 technical education and careers guidance, and it is therefore disappointing that it was taken out.

We agree with their lordships on the introduction of these amendments, and we are disappointed that the Government are seeking to remove them. On that basis, we will look to support the amendments brought in by their lordships and disagree with these Government amendments.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rachel Hopkins]

I thank my hon. Friend for that fantastic intervention. It leads on to a couple of other points about those who are not in employment, and particularly local authorities with responsibility for young people who are NEET—not in education, employment or training. It is absolutely vital that those are addressed and that they have a formal seat at the table in that area. Equally, on my hon. Friend’s point about looking to the future, local authorities do a great amount of work to understand their populations and trends so they can project how many young people are coming through or whether school or training places will be needed. Employers do not always have easy access to that, but local authorities need to have an equal seat at that table in developing the plans, rather than just being tucked away in some statutory guidance. We know what happens with guidance; it is just guidance and it is often ignored.

[Emma Hardy]

On that point, I hope that the Minister will clarify that this will be statutory guidance, not just guidance that has been issued as a general idea that we can do it if we would like to. Statutory guidance is needed.

[Rachel Hopkins]

I thank my hon. Friend for making that important point about statutory guidance. In fact, if the guidance is going to be statutory, why not just make it statute and have it in the Bill? That is what I would like to see. It is important that local people have democratic oversight of what is happening in their areas. That is why I want to see local authorities, combined authorities and other organisations that can shape what is going on in their local areas.

[Emma Hardy]

On that point, the removal of

“schools, further education institutions, community learning providers, specialist designated institutions and universities”

means the people who actually deliver the skills strategies are being removed from a Bill about skills. It is a little odd.

[Rachel Hopkins]

I thank my hon. Friend for making yet another fantastic intervention. Yes, it is a little odd. Equally, amendment 9 removes other organisations, such as our Jobcentre Plus.

Mrs Miller, you will forgive me for intervening on an earlier intervention. What I was trying to get at with regard to universities is that they are also very much involved in skills development. I refer to the University of Bedfordshire, which is in my constituency. It has a fantastic new STEM building—science, technology, engineering and maths. Industry-standard equipment has been brought into the science labs, so the students studying for degrees such as biochemistry are using the equipment that is used out in industry. This is not just about theoretical and academic issues; it is also about key skills.

[Emma Hardy]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right to point out how incorrect the intervention was. One of the areas where we are desperately short of workers is social work. How do we train up social workers? They are trained up at a university. The idea that universities are only for academic knowledge and not places where people can be trained for jobs is ludicrous.

[Rachel Hopkins]

My hon. Friend also must have eyes in the back of her head, because one of the other points I want to talk about is health and social care. Again, I will talk about my fantastic home town of Luton. Someone can study for a BTEC in health and social care at Luton Sixth Form College, or study at the University of Bedfordshire and get practical skills training as a nurse, paramedic or midwife, before going on to be a nurse, paramedic or midwife at Luton and Dunstable University Hospital. All of those bodies will not be included in developing a skills plan if they are not set out in the Bill. I want to see them included, so that everyone feels that there is equality of partnership work, to ensure that what is needed is recognised.

I will not prolong my remarks any longer, but I just want to reiterate the points made from the Opposition Front Bench and say that taking out these important clauses that were inserted by the Lords weakens the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Gwynne]

I do not want to prolong the debate on this group, but the Minister, in the discussion on the previous group, sought to assure the Committee that the approach was genuinely collaborative. Yet this group of amendments strikes out Lords amendments that would make the approach genuinely collaborative. I do not understand the thinking here. I cannot understand what the Minister thinks he is gaining or achieving by striking out the Lords amendments.

Let us look at the amendments in detail. Government amendment 6 would strike out, in clause 1(7)(a),

“in partnership with local authorities, including the Mayoral Combined Authorities and further education providers”.

The explanatory notes state that the reference to mayoral combined authorities is not required because that point has now been made clear through the earlier Government amendment that we have passed. I accept that point, but there is still a role for other local, non-mayoral combined authorities to have a view and an input into the skills agenda for their area, whether that is a unitary authority or a county council. These issues are part and parcel of what those local authorities do.

[Emma Hardy]

It feels like removing the Lords amendment will result in democratic accountability if the area has a Mayor; if it does not, there is no democratic accountability. An area such as Hull, which has no mayoral authority, has no democratic accountability or reference in the Bill. That feels unfair.

[Andrew Gwynne]

It not only feels unfair; it is unfair. I get that mayoral combined authorities have specific skills responsibilities devolved to them, so clearly the level of input from a mayoral combined authority is greater than that of a county council or a unitary authority that does not have those specific responsibilities devolved to them, but the council’s strategy for that area will involve education, skills and economic development. Those are important elements for county and unitary authorities.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matt Western]

rose—

[Emma Hardy]

rose—

[Andrew Gwynne]

I will give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington, because he was first, and then to my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle.

[Andrew Gwynne]

I completely agree. Every layer of local government has an interest in the health and wellbeing—in the broadest sense—of the population. The best way to improve the health and wellbeing of the population is to ensure that people have good skills, good education and good job opportunities. That is the route to health and wellbeing, and that is true both at the district level and at upper levels.

[Emma Hardy]

I want to highlight to Government Members, although I am sure the hon. Member for Mansfield will know this as leader of a local council, that local councils have a statutory duty for all children with special educational needs or disabilities up to the age of 25. They have a statutory duty for looked-after children. They have a statutory duty regarding the number of young people not in employment, education or training—NEETs—as well. They have those statutory duties, yet the Government amendments remove their voice from the local skills plan. That does not seem right.

[Andrew Gwynne]

It absolutely does not seem right. I have spent a lot of time on local government, but the same part of subsection (7)(b) that will be struck out if Government amendment 7 is made goes further. While the line

“draws on the views of…employers operating within the specified area”

stays in, regional and local authorities, mayoral combined authorities and their strategies are taken out, but so are

“post-16 education providers active in the specified area, including schools, further education institutions, community learning providers, specialist designated institutions and universities”.

It is incomprehensible that those bodies would not be part and parcel of the deliberations on and the creation of the strategies.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alex Burghart]

It has been another lively and interesting debate on this group of amendments. The Government want to build an employer-led system, but the statutory guidance—yes, statutory guidance—will make it clear that the employer representative bodies that the Bill creates must consult a range of partners and collaborate with them.

On the removal of schools and other providers, the Bill is already clear that all relevant providers, including further education colleges, independent training providers, universities and sixth-form colleges need to be involved in the development of the LSIP—that is stated in subsection (4)—and if designated employer representative bodies do not have regard to relevant statutory guidance on engaging with relevant providers and do not comply with the terms and conditions of their designation, the Secretary of State may not approve or publish the local skills improvement plan and could remove their designation.

The national dimension is very important, and we expect local skills improvement plans to be informed by national skills priorities and to help address national, as well as local, skills needs. However, where there are national skills shortages in critical areas, we can expect the Government to carry on playing a role in helping alleviate them, as we are doing at the moment. We put £17 million into rapidly upskilling people to help meet the needs of the heavy goods vehicle sector, where we have significant shortages, and I have been pleased to see that that is going very well. That will not fall away.

Turning to the question of dropping the reference to long-term national skill needs, the Bill already makes reference to the fact that LSIPs will need to look at future skills needs—that is stated in subsections (2) and (7)(b)(iii). The Opposition made a very important point about the role of the public sector. Let us think about the phrase “employer representative bodies”: there is a very big role for business, but in many areas, the public sector is a major employer and will need to be involved in this process. We want ERBs to reach beyond their existing membership and cover both public and private employers.

[Emma Hardy]

The Minister has mentioned the employer-led bodies in the public sector. Could he pick up on my point about SMEs, which might not be part of an employer-led body but, in some regions, are the main employers?

[Alex Burghart]

We are expecting ERBs to draw up local skills improvement plans that take account of the economic area that they represent, which should absolutely include small and medium-sized employers, as well as self-employment opportunities.

While Opposition Members may feel that these things can be done only if every detail is written out in primary legislation, we know that that is not the case, because we have eight excellent trailblazer areas at the moment that are doing this job without a mite of primary legislation. With that in mind, I commend the amendment to the Committee.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

Skills and Post-16 Education Bill (First sitting)

Emma Hardy Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 30th November 2021 Public Bill Committees

[Mr Perkins]

I encourage my hon. Friend to expand on that point, because he is absolutely right. It is remarkable that the Government have been forced to introduce Government amendment 5, because it means that they brought the Bill forward without recognising any role for authorities that already have this funding devolved to them in the first place. It is a fairly dramatic change. The approach that Labour would take to local skills improvement plans is fundamentally different from that of the Government.

The Government are taking the approach that these are employer-led documents—that phrase again. They are documents of tremendous importance, so presumably the chambers of commerce will be holding the pen on them and will now, as a result of Government amendment 5, be forced to convince the Secretary of State that they have properly taken on board the views of those democratically elected to lead on skills policy in their areas. So many other important contributors are left on the side lines.

Labour’s approach would be to say that we need to recognise the importance of local skills improvement plans that will dictate the direction of skills policy. What we need is a local skills improvement plan that brings together the role of public and private sector employers; that brings in further education colleges; that brings in significant independent training providers within an area; and that is held together by those with democratic accountability, such as metro Mayors and local authorities. That holistic approach would deliver a skills policy that everyone would be able to get behind and recognise as representative.

The Government’s approach is very much about placing the chambers of commerce at the heart of this, but in fact they have had to bring forward an amendment to even put the metro Mayors and combined authorities back into that role. We support Government amendment 5, but it is remarkable that it was necessary at all.

I would like the Minister to expand on whether Government amendment 4 impacts clause 6 in terms of the duty placed on local skills improvement plans for compliance with section 1 of the Climate Change Act 2008. It is crucial that skills policy drives us towards a net zero future, so it is important to understand whether the intention is to undermine that commitment when it comes to Government amendment 4.

Again, we support Government amendment 5, although we are confused about why it is needed and why it was not central to the approach. As my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish mentioned, it is important that we recognise that mayoral combined authorities and the Greater London Authority already have responsibilities in terms of policy and funding for further education and skills, and that they both have good professional relationships with employers, colleges and training providers in their areas. I have been along to meet them in Manchester and have seen their excellent work on careers guidance and their constructive approach to independent providers and the FE sector. That is a great example of how devolved decision makers are better in touch with the needs of their communities than a centralised approach.

It is a shame that the Bill, the brainchild of the former Secretary of State, is a return to the centralisation agenda that has too often bedevilled Whitehall thinking. It was clearly a driving force in the legislation. It is inconceivable that local skills improvement plans could have flown in the face of decisions made locally. It is therefore important to understand what protections there will be for existing funding arrangements with regard to those put in place by metro Mayors. Will they be transferred to employer representative bodies or will there be a dual system?

The Government propose that employer representative bodies consider the views of mayoral combined authorities or the Greater London Authority but, as was said by the hon. Member for Ipswich on Second Reading, what does that say about those communities that are not within metro Mayor areas? The majority of my colleagues on the Labour Benches are in metro Mayor areas—I am one of the relatively few who are not—but many colleagues on the Conservative Benches are in areas that have local enterprise partnerships, which were originally meant to bring together many of the different power brokers. It seems that democratic accountability is missing entirely in areas outside the metro Mayor areas.

[Emma Hardy (Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle) (Lab)]

This is a crucial point, which I hope we will come to as our consideration of the Bill develops: how do we define regions and regional consultation? The hon. Member for Great Grimsby might have an idea completely different from mine about what constitutes the best region when looking at skills and skills development. I hope that the Minister will take that point away and look to define that later as we go through the Bill.

[Mr Perkins]

Absolutely. To return to the subject of the amendment concerning mayoral combined authorities, the phrase “due consideration” is noticeably vague. The kind of due consideration that the right hon. Member for South Staffordshire might have given to the views of the Mayor of Manchester would have left me—and, no doubt, the Mayor of Manchester—with sleepless nights. We hope that a more thoughtful approach is now in place and we welcome the change of tone, but we are not seeing a change in policy.

[Emma Hardy]

On that issue of “due consideration” and its vagueness, will the Minister agree to look at producing some guidance on what constitutes due consideration? Is that a consultation that has happened on one occasion, or on a number of occasions? How do we define “due consideration” to ensure that the democratic accountability to which my hon. Friend is referring is put at the heart of the Bill?

[Mr Perkins]

I agree with that absolutely. The next part of that—to extend what my hon. Friend is saying—is to ask whether there is a right of appeal for a combined authority or metro Mayor in the event that they do not consider that due consideration has been given to their views. If they think that the employer representative body has put together a local skills improvement plan that has not taken into account the representations made on one or more areas, will there be a right of appeal? Will the fact that the metro Mayor considers that due consideration was not given be able to pause the local skills improvement plan and bring people together?

What role does the Secretary of State consider that he will have? As I said, the previous Secretary of State was very much a centraliser—he wanted his hands on every single decision—and that clearly runs through the Bill. He had all these frustrations with the fact that individual organisations were not doing exactly what he wanted, so he wanted the power to tell them that they had to. Is that the sort of approach that this Secretary of State will take? Having appointed the chambers of commerce to make decisions before those who are democratically elected to do so, he appears to be positioning himself as the arbiter in a whole variety of local decisions. I look forward to the Minister’s response.

[Emma Hardy]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Miller. Looking at the room, I see that people on both sides are genuinely interested in education matters. I hope that this will be a good Committee that really scrutinises the legislation before us in a shared ambition to make the Bill the best that it can be.

I will be brief. I have already made an intervention about guidance on what constitutes due consideration and about the arbitration processes for conflict over whether someone believes they have been duly considered. Will there be a timeframe for that due consideration? Local engagement and agreement for the skills plans is absolutely crucial, so having that clearly laid out is fundamental.

I hope the Minister will clarify something. I may be misreading the Bill, but am I right in thinking that further education colleges have been removed from consultation, or is that part of a later amendment? The Lords tabled an amendment to ensure that local school improvement plans are co-developed with colleges, local government, elected Mayors, employers and so on. Am I right in thinking that colleges are no longer listed as part of the consultation process, or will that be addressed in another amendment? I may have made a mistake, in which case the Minister will correct me.

We are basing everything on employers and the jobs available now, but has the Minister thought about future-proofing the local skills development plans to include industries that will be developed in future, especially in relation to climate, green changes and so on? We might create the best possible plan for jobs that exist now, but that might not be the plan that we want in five years’ time, so will such future-proofing be included?

[Tom Hunt]

I will make just a few very brief comments. I think that the local skills improvement plans are a huge step in the right direction. It is clearly crucial that local businesses should play a role in shaping the curriculum of further education colleges. We need to have far more of an ecosystem approach when it comes to the role of employers, schools, FE colleges and further education. Too often, it seems as if they are kind of on the sides.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Gwynne]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Miller. My comments follow neatly on from those of the hon. Member for Ipswich, because the reality is that much of what the Government want to achieve in the Bill is starting to happen anyway in devolved combined authority areas where the skills agenda has been devolved. I welcome the emphasis on skills improvement plans and, now, the involvement of the mayoral combined authorities in them. It was perhaps remiss that that was not in the Bill originally, and I am pleased that the Minister has tabled an amendment to ensure that it is clearly in the Bill.

Devolution matters. It works, and it is working. It was a Labour Government who introduced the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009, which facilitates the devolution agenda. Greater Manchester, my own city region, was the first to have a combined authority in 2011. It had an interim Mayor in 2015—my hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale (Tony Lloyd)—and a Mayor in 2017: Andy Burnham. The skills agenda is at the heart of the Greater Manchester combined authority’s strategies. It has a local industrial strategy. It has the Greater Manchester work and skills strategy and priorities. In 2019, it had the adult education budget devolved to it. It has Bridge GM, which links schools and employers.

The thing that I am most proud of, and which fits neatly in the agenda of the Bill, is the Greater Manchester skills for growth strategy, which is designed to fill occupational skills gaps in the Greater Manchester city region, and provide young people and adults with the skills needed to fill the gaps.

However, we need to go beyond that, and I urge the Minister to encourage combined authorities to future-proof and devolve them the powers to do so. Technology is moving at a rapid speed. Our city region economies are changing dramatically in a short space of time, and we need to ensure that the workforce of tomorrow has the skills of tomorrow, not the skills of today. I welcome the fact that the mayoral combined authorities will be included in the Bill.

[Emma Hardy]

On the skills for tomorrow, there is a huge concern about amendment 4, which removes subsection (6) on future issues around climate change and environmental goals. Surely those issues will only grow in importance. Removing that from the Bill seems incomprehensible.

[Andrew Gwynne]

It absolutely does. My hon. Friend is completely right to highlight that, because they are not only the challenges but the opportunities of tomorrow. I firmly believe that the United Kingdom can be a world leader in developing the technologies and equipment to help tackle some of the environmental challenges that the whole globe will face in the years to come. That is certainly true of my city region. It is also true of Hull, where there are huge opportunities not just on renewable power but to develop the next generation of technology.

--- Later in debate ---

[Emma Hardy]

My hon. Friend has prompted me to point out that wind turbines are made in the great city of Hull, and we are going to be one of the green energy capitals of the UK. I wanted to get that in Hansard.

[Andrew Gwynne]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention—probably almost as grateful as she is to have had the chance to make that press release—and she is absolutely right.

I firmly believe that the skills agenda is linked to the industrial strategy agenda, not just for individual city regions, towns and counties, but for the country. If we want Britain to succeed, we must think not just about the here and now, but about the future. That involves bringing together skills and industrial strategy. In a small way, that is what we are doing in Greater Manchester through the devolution agenda.

--- Later in debate ---

[Emma Hardy]

Let me offer the Minister a concrete example of the situation in Hull. We have the Hull and Humber chamber of commerce, which reaches over to the south bank, and we have a newly formed LEP that serves just Hull and the East Riding. We have a careers scheme for Hull and the Humber, and separate counties that have no overall mayoral authority, but an elected police commissioner for the whole of the Humber. To say that is muddled does not go far enough. I really feel that the amendment should make allowances for areas that are as muddled as Hull.

[Matt Western]

That is a good illustration of just how complicated these matters can be. I hope that there will be greater clarity on how the measures will work in future.

We have heard from colleagues how well things can work, including my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish, who told us about how Manchester is just getting on with it. Having been up there recently, I have seen the extraordinary work of that cluster of universities and colleges, and how they are co-operating and collaborating in their brilliant work to bring skills to their known geography—I want to place on the record how mighty impressive that was. I agree with the hon. Member for Mansfield on counties and how they work in their regions; that must be clarified as well.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alex Burghart]

What an interesting debate to start off the Committee stage of the Bill. There are so many comments to come back to. As a general observation, it was very nice to hear the hon. Member for Chesterfield praise Conservative predecessors of mine for their comments about an employer-led system, which we have indeed been building up during our time in power. The Bill is simply the next stage in that process.

The fact that that process was required was first highlighted in a 2011 report by the Labour peer Lord Sainsbury. I do not want to get into the deep politics of it—we have the Bill to consider—but that report was written after Labour had been in power for 13 years. He felt that it was necessary to begin long-term reform of the skills system to make it more responsive to the needs of business and to make sure that students could get the qualifications they needed and the technical skills to go into the jobs that the economy demands. It is a great honour to present the Bill as a means of taking those ideas on to their next stage.

I am grateful to the hon. Member for Chesterfield for saying that Labour will support the amendments and the local skills improvement plans. However, I need to clarify a point made by a number of Opposition Members: the Government are not removing clause 1(6). That seems to be a point of confusion. Clause 1(6) stands part of the Bill. Government amendment 5 would insert subsection (6A) to clause 1, on page 2, in line 32. It does not do anything to clause 1(6).

[Emma Hardy]

On a point of clarity—forgive me if I have this wrong— amendment 4 does seem to leave out subsection (6). My mistake—it says

“leave out ‘subsection (6)’ and insert ‘subsections (6) and (6A)’”.

[Alex Burghart]

With that in mind, and in answer to the point made by the hon. Member for Chesterfield on the impact of Government amendment 4 on clause 6, there is no friction at all between Government amendment 4 and clause 6. The amendment requires the Secretary of State to have regard to clause 1(6) and (6A) when deciding to approve and publish a plan. I hope that has cleared that up.

The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle raised a point about LSIPs and colleges, which will be dealt with in statutory guidance. The Secretary of State will lay very good statutory guidance on how employer representative bodies will work and how local skills improvement plans will be written.

We expect the whole process to be collaborative. The hon. Member for Denton and Reddish spoke very well about the existing collaboration in the system. It is something that we recognise in all of our combined mayoral authorities. We do not see there being any great friction or need for friction. We want to see authorities, businesses and providers working in harmony, as many of them already do. What we are doing in the Bill, and in these clauses, is simply creating a process that helps establish that good working.

I was up in Salford not long ago, in MediaCity, where I saw some of the Government’s fantastic digital boot camps. Young people—and some not so young people—are learning the skills of tomorrow at speed in 16-week courses, getting apprenticeships in MediaCity and meeting people who have previously done the apprenticeships, who now have jobs in MediaCity. We saw that Government initiative backed by local business is not in friction with the good work the local Mayor was doing—instead, it complements it. We also saw the local economy boosted as a result.

Some of the remarks made by hon. Members suggested that there is always going to be a terrible tension between what local political leadership and businesses are trying to do, and what local providers want to do. I do not think that will be the case. In fact, there is an enormous amount of goodwill in the system and people are desirous of working towards the same aims.

On the points raised by my hon. Friends the Members for Ipswich and for Mansfield, do I see before me two future leaders in their respective areas? Well, one leader already, but who knows if they will become greater leaders still? Obviously, at the moment combined authorities have a greater responsibility for adult skills than local authorities do, which is why we put them on the face of the Bill. In the course of statutory guidance and as situations evolve, perhaps it will be possible for us to set out how we expect that work to evolve.

I do not recognise the comments made by some Opposition Members about this Government not having an appetite for devolution. Success has many fathers. The hon. Member for Denton and Reddish talked about how Labour’s devolutionary reforms led to mayoral combined authorities, but I remember the Manchester devolution deal being done under the Conservatives.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alex Burghart]

Thank you, Mrs Miller, and with your prompting I will refer to one more point.

[Emma Hardy]

I apologise if I am being tiresome, but just so I have understood this correctly, can the Minister confirm that the amendment leaves out subsections (6)(b), “adaptation to climate change” and (6)(c), “meeting other environmental goals”, but leaves subsection (6)(a)? Does the amendment remove paragraphs (b) and (c), lines 30 to 32, with those specific references to “climate change” and “other environmental goals”?

[Alex Burghart]

I believe I am right in saying that the amendment keeps clause 1(6)(a).

[Emma Hardy]

Yes, and removes paragraphs (b) and (c).

[Alex Burghart]

In the amendment, subsections (6)(b) and (6)(c) will not stand part of the Bill.

[Emma Hardy]

So that we are all clear, does that mean that “adaptation to climate change” and “meeting other environmental goals” are being removed?

[The Chair]

Minister, would you like to complete your remarks and maybe others can provide you with a little bit more information?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Perkins]

These are four significant amendments. Notwithstanding the assurances that we have just received from the Minister, they specifically take out what I think was a very strong amendment, supported by Members across the House of Lords, that added the importance of a collaborative approach to the Bill. For all the Minister said in that contribution, and the one before, about the importance of these partnership arrangements, it is not really a partnership arrangement. It is clear that all those consultees are subservient to the chamber of commerce which, ultimately, holds the pen and makes the decision. That report will then have to meet with the approval of the Secretary of State. The hon. Member for Mansfield raised in a previous debate the question of what happens, given the huge variety in the strength of different chambers of commerce, different local enterprise partnerships and so on, in the event that a local skills improvement plan goes to the Secretary of State and is considered not be adequate? Obviously, we can only assume that the Secretary of State would send it back.

Chambers of commerce are very varied organisations; I think everyone would recognise that there are some excellent ones—I count those in Derbyshire and the east midlands as an example of that. However, there are others that are much smaller and have very different areas of responsibility. Chambers of commerce are membership organisations that represent some of the businesses in their community; that is unlike chambers of commerce in Germany, which are compulsory for businesses to join, and therefore are representative, quasi-governmental organisations. In this country, chambers of commerce are one of many different business organisations that businesses might choose to join. Different chambers have different areas of priority and expertise and different industries that are particularly important to them. Even among their memberships they have, in my experience, a small number of members who are very active within them, and large numbers of members who take a much less active role.

What we have in the context of many of the consultees that the Minister referred to going into the guidance notes, are a number of organisations that are in some ways more consistent, and will definitely offer a breadth of approach. Therefore, the fundamental difference of the approach that Labour would take in the Bill, compared with the Government, is around whether it is a true partnership. The difference is whether it is a partnership that recognises the voices of public and private sector employers and of further education colleges, that recognises the power of those independent training providers that do such great work across the country, and that recognises statutory organisations such as jobcentres, all of which have a role in this, or whether, as the Bill says, they are all consultees, but the chamber of commerce ultimately writes this plan. We would like to see far greater parity in that power; we think it is a local skills improvement plan that would have more buy-in and more belief in the local community, and would be much more respected on that basis.

[Emma Hardy]

I am sure that my hon. Friend shares my concern, given amendment 6, that the specific reference to further education providers is removed from the Bill. Any local skills plan needs to be done in conjunction with further education providers; there is no point writing a Bill that does not have the capacity to deliver in that local area. It seems slightly odd that a specific reference to further education has been taken out of the Bill.

[Mr Perkins]

I agree with my hon. Friend. She is right that Government amendment 6 removes the words,

“in partnership with local authorities, including the Mayoral Combined Authorities and further education providers for the specified area”.

The Minister says that we should not worry, it will be in the guidance. However, the different approach by the Lords recognised that it was a genuine partnership. These organisations are now consultees that will make their representations to the chamber of commerce, and hope that the chamber of commerce smiles on the view they put forward. It is a totally different type of relationship. The relationship is either one of partnership or of subservience; the approach the Government choose to take is one of subservience.

[Mr Perkins]

In terms of areas that are not already devolved, that is absolutely right, and adult education budgets will be very relevant.

Hon. Members will be pleased to know that I will not dwell on the subsequent amendments, because we will have an opportunity to debate them, but I will touch on some of our concerns about the way in which the needs of learners might not necessarily be at the forefront of people’s minds in chambers of commerce. For example, to what extent will chambers of commerce be aware of the specific needs of people with education and healthcare plans or other disabilities? The amendments seek to reduce the extent to which it is partnership working and move to a hierarchy, with the chamber of commerce holding the pen and driving the bus, and others making suggestions about the route.

[Emma Hardy]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right as to whether it is a true partnership relationship or a relationship of subservience. I draw hon. Members’ attention to amendment 7. Not only does amendment 6 leave out specific reference to further education providers; amendment 7 leaves out specific reference to community learning providers, designated institutions and universities. Again, it is no longer a partnership, as was written in the Lords amendment. It becomes a situation in which central Government make the decisions and education providers are in a subservient relationship with them. My hon. Friend is absolutely right.

[Mr Perkins]

I thank my hon. Friend for saying that, and I agree. Government amendment 7 is consequential to Government amendment 6, and she is right about what that means. We have real concerns about how employer-representative bodies and LSIPs will fit within sectoral expertise in sectors such as construction and manufacturing, which transcend local areas but are incredibly important, particularly where our economy is hugely lacking in the development of the next generation.

It is really important to recognise that we have huge skills shortages in the public sector as well as the private sector. Health and social care is a classic example, but there are many others. The voice of the public sector must be heard, and we must ensure that it is able to support people who aim to get from unemployment into a trained-up place in the workplace, because they are also central to this sort of approach. I am interested to hear from the Minister what framework he envisages for LSIPs aligning with sectoral programmes and a national industrial strategy.

Government amendment 8 removes the words, “by people resident”, from the sentence about the skills required in a local area. The purpose of the Lords amendment was important: it was to ensure that LSIPs focused not just on the needs of employers but on the people resident in a community. What would happen in a situation whereby employers were satisfied with the extent to which they were able to access the skills that they needed, but a large number of people were employed and unable to get into the labour market? Ultimately, it is not the responsibility of chambers of commerce to address youth unemployment; it is the Government’s responsibility. If businesses consider that they are able to access the skills that they need, but there is still a large number of people who are unemployed, who takes responsibility for that? The Lords amendment ensured that the people who were resident in a local area were considered in the local skills improvement plan. The Government are taking those words out, which means that it goes back to being a plan put together by businesses to solve the needs of businesses, regardless of whether that addresses the problems of people struggling to access the labour market.

[Emma Hardy]

My other concern with the amendments, which I hope the Minister will address, is about areas with many small and medium-sized enterprises. Areas with large numbers of big employers can obviously exercise that strong voice, for example through chambers of commerce, but I am worried that in areas such as Hull, with predominantly SMEs, as I am sure Government Members will recognise, that voice will not come through as strongly.

[Mr Perkins]

My hon. Friend worries with due cause. Since the introduction of the apprenticeship levy, small businesses have found it incredibly difficult to access apprenticeships. There has been a huge driving down in the number of people getting apprenticeships within small businesses. In areas such as Chesterfield, where smaller employers make up the majority of the economy, the apprenticeship opportunities are much lower than they were a few years before. Ensuring that the voice of small business is heard within this is incredibly important.

The Minister did not really talk about this amendment at all, but the Government might say that the skills plan also needs to have a focus on those relevant to a local employer who are not currently resident—we might call it the “on your bike” amendment, with the Government saying, “We want an approach that identifies skills needs of people who are not currently here.” If that was their intention, then it could have been worded to ensure that there was a strategy for attracting new workers. Simply taking those words out means that this is a plan for the employer community that does not have to consider those questions around the learners who are excluded from the labour market if those employers consider that they are relatively satisfied with what they are able to attract.

There is an important point here. At the moment, shortly after Brexit, there is a lot of focus is on skills shortages and staff shortages, and the sense, which I totally agree with, that we need to make more of the people we have. However, there may be other times when there is a real surplus of unemployed people, and we need a strategic approach that, in those times, supports those people into work, even if there are not a huge number of vacancies in the labour market. I think that those words are important.

Government amendment 9 removes the words “and other local bodies” from the clause concerning post-16 technical education, which was an amendment that the much-respected Lord Baker of Dorking added to the Bill. The Lords amendment that this Government amendment seeks to undo was drafted to avoid being too prescriptive, but it would have allowed LSIPs to work closely with other agencies, including Jobcentre Plus and careers advisory services, in providing careers information, advice and guidance.

All those organisations are important to ensuring that they are able to get into schools and support young people to get representation and ideas from both the business community and environments that they have not been familiar with. I would have thought that an amendment recognising that the careers responsibility is not just a responsibility of schools, but something that should be open to businesses, would have very much fitted with the spirit of the Bill. It was an opportunity for the Government to enable other bodies to play an important role in that post-16 technical education and careers guidance, and it is therefore disappointing that it was taken out.

We agree with their lordships on the introduction of these amendments, and we are disappointed that the Government are seeking to remove them. On that basis, we will look to support the amendments brought in by their lordships and disagree with these Government amendments.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rachel Hopkins]

I thank my hon. Friend for that fantastic intervention. It leads on to a couple of other points about those who are not in employment, and particularly local authorities with responsibility for young people who are NEET—not in education, employment or training. It is absolutely vital that those are addressed and that they have a formal seat at the table in that area. Equally, on my hon. Friend’s point about looking to the future, local authorities do a great amount of work to understand their populations and trends so they can project how many young people are coming through or whether school or training places will be needed. Employers do not always have easy access to that, but local authorities need to have an equal seat at that table in developing the plans, rather than just being tucked away in some statutory guidance. We know what happens with guidance; it is just guidance and it is often ignored.

[Emma Hardy]

On that point, I hope that the Minister will clarify that this will be statutory guidance, not just guidance that has been issued as a general idea that we can do it if we would like to. Statutory guidance is needed.

[Rachel Hopkins]

I thank my hon. Friend for making that important point about statutory guidance. In fact, if the guidance is going to be statutory, why not just make it statute and have it in the Bill? That is what I would like to see. It is important that local people have democratic oversight of what is happening in their areas. That is why I want to see local authorities, combined authorities and other organisations that can shape what is going on in their local areas.

[Emma Hardy]

On that point, the removal of

“schools, further education institutions, community learning providers, specialist designated institutions and universities”

means the people who actually deliver the skills strategies are being removed from a Bill about skills. It is a little odd.

[Rachel Hopkins]

I thank my hon. Friend for making yet another fantastic intervention. Yes, it is a little odd. Equally, amendment 9 removes other organisations, such as our Jobcentre Plus.

Mrs Miller, you will forgive me for intervening on an earlier intervention. What I was trying to get at with regard to universities is that they are also very much involved in skills development. I refer to the University of Bedfordshire, which is in my constituency. It has a fantastic new STEM building—science, technology, engineering and maths. Industry-standard equipment has been brought into the science labs, so the students studying for degrees such as biochemistry are using the equipment that is used out in industry. This is not just about theoretical and academic issues; it is also about key skills.

[Emma Hardy]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right to point out how incorrect the intervention was. One of the areas where we are desperately short of workers is social work. How do we train up social workers? They are trained up at a university. The idea that universities are only for academic knowledge and not places where people can be trained for jobs is ludicrous.

[Rachel Hopkins]

My hon. Friend also must have eyes in the back of her head, because one of the other points I want to talk about is health and social care. Again, I will talk about my fantastic home town of Luton. Someone can study for a BTEC in health and social care at Luton Sixth Form College, or study at the University of Bedfordshire and get practical skills training as a nurse, paramedic or midwife, before going on to be a nurse, paramedic or midwife at Luton and Dunstable University Hospital. All of those bodies will not be included in developing a skills plan if they are not set out in the Bill. I want to see them included, so that everyone feels that there is equality of partnership work, to ensure that what is needed is recognised.

I will not prolong my remarks any longer, but I just want to reiterate the points made from the Opposition Front Bench and say that taking out these important clauses that were inserted by the Lords weakens the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Gwynne]

I do not want to prolong the debate on this group, but the Minister, in the discussion on the previous group, sought to assure the Committee that the approach was genuinely collaborative. Yet this group of amendments strikes out Lords amendments that would make the approach genuinely collaborative. I do not understand the thinking here. I cannot understand what the Minister thinks he is gaining or achieving by striking out the Lords amendments.

Let us look at the amendments in detail. Government amendment 6 would strike out, in clause 1(7)(a),

“in partnership with local authorities, including the Mayoral Combined Authorities and further education providers”.

The explanatory notes state that the reference to mayoral combined authorities is not required because that point has now been made clear through the earlier Government amendment that we have passed. I accept that point, but there is still a role for other local, non-mayoral combined authorities to have a view and an input into the skills agenda for their area, whether that is a unitary authority or a county council. These issues are part and parcel of what those local authorities do.

[Emma Hardy]

It feels like removing the Lords amendment will result in democratic accountability if the area has a Mayor; if it does not, there is no democratic accountability. An area such as Hull, which has no mayoral authority, has no democratic accountability or reference in the Bill. That feels unfair.

[Andrew Gwynne]

It not only feels unfair; it is unfair. I get that mayoral combined authorities have specific skills responsibilities devolved to them, so clearly the level of input from a mayoral combined authority is greater than that of a county council or a unitary authority that does not have those specific responsibilities devolved to them, but the council’s strategy for that area will involve education, skills and economic development. Those are important elements for county and unitary authorities.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matt Western]

rose—

[Emma Hardy]

rose—

[Andrew Gwynne]

I will give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington, because he was first, and then to my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle.

[Andrew Gwynne]

I completely agree. Every layer of local government has an interest in the health and wellbeing—in the broadest sense—of the population. The best way to improve the health and wellbeing of the population is to ensure that people have good skills, good education and good job opportunities. That is the route to health and wellbeing, and that is true both at the district level and at upper levels.

[Emma Hardy]

I want to highlight to Government Members, although I am sure the hon. Member for Mansfield will know this as leader of a local council, that local councils have a statutory duty for all children with special educational needs or disabilities up to the age of 25. They have a statutory duty for looked-after children. They have a statutory duty regarding the number of young people not in employment, education or training—NEETs—as well. They have those statutory duties, yet the Government amendments remove their voice from the local skills plan. That does not seem right.

[Andrew Gwynne]

It absolutely does not seem right. I have spent a lot of time on local government, but the same part of subsection (7)(b) that will be struck out if Government amendment 7 is made goes further. While the line

“draws on the views of…employers operating within the specified area”

stays in, regional and local authorities, mayoral combined authorities and their strategies are taken out, but so are

“post-16 education providers active in the specified area, including schools, further education institutions, community learning providers, specialist designated institutions and universities”.

It is incomprehensible that those bodies would not be part and parcel of the deliberations on and the creation of the strategies.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alex Burghart]

It has been another lively and interesting debate on this group of amendments. The Government want to build an employer-led system, but the statutory guidance—yes, statutory guidance—will make it clear that the employer representative bodies that the Bill creates must consult a range of partners and collaborate with them.

On the removal of schools and other providers, the Bill is already clear that all relevant providers, including further education colleges, independent training providers, universities and sixth-form colleges need to be involved in the development of the LSIP—that is stated in subsection (4)—and if designated employer representative bodies do not have regard to relevant statutory guidance on engaging with relevant providers and do not comply with the terms and conditions of their designation, the Secretary of State may not approve or publish the local skills improvement plan and could remove their designation.

The national dimension is very important, and we expect local skills improvement plans to be informed by national skills priorities and to help address national, as well as local, skills needs. However, where there are national skills shortages in critical areas, we can expect the Government to carry on playing a role in helping alleviate them, as we are doing at the moment. We put £17 million into rapidly upskilling people to help meet the needs of the heavy goods vehicle sector, where we have significant shortages, and I have been pleased to see that that is going very well. That will not fall away.

Turning to the question of dropping the reference to long-term national skill needs, the Bill already makes reference to the fact that LSIPs will need to look at future skills needs—that is stated in subsections (2) and (7)(b)(iii). The Opposition made a very important point about the role of the public sector. Let us think about the phrase “employer representative bodies”: there is a very big role for business, but in many areas, the public sector is a major employer and will need to be involved in this process. We want ERBs to reach beyond their existing membership and cover both public and private employers.

[Emma Hardy]

The Minister has mentioned the employer-led bodies in the public sector. Could he pick up on my point about SMEs, which might not be part of an employer-led body but, in some regions, are the main employers?

[Alex Burghart]

We are expecting ERBs to draw up local skills improvement plans that take account of the economic area that they represent, which should absolutely include small and medium-sized employers, as well as self-employment opportunities.

While Opposition Members may feel that these things can be done only if every detail is written out in primary legislation, we know that that is not the case, because we have eight excellent trailblazer areas at the moment that are doing this job without a mite of primary legislation. With that in mind, I commend the amendment to the Committee.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

Budget Resolutions

Emma Hardy Excerpts

Tuesday 2nd November 2021 Commons Chamber

[Nadhim Zahawi]

Respectfully, it is quite the opposite. I will get to that point later. Schools will be £1,500 better off per pupil than in 2019-20—not even 2010— but we will return to that subject in a moment or two.

I was getting to the point about those who are more vulnerable. For those who are most vulnerable, levelling up means that extra support will always be there for them. The covid virus has put enormous pressure on all our public services, and I know the whole House will want to join me in again thanking our magnificent public heroes—our nurses and doctors, our teachers and nursery workers, our care home staff and our delivery workers—for how they have helped us all to weather the pandemic storm.

The national health service has been the frontline of this pandemic and we must build up its resources after an unprecedented 18 months. We are committing £5.9 billion to tackle the NHS backlog of non-emergency tests and procedures, which will include £2.3 billion for ensuring that there are at least 100 community diagnostic centres where people can get health checks, scans and tests closer to their homes.

Digital technology is transforming every aspect of our lives, so the package includes £2.1 billion over the next three years to support its use in hospitals and other care organisations to improve efficiency, freeing up valuable NHS staff time and ensuring the best care for patients, wherever they are. There will also be £1.5 billion from that package over the next three years for new surgical hubs, increased bed capacity and equipment to help elective services to recover, including surgeries and other medical procedures.

We have promised an overhaul of our adult social care system, improving social care outcomes through an affordable, high-quality and sustainable system. We are therefore allocating £3.6 billion for local government to reform adult social care provision, including capping personal care costs at £86,000.

[Emma Hardy (Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle) (Lab)]

I thank the Secretary of State for giving way; he is always very generous. I draw his attention to the letter from the East Riding of Yorkshire Council, a Conservative-led authority, to the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, stating that,

“the council has 302 assessed individuals requiring 4,114 hours of home care per week that we are currently unable to provide.”

The letter was dated in October. It identifies extra money that the Government have given, but says the council still does not have the funding needed to care for the people who need help in the East Riding.

[Nadhim Zahawi]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady, and I am sure the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care will take a careful look at her letter and respond in good time.

Nevertheless, it is this Government who have grasped the nettle of adult social care and will deliver on capping personal care costs, which can be so debilitating, at £86,000. While £1.7 billion will improve the wider social care system, including the East Riding of Yorkshire, as announced in September, at least £500 million of that will go towards improving qualifications, skills and wellbeing across the social care workforce.

--- Later in debate ---

[Nadhim Zahawi]

There is no greater champion of this agenda than my right hon. Friend, the Chairman of the Select Committee on Education. “Skills, skills, skills” runs through his veins, and I thank him for that point. I absolutely agree with him on the uplift in the investment that we are making.

I would like to take a moment to tell the House all about the visit I made to Barnsley College just a week or so ago. The college was the first in South Yorkshire to roll out T-levels. While I was there, I met several of its students, including one whose name is Greg. Honestly, I have rarely met a more inspiring individual. He told me that with his T-level—I will quote him word for word:

“I’m looking at unis now and thinking, ‘Which one am I picking?’ not ‘Which one of them is picking me?’”

Greg is living proof of the transformative effect our skills programme is having.

The same is true for apprentices. Apprenticeships funding will increase by £170 million to £2.7 billion, alongside other improvements to support more small businesses to hire new apprentices.

[Emma Hardy]

Will the Secretary of State give way?

[Nadhim Zahawi]

I want to make sure that others get a chance to participate in the debate, so I will make some headway. I hope that the hon. Lady will forgive me; I beg her indulgence.

These investments are putting employers at the heart of our skills economy so that education and training respond to local business needs. In this way, we will not only build one of the best technical education systems in the world, but drive local prosperity and levelling up.

Of course, we know that skills training is not just for the young. As technologies change and develop and businesses adapt, so people will find that they will need to reskill or retrain throughout their lives. Globalisation and automation are changing the modern workplace. Jobs and industries that are flourishing now might not be in five or 10 years. Our skills economy must be sufficiently agile to flex not just for today but for tomorrow and long into the future.

With our “Skills for Jobs” White Paper, we are committed to boosting the job prospects of adults across the country by making sure that they can get the training they need to adapt to a changing workforce. A total investment of over £550 million will make sure that adults at any age can retrain or upskill, and that is part of our national skills fund commitment. We will be investing more in boot camps, which offer free flexible courses of up to 16 weeks, giving people the opportunity to build up specific skills with a clear route to a job at the end. We are also investing more to help adults in England take advantage of our free courses for jobs offer. There are now more than 400 courses to help more adults gain the skills they need to boost their career prospects. There will be opportunities for adults across the whole of the UK to develop their numeracy skills through the multiply programme the Chancellor announced, funded by another £560 million through the UK shared prosperity fund. That means that wherever people live and whatever stage they are at in life, they will be able to access training and education that gives them the skills employers want and which can lead to good jobs and career progression.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)]

It is a great pleasure to follow the Secretary of State in today’s debate. Our public services keep the nation going. In the last 18 months, we have relied on them more than ever: on nurses, doctors, NHS and care staff, who have looked after us in the most difficult conditions; on police and the emergency services; on transport staff; and, of course, on teachers, lecturers, school and college leaders, early years, childcare and education support staff, who have kept children safe and learning. It is because of their dedication and the importance of the services that they provide that we needed a serious plan in this Budget to rebuild the services that the Government have cut to the bone in the last 10 years, and a plan to remake Britain. Instead, we got a high-tax, low-growth Budget that hits working people with a £3,000 hike in their tax bills; a Budget that did nothing to reduce living costs, tackle soaring energy bills or support working families this winter; and a Budget that failed to address the deep-rooted pressures on the public services on which we all rely.

Over the 74 years of its existence, the NHS has been a source of huge pride to this country. However, under the Conservative party, life expectancy among the poorest has fallen and health inequalities have widened, so measures to tackle that state of affairs were very much needed. Instead, we got the Chancellor pretending that a new wing or new unit somehow counts as a new hospital. We got a sticking plaster for social care, with local authorities having to levy their residents to pay for it. Incredibly, after the 18 months we have all been through, the Government failed to prioritise public health, which has suffered a 24% cut in real terms since 2015-16.

[Emma Hardy]

In the Treasury Committee yesterday, we heard evidence from the Office for Budget Responsibility, which predicts that 95% of councils will raise their precept to the maximum to cover social care—another thing that will have an impact on the cost of living. The letter that I quoted from earlier, which was written to the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care not by me, but by the leader of Conservative-led East Riding of Yorkshire Council, says that adult social care is in crisis.

[Kate Green]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The levy to fund social care is one more tax that will hit hard-pressed families in the spring and will do nothing about the deep-seated need to address the social care crisis and the increasing pressure from an ageing demographic—it will not even touch the sides.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kate Green]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Again and again, I have met people who have described their learning journey from BTECs to university and an excellent career. Of course we want T-levels to succeed, but there is no reason to remove other qualifications that provide a different route that is more appropriate for some young people. Under Labour, every young person will receive education that is appropriate to them, whether that is an apprenticeship, technical education or university, and will leave it ready for work and life.

[Emma Hardy]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Kate Green]

If my hon. Friend will forgive me, I will make some progress.

OECD data show that the UK has some of the world’s highest childcare costs—the cost of nursery provision for a one-year-old increased four times faster than wages between 2008 and 2016—but despite the high costs for parents, many early years providers are struggling to stay afloat. This year alone, nearly 3,000 childcare and early years providers have closed their doors. This Budget could have been an opportunity to put provision on a sustainable footing, reduce costs to parents and invest in quality, making a real difference to millions of families, but the announcements that we got were inadequate.

Don’t get me wrong: any investment in families with young children and in support for new parents is welcome, but the family hubs project is a pale imitation of what the Conservatives inherited in 2010. [Interruption.] “Nonsense,” says the Minister, but let me tell him that when Labour left office, there were 3,500 Sure Start centres delivering support to more than 2.9 million children in every local authority in the country. Since then, 1,000 children’s centres have closed. A moment ago, I think the Secretary of State was promising new family hubs in only half of local authorities. Can he tell me how many family hubs in total will be created as a result of the spending announcements?

By the 2021 summer term, children had missed an average of 115 days of schooling, and on 21 October, just before the half-term break, 248,000 children were still out of school as a result of covid, yet the Government’s response falls well below the scale of ambition needed for children’s educational recovery. The extra £1.8 billion announced by the Chancellor last week brings the Government’s recovery plans up to a total of £5 billion—far short of the £15 billion that their own expert adviser said would be needed to ensure that children make a full recovery from the pandemic.

Labour, by contrast, remains committed to our £15 billion children’s recovery plan. Whereas the Government will provide tutoring to just one in 16 pupils this year, Labour’s plan would resource schools to deliver tutoring to all who need it. We would deliver universal catch-up breakfast clubs and extend the school day for additional activities—I noted that the Secretary of State seemed to be in favour of that at Education questions yesterday, but he got nothing from the Chancellor. We would invest in training world-class teachers and teaching assistants and in supporting the early years sector, schools and colleges with an education recovery premium. We would prioritise young people’s mental health, giving every school access to a professional mental health counsellor.

--- Later in debate ---

[Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)]

I strongly welcome this Budget. We should acknowledge that over the past 18 months, this country has faced a national emergency comparable only to the outbreak of the second world war. We have already spent £407 billion supporting schools, businesses and industries in my constituency and across the country to tackle the impacts of the covid-19 pandemic, without which we would have had destitution on the streets. I recognise the economic and financial challenges that the Government are facing. We have a national debt of over £2.2 trillion, equivalent to around 100% of our gross domestic product. That is why the Government are doing everything possible to square the circle in terms of spending on public services and dealing with the deficit and debt. It is not an easy task.

My two passions in politics have always been championing education and skills, and cutting the cost of living. I support this Budget because despite the circumstances I have just set out, the Chancellor has tried to address both. This is a true worker’s Budget in many ways, because there is a strong desire across the country to improve the cost of living and for low taxation. I previously supported the temporary £20 uplift to universal credit payments, but I genuinely think that the Chancellor’s decision to decrease the universal credit taper rate and uplift the work allowance is a better solution in the long run, because it gets people out of the poverty trap and incentivises more people into work. That will both boost people’s income and earnings and help reduce unemployment as we move into a high-productivity and skilled economy.

In addition, we have the £500 million invested in families and early years intervention, helping those who are struggling the most. We have the record 6.6% rise in the national living wage, which I campaigned hard for the Cameron Government to introduce, to £9.50. We have the fuel duty freeze—something I have campaigned for, probably to the annoyance of the Treasury—continuing for the twelfth year in a row, saving motorists £15 every time they fill up. That is what makes a difference to those who are just about managing. I hope that the Government will do much more to cut the cost of living. We should cut taxes for lower earners as soon as economic conditions allow and we should look at ways to further reduce energy bills. Cutting the cost of living must be the Government’s central mission.

On education, the Budget’s focus on skills, schools and families, as described by the Secretary of State for Education in his opening remarks, should be welcomed. Education and skills are the most important rung on the ladder of opportunity. They are the golden thread that tie together all our investments and our futures.

The outbreak of coronavirus was nothing short of a national disaster for our children. The four horsemen of the education apocalypse came galloping towards young people to create a widening attainment gap, worsening mental health issues, an ever-increasing number of safeguarding hazards, and a challenge to their skills development and life chances. We should never again fully close the schools in the way that we did.

The Budget showed a real recognition from the Chancellor and the Education Secretary that those challenges can be overcome through family hubs, the catch-up and education recovery funding, and the rocket-boosting of skills. Not much has been said today about the extra £2.6 billion of funding to strengthen the provision for children with special educational needs, but it is important and will be welcomed by parents across the country.

The lifetime skills guarantee announced last year created the blueprint for the skills funding package, which provides an extra £3 billion for T-levels and adult skills, among other things. That is a 42% increase in skills funding in cash terms, which will put vocational and technical education on a par with traditional academic learning and give financial teeth to the skills agenda.

[Emma Hardy]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Robert Halfon]

I am always honoured to give way to—not to ruin her career—one of my favourite Labour Members.

[Emma Hardy]

Does the right hon. Gentleman, who I call my friend, agree that although the investment in T-levels is great, a transition pathway is needed if we are going to phase out BTECs and introduce T-levels?

[Robert Halfon]

I absolutely believe that BTECs should not go until T-levels have fully come on board. As a hard-working former member of the Education Committee, the hon. Lady will be pleased to know that I hope to question the Secretary of State about that subject tomorrow morning when he appears before the Committee.

As I have mentioned, the £2.6 billion of funding for children with special educational needs is extraordinary, but we need the urgent publication of the special educational needs review to move forward at light speed. Although lots has been done to provide the key components of a long-term plan for education, we are not there yet. The cogs have started to turn, but the machine is not yet as well oiled as it might be. We need a long-term plan for education and a secure funding settlement, just as the NHS and the Ministry of Defence have long-term plans and a secure funding settlement and a strategic review respectively.

As Members on both sides of the House know, I have long advocated the extension of the school day. The Education Endowment Foundation says that pupils can make two months’ additional progress per year by extending the school day, or three months for disadvantaged pupils. Some 39% of academies founded pre-2010 have lengthened their school day, as I have seen done successfully by the NET Academies Trust in my constituency. The Department for Education and the Treasury should fund pilot projects, perhaps in some of the most disadvantaged areas of the country, to evaluate what the impact could be alongside the catch-up programme.

To conclude, I heartily welcome the Budget targeted towards skills, schools and families. I have been campaigning for more skills funding for a long time so I welcome what the Chancellor has done. It has been a difficult year and a half for all Members and for the constituencies we serve, but the steps outlined in the Budget will go a long way to support our nation’s recovery as we try to level up and build back better.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ben Bradley (Mansfield) (Con)]

I welcome the opportunity to speak in the debate and endorse everything said by my right hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon) about schools and education. On those issues, he is always bang-on. Since the Budget, I have had positive conversations in particular on the transition between BTECs and T-levels that I hope will be reflected by the Secretary of State’s comments tomorrow. There are many opportunities there.

I welcome the many positive announcements in the Budget, which has been largely well received by residents. It set a good and clear direction to help take the country forward post covid. In particular, I welcome the business support measures, business rates cuts, changes to alcohol duties, the freeze on fuel duty and other measures that will impact on the cost of living and support businesses to grow and innovate. At some stage, we will have to reform business rates fundamentally. The measures announced in the Budget are positive and will support businesses—high street businesses in particular—but business rates are not fit for purpose. I had positive conversations last week on that with the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, and I understand that a review is to take place. I look forward to seeing that in due course.

I also welcome the personal support for the lowest paid, with a £1,000 pay rise and a tax cut for working people on universal credit. The average wage packet in Mansfield is way below the national average, and thousands of people will benefit from those changes. I am grateful for those announcements.

I welcome the significant capital commitments on transport and infrastructure, although I am slightly concerned that it seems that only areas with combined authorities and devolution deals are eligible to get the best of that support. We have some positive announcements for Nottinghamshire: Mansfield will submit a bid for the next round of the levelling-up fund, as will Nottinghamshire County Council, and we look forward to positive news, hopefully. There was a huge multibillion pound investment in devolved mayoral authorities. However, the east midlands does not have that, so the area that historically has had the lowest level of investment misses out.

Do not get me wrong—I am not moaning. I think that passing powers down to local level and giving capital funds to accountable local leaders is a good thing. If I do have a moan, it is that we do not have one, and we want one in Nottinghamshire. We have a plan for that, and I want the Government to get on and give Nottinghamshire a county deal so that we too can benefit from such support. I remind Ministers of the fantastic levelling-up package that the east midlands offers with our freeport, our development corporation and our huge plans around Toton supported by the integrated rail plan. Altogether, that is more than 100,000 jobs and £5 billion in gross value added. The plan exists and is all on track, and a devolution deal for Nottingham—which, by the way, is a bigger geography than the Tees Valley Combined Authority or the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Combined Authority—would give us huge economic clout. It is a chance to invest for us, to get on a par with other parts of the country. We want a deal, we have the unanimous support of local leaders who have all made significant resource commitments for that, and we have a plan to deliver better public services. I will keep banging on about it until we get one—I am sure that Ministers will indulge me.

I turn to public services, which are the theme of the debate. There was positive news in the Budget, with £4.8 billion in grant funding to local authorities both very welcome and perhaps more generous than many had expected. That will help us to tackle things such as the cost of the minimum wage rise for care staff, which runs into the millions. I also welcome the commitment to new family hubs and the Start4Life programme that will benefit children and families who really need it.

I said in an intervention that certainty for the supporting families programme and investment in the development of early years staff is fantastic. In particular, early years staff development has been a problem for a long time, so the more we can do to support that sector, the better. We must continue the commitment to proactive and preventive services. In truth, children’s services, not social care, are causing every upper tier council leader in the land the biggest headache on budget setting. There are many challenges in social care, but, if I had loads of money, I could not spend it because I cannot recruit the staff. The challenges there are deep and long term.

[Emma Hardy]

The problems with recruiting were raised by East Riding of Yorkshire Council, and one reason why it is asking the Government for more money is that it wants to be able to offer higher wages to try to compete with organisations such as Amazon, which attract workers who would previously have worked in care.

[Ben Bradley]

I thank the hon. Member for that intervention, which pre-empts something I will come to. In effect, I will make the same point later in my speech. The truth is that next year we will underspend on social care, because we cannot recruit the staff to pay them, even if we had the money. In children’s services, demand is growing exponentially. The complexities and costs are becoming increasingly difficult. There are also significant additional needs for school places for children coming from Hong Kong, and significant care issues for asylum-seeking children. The children’s budget of every council in the land is overspent.

I therefore welcome measures focused on early intervention. I would love to talk to Ministers about supporting the transition towards a set of more preventive services. I welcome the announcement in the Budget, but we must continue the trend of having a better attitude to risk management and how we support families in their homes before we get to that acute stage. That change of approach and culture will save money in the end, but it will require more up-front resource.

The Government could support Nottinghamshire and the whole country by letting us pilot new proposals and ideas in the space through a county deal. We have thoughts about how we might like to do that, working with organisations such as the National Youth Agency, the charitable sector and our great Nottinghamshire universities to change the game and learn some lessons. I would welcome conversations with Ministers about that.

On social care, and the point made by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Emma Hardy), councils need teeth to get the money. More funding is welcome, but at the minute that funding is going to the NHS, whose backlog is in large parts due to the limits of social care. We cannot get people out of hospital and into appropriate homes or care packages, and we cannot offer sufficient preventive interventions. People end up in hospital, which is not the best place for them, because social care does not have the resources to provide emergency support or to fetch Mrs Miggins and put in place a care plan for her; instead, she ends up going off in an ambulance.

The Government could help tackle the NHS backlog by backing social care. As it stands, it appears that we must go with our begging bowl to the integrated care system to ask for funding from the national insurance rise for services such as supporting hospital discharge or response teams that can offer care in the home rather than an emergency response. The funding is aimed at the NHS backlog and, although it needs to fund those social care interventions to be successful, we seem to be at the NHS’s mercy on whether it gives us that funding. I hope that Ministers will tackle that imbalance in the White Paper. It is hugely important to the transition and new approach to social care that we get that right, because the two are not separate services; they interlink closely.

We will meet a cliff edge in a few weeks, when the requirement for care staff to be vaccinated begins. I have raised that issue a few times. In Nottinghamshire alone, 1,000 staff or more could be no longer eligible to work in a sector that already has a 12% vacancy rate. Is it riskier to have an unvaccinated care worker or not to have a care worker? We may face that challenge. I know that there are financial mitigations to try to help, but, as I have said, we cannot recruit. We do not set the wages—largely, services are commissioned from private providers—and people can get £1.50 an hour more at Amazon than working in the care sector. I have said to Ministers before that we need to consider carefully whether it is right in effect to force a lot of people out of a profession that is already struggling with recruitment and with getting the right staff in the right places.

That said, there are many fantastic interventions in the Budget. I touched on many of them. However, those challenges will not go away. I therefore look forward to conversations about them with Ministers across various Departments in due course. There are real positives to take, with the Government continuing to support jobs and individuals. The OBR tells us that the interventions throughout the pandemic made a huge impact on protecting people and keeping them in work over the last 18 months. The plan for jobs has been incredibly successful so far, and I trust that that will continue. I welcome the many measures in the Budget that will impact positively on my constituents and look forward in due course to discussing in more detail with Ministers some of the challenges that I raised.

--- Later in debate ---

[Emma Hardy (Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Alan Brown). I agree with the point that he made about the shared prosperity fund and the need for it to be announced quickly so that we can get the funding that we need in all areas.

I do not want to be too negative, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I was a little disappointed when, in the Treasury Committee, I raised concerns about debt advice directly with the Chancellor and he did not seem to be fully aware of the situation, so I hope that, today, those on the Front Bench will take this point really seriously.

Hull has been named one of the debt capitals of the UK. We have double the average number of people unable to service their debt levels. At the moment, a face-to-face service is provided by the Money and Pensions Service. I am aware that that does not operate directly through the Treasury, but I am also aware that policy decisions relating to debt are informed by the Treasury. What I am asking for is an assurance that that face-to-face advice service remains, because what the service is proposing is to move towards regional call centres where people can access debt advice remotely. I am sure that everybody here, including, hopefully, Conservative Members, will acknowledge that if a person is in a desperate situation—they are saddled with debt, have perhaps not been opening their bills, and are incredibly worried about the situation that they face—the idea that they can go through all the issues on the telephone with someone is simply unrealistic. That is ignoring the fact that some people might have autism or learning disabilities or be in an extremely distressed state. I do hope the Treasury will take that point really seriously and speak to the Money and Pensions Service.

Let me turn now to the Budget. I had six clear asks of the Budget to provide what I believe was needed by the people of Hull West and Hessle. One was on fuel poverty. I support the Labour party’s call for the ending of VAT on domestic fuel as one way to try to alleviate the problems. This really lovely lady told me that she was worried about the issue. She is a pensioner and reliant on her pension. She likes to be warm, as elderly people often do—when people get older they like to keep their homes nice and warm. She is at home all day, so is extremely concerned about the rise in fuel costs, telling me that her bills have gone up by more than 40%. This is an area that needs a lot more Government action, because the problem will not go away; it will continue. I hope the Government will put party politics to one side and review a sensible proposal from the Labour party to look at cutting VAT on domestic fuel.

I raised the issue of adult social care in interventions on the Secretary of State and on my own shadow Front Bencher. I also raised it at the Treasury Committee. The issue has nothing to do with the type of council in control, or the political party that represents it. My constituency is in the East Riding, and it is also in Hull. Hull is urban and a Labour authority. East Riding is rural and a Conservative authority. Both councils have come to me and said that, as the local MP, could I do everything possible to lobby the Government for support for adult social care. In fact, the Conservative-run East Riding of Yorkshire Council has just passed a motion in its council chamber on this matter.

This should not be a political issue. The situation is a crisis. I said in an intervention on the Minister that East Riding council is unable to provide the amount of care hours that constituents need. It has admitted that in a letter and has been quite open and honest with me, saying that it simply cannot provide the service. Its solution is to tell families that they will either have to take care of the person in need themselves or that person will have to go into residential care. That is not a choice that we want people to have to make, so the council has asked me to lobby the Government for increased funding for adult social care, because it says that it is unable to compete with companies such as Amazon, which is offering £11 an hour, because all that it is able to offer is the minimum wage. It told me that it is facing budget pressures of £1.4 million with the national minimum wage increase that the Government have already announced. Of course I support the national minimum wage increase—in fact, I believe that it should be more, as I think all Labour Members do—but we have to acknowledge that the cost has to come from somewhere, and if it is coming from the adult social care budget, it is not going on providing the hours that are needed. The letter has been sent to the Health Secretary. I hope that he reads it, acknowledges it and sends us a reply.

[Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)]

My own council in Dorset tells a similar story. Does the hon. Lady agree that it would be helpful if when we were talking about adult social care, particularly in the media, we did not just concentrate on those who are older, but remember the complete age range of people who require daily support from our local government? I agree with her entirely that the local government family, which is hardest hit in hard times, really should be the beneficiary of extra cash as the purse strings loosen.

[Emma Hardy]

I absolutely agree; the hon. Gentleman is completely right. We do often forget all those people with learning difficulties and adults of all ages requiring support. He is correct to draw attention to that point.

The situation really is one of crisis. Yesterday I was talking to the OBR—again, in the Treasury Committee—and it said that it believed that 95% of councils are going to raise their precept to the maximum amount. That is another tax increase that is not being mentioned by the Government and we are not talking about. It is another impact on the cost of living, and councils are having to do that because they simply cannot afford to cover social care as it is.

I want briefly to mention universal credit. Even with the changes to the taper and the other changes that the Government have introduced, a lone parent who is working part-time on the minimum wage still loses £361. All the time throughout this Budget, it seems that people on lower pay are paying more in taxes. That just does not feel right.

I often hear Government Members say, “Well, where would you find the money? What are you going to do with it?” It always comes down to choices; in politics, everything is about choices. We have a certain amount of finance and then we make a choice. My personal priority would be not to give more money to whisky price cuts and tax cuts than I would give to children needing educational catch-up. That is just a principle that I have: children before whisky—call me radical! I would also not spend £5 billion sending a rocket up into space funded by the British Government, when we have lots of children here on earth who might require that money a little bit more. Again, it comes down to choices: rockets and whisky, or kids.

We also need to look more seriously at business rates. Interestingly, Government Members talked about a whole radical change to business rates, which I support. This is a disappointing Budget, filled with many issues that need resolving. I hope that the Government will finally do something about them.

--- Later in debate ---

[Bridget Phillipson]

I will make a little progress, Madam Deputy Speaker. I will happily work with the hon. Gentleman. I know that he tries to work hard for his constituents.

[Emma Hardy]

While we are on the subject of railways, is my hon. Friend as frustrated as I am that we have yet to see the integrated rail plan and that there have been no announcements regarding Northern Powerhouse Rail? It was not meant to go from Manchester to Leeds; we were originally promised that it would be from Hull all the way over to Liverpool? I hope that she will put as much pressure on the Government as I will to get that delivered.

[Bridget Phillipson]

Absolutely; 60 times we have had announcements on the plan, but not a single spade in the ground. I will now make a little more progress.

The theme today is public services. I put on record again our immense gratitude to all those who have been keeping our public services going during the most challenging times over the last 18 months. There are really too many public sector workers to mention, but their contribution should be noted. The Government claim that they will give public sector workers belated pay rises, but cannot confirm whether they will be real- terms pay rises. Only under the Tories could a so-called pay rise mean that people are actually less well off.

Working people are being expected to pay so much more, but what for exactly? There are 5.7 million people on waiting lists for operations, GP appointments are harder than ever to come by and there are 100,000 vacancies in our NHS. We see falling apprenticeship starts, supersized classrooms for our children, antisocial behaviour at its highest level for years, rape convictions at record low levels, violent criminals walking free, fewer police officers and less safe communities. However, there was a vanity yacht for the Prime Minister, when he could have tackled antisocial behaviour instead. Tory Ministers have finally discovered, 11 years late, that the early years matter—who knew? But there is no apology from the Chancellor for closing more than 1,000 children’s centres since 2010. What price the unrealised potential and limited life opportunities over that lost decade?

This is a Budget with no plan for the cost-of-living crisis, no plan for fairer taxes and no plan for growth. The clocks went back an hour at the weekend, but in tax terms this Budget wound the clock back all the way to the 1950s, when taxes were last this high. It is the Conservatives’ record of low growth that has driven them to higher taxes, just as their failure to plan ahead has led to higher inflation and higher bills.

Labour would tax fairly, spend wisely and get the economy firing on all cylinders. We would cut VAT on heating bills and help to insulate homes. We would back our world-leading industries, and buy, make and sell more here in Britain. We would scrap business rates and replace them with a much fairer system that is fit for the modern world. We would secure our transition to net zero with well paid, highly skilled jobs in every corner of our country. We would not clobber working people and British businesses while online giants get away without paying their fair share. We need a Budget to ease the urgent pressure on families and businesses—a Budget to seize new opportunities and to unleash our country’s potential. We have a proud history but I believe that our best days are ahead of us. The Chancellor has made the wrong choices throughout this Budget; the Conservatives have made the wrong choices throughout the past decade. Our country deserves better.

[The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr Simon Clarke)]

It is a privilege to bring the past four days of Budget debate to a close. Over that time we have heard dozens of excellent speeches from across the House. I echo what the shadow Chief Secretary said in thanking all those who contributed. I express my deep gratitude to the civil service and the wider Treasury team, who have devoted long hours to preparing this Budget, working closely over the course of the spending review with all other Government Departments. I am immensely grateful for their hard work.

I also pay tribute to the Chancellor for his third Budget in 19 of the most challenging months in living memory. Winston Churchill once told this House:

“The first Budget of a Chancellor is often well received, but the third Budget is the most critical of all, because it is the heir of previous decisions”.—[Official Report, 22 September 1943; Vol. 392, c. 212.]

Well, this third Budget is a vindication. As Members will recall, over his first two Budgets, the Chancellor developed our plan to protect jobs and livelihoods and to safeguard the economy from coronavirus. In the words of the Office for Budget Responsibility, that plan has proven “remarkably successful”. The OBR’s forecasts show that our economy returned to its pre-pandemic size around the turn of the year, several months earlier than previously expected. Wages are rising, growing in real terms by 3.4% compared with February 2020. More people are in work and literally millions fewer people than anticipated last July are unemployed. Our public finances are under control and debt is under control. To echo the Chancellor: growth up, jobs up, debt down.

Just because disaster has been averted does not mean that we should take that for granted. It is the result of conscious policy decisions that have steered our nation to a safer place. Now is the time to carry this momentum through into building the economy this Government were elected to deliver, with a future of higher wages, higher skills and rising productivity, no longer based on Labour’s and the SNP’s model of low-skilled migrant European labour, but based on training and equipping our own people to succeed; and a future where our businesses flourish and drive growth and that growth is shared more evenly across the United Kingdom. We will have a greener economy. Multiple Opposition speakers, such as the hon. Member for Nottingham East (Nadia Whittome) and the right hon. Member for Walsall South (Valerie Vaz), seemed to forget the £30 billion net zero strategy announced just a fortnight ago. It will be a future where our citizens benefit from world-class public services at every stage of their lives.

[Emma Hardy]

I am aware that the Minister is very familiar with the area I represent, and indeed the local council, but on the issue of labour shortages I raised in the debate, and have raised in earlier proceedings, we have a shortage of adult social care workers in the East Riding of Yorkshire—a shortage so great that people cannot access all the care that they need. When he talks about labour shortages, is he going to address the shortages we have in that sector?

[Mr Clarke]

I thank the hon. Lady; hers was one of the more thoughtful speeches in this debate. We have committed £162.5 million as part of our winter plan to help fund the adult social care workforce. That money is exactly designed to make sure that we can attract people into this most pivotal of sectors. That comes on top of the £5.4 billion across the spending review that we have committed, thanks to the new health and social care levy, and the record funding for local government that was announced in the SR. I am always happy to work with her on this, but there is more money for this sector.

Oral Answers to Questions

Emma Hardy Excerpts

Monday 1st November 2021 Commons Chamber

[Emma Hardy (Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle) (Lab)]

Given that so many of the current labour shortages are in so-called unskilled jobs such as HGV driving, in which the Road Haulage Association tells me that there are more than 100,000 vacancies, why is so much funding for career retraining focused on levels 3 and above? For example, the advanced learner loan is available only for levels 3 and above, which means that a HGV driver who wants to retrain has to self-fund.

[Nadhim Zahawi]

As always, the hon. Lady makes an important contribution to the debate. It is important to remember that we are focusing on tactical interventions such as bootcamps and our current work on kickstart, which has £2 billion, and restart, which has £2.9 billion. The strategic aim is that by the end of this Parliament we ensure not only that T-levels are embedded and at scale, but that apprenticeships continue the journey of quality that we began when we introduced the new standards.

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

Emma Hardy Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd September 2021 Public Bill Committees

[Matt Western]

I think it is important that there are references to other legislation in the Bill. Such elements are critical to the foundation of a freedom of speech Bill.

Amendment 40 would allow the scheme to result in a warning rather than a recommendation or a fine. This is about recognising that in most, if not all, cases, there is a fine line. It would allow universities to make judgment calls that were wrong and give them room to change their mind, rather than leap towards fines. We heard, for example, from Bryn Harris, who commented on how to balance

“the potential conflict that we were talking about, between the Equality Act”—

harassment provisions “and this Bill”, which would have to

“have guidance to help universities navigate this very fine line.”––[Official Report, Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Public Bill Committee, 7 September 2021; c. 80, Q168.]

Hand in hand with the guidance—not mandatory—is warnings, or gentle persuasion. The vice president of the National Union of Students, Hillary Gyebi-Ababio, said that it is

“really concerning, such as measures under which people could get monetary sanctions for breaches of freedom of speech. Not only will that involve lots of bureaucracy for universities and student unions to make sure they are complying with the Bill, but it will take away from their ability to freely and fairly facilitate freedom of speech on campus.”––[Official Report, Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Public Bill Committee, 13 September 2021; c. 128, Q281.]

That, of course, will have a disproportionate impact on smaller institutions, as we have heard. We have repeatedly made the point about the smaller institutions, typically higher education bodies, but also further education colleges, that were not consulted at all in the drawing up of the legislation.

[Emma Hardy (Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle) (Lab)]

It is a shame that the evidence from the Association of Colleges came late. I want to draw Members’ attention to it. I said previously that the provision would apply to 170 FE colleages, and in its evidence the AOC gives the number as 169. It states that if the Government are able to exempt junior common rooms from the legislation, they should be able to exempt FE colleges, as there is no evidence of issues relating to freedom of speech in any FE college. As my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown has already mentioned, FE colleges are additionally regulated by Ofsted.

[Matt Western]

It is indeed surprising and disappointing, if not a failure of the process, that the further education colleges were not consulted. That point has been made clear and loud by the Association of Colleges, which feels alienated from this process, yet it will bear the same burdens as higher education institutions.

Turning to amendment 42, it is vital to include an appeals process. Appealing an administrative or judicial decision is the hallmark of any liberal democracy. The existing process overseen by the Office of the Independent Adjudicator does have an appeals process, but revealingly the Bill promises none. My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle put that point to the only lawyer that we heard from in oral evidence, Smita Jamdar of Shakespeare Martineau. My hon. Friend asked her whether she was

“supportive of the idea of the right to appeal decisions made by the freedom of speech director, as submitted from Universities UK”,

to whch Ms Jamdar replied:

“Absolutely. As I alluded to earlier, my concern about having a stop at the OfS is that that individual may be required to interpret law, so they may well be required to decide if something is defamatory, harassment, contrary to the Equality Act or potentially a public order offence. I find the idea that those legal judgments cannot then be appealed to the people who are actually able to make legal judgments really quite worrying.”––[Official Report, Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Public Bill Committee, 7 September 2021; c. 57, Q111.]

Both the OIA and Universities UK highlighted the fact that in the Bill the Government are proposing a director of freedom of speech who is judge and jury in decisions on universities, and there is no right to appeal. Professor Paul Layzell from Universities UK picked up that point when he said, in what I think was a masterly understatement:

“I think we would have a concern.”––[Official Report, Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Public Bill Committee, 13 September 2021; c. 126, Q276.]

The OIA has an appeals process. Why does the OfS not have one or one that will be included in the Bill? Universities UK says there would be

“no right to appeal an OfS decision.”

It says that if there were a decision that a university student union felt was genuinely unfair, it would be forced to implement it, irrespective of whether it felt there was a right of reply. UUK underscored the fact that existing routes, such as the OIA, have an appeals mechanism. UUK feels that this is absolutely appropriate, and such a mechanism must be brought into the OfS scheme as well.

New clause 8, which stands in my name and that of my right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington, has become significantly more relevant since we tabled it. The Minister has consistently referred to guidance in her replies to more or less all of our amendments. Now, she has the chance to let us see that guidance before the Bill is put in the statute book. We urge that that guidance be made available, before Report and certainly before the Bill passes into law.

We are not the only ones who want to see that in legislation. I recall Professor Stock’s comment:

“The Bill is quite vague, so it is going to need a lot of guidance, concrete examples and accompanying notes.”––[Official Report, Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Public Bill Committee, 7 September 2021; c. 6, Q3.]

In his testimony, Dr Ahmed said:

“With regard to tension with other legislation, I suspect there might well be tension with the Equality Act and difficult decisions to make about a breach of the duty to promote freedom of speech versus the duties imposed under the Equality Act, so I think there are issues that guidance should be able to sort out with regard to what counts.”––[Official Report, Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Public Bill Committee, 7 September 2021; c. 18, Q31.]

If the relationship between the duties in this Bill and the Equality Act 2010 are to be decided in guidance, as Dr Ahmed suggests, surely we have to see the guidance before the Bill is enacted. The force of the Equality Act 2010 could be undermined through the backdoor, with no parliamentary scrutiny. As Smita Jamdar said:

“I would have thought that one of the most useful things the OfS could do is give the guidance, and look at this through its regulatory lens.”––[Official Report, Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Public Bill Committee, 7 September 2021; c. 58, Q113.]

As I have said repeatedly, we need to see guidance on this before Report or, at the very latest, before the Bill receives Royal Assent. All these amendments tighten up the legislation, reduce or delete duplication and confusion, and underline the importance of an appeals process for all bodies, so that they can challenge any ruling from the OfS director of free speech.

[Emma Hardy]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Christopher. I have to correct the record on the number of FE colleges affected. I originally said 170, then I said 167, but for the record this relates to 165 FE colleges.

My hon. Friend talked about amendment 39 and the reason we want to set out in the Bill the different pieces of legislation that could have an impact on free speech. The oral evidence we heard shows that there is confusion about how the Bill will interact with existing legislation.

UUK asks that the Government

“clearly outline how this Bill will interact with existing legislation and other duties which relate to free speech and academic freedom”.

Sheffield Hallam submits that:

“the Bill would set a higher standard for freedom of speech expectations, with consequent potential difficulties in relation to the 1986 Education Act, the 1998 Human Rights Act and the 2010 Equality Act.”

--- Later in debate ---

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

My hon. Friend is explaining exactly what Trevor Phillips described. He said that a regulator does not go to the final fine or nth degree immediately; it works with, issues guidelines or goes in to provide support, and sometimes that is compulsory. The amendment would provide for what our witnesses said needs to happen.

[Emma Hardy]

The University of Cambridge submitted:

“A range of sanctions would allow for interventions which are more proportionate to the facts of individual cases, recognizing that some cases are more likely than others to constitute evidence of repeat or serious breaches of duty.”

Professor Kathleen Stock said:

“This legislation says that there should be a positive duty to promote academic culture. That could be a very positive, forward-looking initiative; it does not have to be heavy-handed, although obviously it has the capacity to be punitive. But there is also the dimension of encouraging universities to examine what the value is of academic freedom”.––[Official Report, Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Public Bill Committee, 7 September 2021; c. 7, Q6.]

As my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown mentioned: lots of witnesses said that we do not have to move straight to fines; there can be a range of sanctions.

A more concrete example of a good approach to graduated sanctions is that of the Advertising Standards Authority. It focuses on guidance before punitive action. Its website states:

“The vast majority of advertisers and broadcasters agree to follow ASA rulings and for those that are having difficulty doing so, rather than punish them, our aim is to work with them to help them stick to the Advertising Codes. However, for the small minority of advertisers who are either unable or unwilling to work with us, some of the sanctions at our disposal can have negative consequences.”

That is one example of a regulator encouraging and supporting before moving to punitive sanctions. The amendment, too, is saying, “Let’s have a look at a range of options.”

Regarding the appeals process, it is slightly bonkers—my right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington pointed this out to me the other day, which made me chuckle—that we have more rights to appeal a parking ticket than a decision of the director for freedom of speech. If people get a parking ticket, they can make an informal appeal to the council, giving evidence and an argument as to why the ticket should not have been issued, but with the director for free speech there is no appeals process. That is slightly silly.

Most systems and organisations, such as Ofsted or the OIA, allow some form of appeals process—some way of going back to them to say, “I would like to appeal the decision. I don’t think you saw this piece of evidence.” Generally, with most regulators, an attempt at some form of appeal is involved, bringing it into line with existing practice. The amendments are sensible and straightforward. They would give people the right to appeal and provide for graduated sanctions, and I hope the Minister will accept them.

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

New clause 8 is a simple request to the Minister to issue some form of guidance about the relevant route for appeals before the legislation comes into force. I think it is quite significant. We are introducing a complex system of complaints and processes, as well as the potential for civil action. It is not much to ask that we get absolute clarity, so that those who will implement the legislation or be the victims of it know how the complaints system will work. I would welcome a commitment from the Minister that we could take to the Floor of the House to reassure people.

With regard to the issue about the rush to sanction, my only comment is that we are dealing with a pretty contentious area, where an element of mediation might resolve most of the problems. Previous progressive equalities legislation that some people have initially opposed has not involved heavy sanctions. In the main, the results have been resolution and progress through a process of education, engagement, mediation and resolution. I think the rush towards sanction will undermine the ability to mediate.

--- Later in debate ---

[Michelle Donelan]

Amendment 38 seeks to ensure that a complaint cannot be made to the new OfS complaints scheme if a complaint relating to the same subject matter is being or has been dealt with by the OIA. Proposed new schedule 6A to the Higher Education and Research Act 2017 enables the OfS to design the scheme. We expect it to provide that a free speech complaint is not to be referred to the OfS if a complaint relating to the same subject matter is being or has been dealt with under the student complaints scheme of the OfS. This is stated in sub-paragraph (2)(d) of paragraph 5 of schedule 6A to the Higher Education and Research Act 2017. I hope that reassures Members that this provision is already present in the Bill.

Amendment 39 seeks to set out on the face of the Bill that the OfS will have to consider the other legal duties placed on a higher education providers and student unions when making their decisions under the complaints scheme. Under clause 7, we fully expect the OfS to make a decision under the new complaints scheme as to whether an individual has suffered adverse consequences as a result of a breach of freedom of speech duties set out in proposed new sections A1 and A4 of the 2017 Act, as found in clauses 1 and 2 respectively. Those provisions are clear that the duty is to take “reasonably practicable” steps to secure freedom of speech.

The Bill does not say that the freedom of speech duties override other duties, and so it must be read consistently with other legislation. Let me be clear also that it would not be reasonably practicable for a provider or student union to act in a way that meant it was in breach of its other legal duties. Accordingly, when the OfS considers whether there has been a breach of freedom of speech duties, it will already have to consider all the circumstances, including other legal duties on the provider or the student union. I am grateful to be able to clarify this important point, and I hope that that reassures Members that the Bill does not override existing legal duties set out in the Equality Act 2010 or those under the Prevent duty.

Amendment 40 seeks to provide that when the OfS finds a complaint to be justified, it can issue guidance or a warning, not just a recommendation. Amendment 41 would require the OfS to take into account the seriousness of the complaint, as well as whether the provider or student union had repeatedly breached the freedom of speech duties. Paragraph 7(1) of proposed new schedule 6A to the Higher Education and Research Act 2017, as set out in clause 7, provides that the OfS “may make a recommendation” to a provider or student union where it considers a complaint to be wholly or partially justified. “Recommendation” is defined in paragraph 7(3) as a recommendation

“to do anything specified…or…to refrain from doing anything specified”,

and it may include a recommendation for the payment of compensation. To be clear, the OfS is not required to recommend the payment of compensation as part of its decision. However, where an individual has suffered adverse consequences as a result of the breach of these duties, it may be appropriate to do so.

In respect of the aims of amendment 40, the current drafting of the Bill gives the OfS sufficient flexibility to recommend to the provider or the student union that it should review its internal processes to ensure that they are fit for purpose, or that it should provide additional training to staff members. The OfS does not have to introduce penalties. A recommendation can cover any aspect that is relevant to the complaint, and in that sense it could be considered similar to providing guidance, or indeed a warning, on compliance with the freedom of speech duties in the future.

On amendment 41, as a matter of good decision making and the principles of public law, the OfS will need to take into account all relevant considerations when making decisions on complaints. This means that issues such as the seriousness of the complaint, and whether the provider or student union was repeatedly at fault, can be considered. The Bill provides for the OfS to set up the complaints scheme. The scheme must include certain provisions and may include others, as set out in the Bill. The OfS will be responsible for developing the finer detail of the scheme, and the Government expect that that will be done in thorough consultation with the sector and wider stakeholders.

[Emma Hardy]

I should have waited an extra moment, because I think the Minister just answered my question, which was about who else would be involved in the consultation. She mentioned wider stakeholders. Will she clarify whether that includes the National Union of Students?

[Michelle Donelan]

Absolutely; we would expect the OfS to consult the NUS, as well as additional student unions and student representative bodies, to ensure that it hears a comprehensive range of views when developing the guidance. That will ensure that the details of the scheme can be developed as appropriate, as it would not be appropriate for primary legislation to set out every aspect of the detail. That is similar to how the complaints scheme operated for the Office of the Independent Adjudicator for Higher Education when it was established. The structure of the complaints scheme was set out in the Higher Education Act 2004, but its details were developed subsequently. I hope that that reassures Members that the Bill as drafted ensures that justified freedom of speech complaints can be dealt with by the OfS in the way that is most appropriate to each individual case.

Amendment 42 would allow higher education providers and student unions to appeal against a decision of the OfS under the complaints scheme. Clause 7 provides that the OfS may make a recommendation where a freedom of speech complaint is found to be wholly or partially justified. That gives rise to recommendations that are not legally binding, although of course we expect providers and student unions to comply. That is in line with many other redress schemes, including the scheme operated by the Office of the Independent Adjudicator, against whose recommendations there is no right to appeal. I think there is a little bit of confusion about that in the Committee, but I hope that I have clarified that on the record. As the recommendations are not binding on a provider or an student union, it is not necessary for there to be a route of appeal, because they are not legally required to comply.

In a case of non-compliance, of course, the complainant would have the option of bringing proceedings before the court via the new statutory tort. In doing so, the decision of the OfS in its complaints scheme, including reasons for the decision, will be part of the evidence put before the court. The approach of the complaints scheme is “distinct from” where a legally binding sanction is imposed on a provider by the OfS as a result of a breach of one of its registration conditions.

[Emma Hardy]

I thank the Minister for that point about the OIA, but the OIA website states:

“A student or provider may ask us to consider reopening our review if they have new evidence that could not have been given to us earlier or think there is an error in the Complaint Outcome… Requests must be made within 28 days of the date of the Complaint Outcome or Recommendations.”

That sounds awfully like an appeals process.

[Michelle Donelan]

There is no formal right of appeal. If a provider or student felt that there was a factual error, of course that would be outlined in the guidance by the OfS director in relation to this Bill as well.

In the case of a monetary penalty, which is something that hon. Members have raised multiple times, there is a right of appeal set out in schedule 3 to the 2017 Act. That will be available if a monetary penalty is imposed because of a breach of the new freedom of speech registration conditions in clause 5 of the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Emma Hardy]

I know it was not strictly in our amendments, but I hope that before the Minister sits down she will respond to the points made about the inclusion of further education colleges, and how all this relates to the 165 further education colleges that are registered as higher education providers.

[Michelle Donelan]

To respond directly to the hon. Lady’s point, we think it is right that FE colleges are in scope within the Bill. They are already regulated by the OfS when they put on courses of higher education, so this is not a change for them. They are already subject to working with that regulator, as well as Ofsted and so on. It is right that we ensure that this provision is comprehensive and that we protect freedom of speech for students who are studying higher education in further education settings as well as those studying in higher education settings.

Students will continue to be able to raise complaints with the OIA, but will also benefit from the new complaints scheme in the OfS. Students will have the option to raise freedom of speech and academic freedom-related complaints via the OfS scheme, or to raise their complaint with the OIA, as they can now. Where a complaint has been found to be wholly or partially justified, the OfS will be able to make a recommendation to the higher education provider or student union, which could include a recommendation to pay a specified sum in compensation or, for example, a recommendation to reinstate a complainant’s job or place on a course.

Without this new complaints scheme, staff in the higher education sector and visiting speakers would have no access to a cost-free route to seek redress against a provider, and there would be no way to complain about the student union. This clause provides a free complaints route to individuals, whether higher education staff, students, academics or visiting speakers, to seek redress for an improper restriction of their lawful free speech. The scheme will ensure an accessible route to individual redress that is backed up by new, strengthened duties provided in this Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Michelle Donelan]

As we have heard, amendment 78 and new clause 7 seek to introduce an advisory board to work with the new director for freedom of speech and academic freedom and to advise the Office for Students on the operation of the Bill when it is enacted. Clause 8 provides that the director for freedom of speech and academic freedom will be responsible for overseeing the performance of the OfS free speech functions, including the monitoring and enforcement of free speech registration conditions, the new student union duties and the new complaints scheme.

As part of those responsibilities, the director will be responsible for reporting to the other members of the OfS on their performance of the OfS free speech functions. This reflects a similar provision in schedule 1 of the Higher Education and Research Act 2017, which makes the director for fair access and participation responsible for reporting to other members of the OfS on the performance of OfS access and participation functions.

[Emma Hardy]

With respect, the Bill brings the student unions under the direct control of the OfS, and, as it is, the student unions do not have a direct voice through the Office for Students. I accept the Minister’s comments so far, but can she explain how the NUS and students can feed into the director for freedom of speech?

[Michelle Donelan]

When the new director is in place, they will produce comprehensive guidance in consultation with the sector, including student unions. I am confident that the individual who is awarded the position will be someone who listens and works collaboratively across the sector.

Not only will the measure ensure oversight of the role of the director for freedom of speech and academic freedom for the rest of the OfS board, but it will allow the OfS to better co-ordinate and monitor its free speech functions. It is, of course, important that the OfS should be held to account in the performance of its functions. That is one reason why paragraph 12 of proposed new schedule 6A, which clause 7 will insert into the Higher Education and Research Act 2017, will require that the OfS conduct a review of the complaints scheme or its operation and report the results of that review to the Secretary of State, where such a report is requested. The Secretary of State may also require the OfS to report in its annual report, or a special report, on matters relating to freedom of speech and academic freedom. That report must be laid before Parliament, as laid out in clause 4.

The Government expect that the OfS will consult widely, including with sector representatives, as I have made clear throughout the Committee, when developing the details of the complaints scheme, as well as on changes to the regulatory framework. There will be guidance to help providers and student unions to comply with their duties under clause 4, which specifically provides for the OfS to give advice to providers on good practice on the promotion of freedom of speech and academic freedom. It is important that the OfS works closely and effectively with the sector, including with student unions—freedom of speech is no different in that respect.

There is no need to set up the bureaucracy of a non-statutory advisory body, as suggested by the amendment. The OfS is independent of the Government, so to do so would simply duplicate its role as set out in the statute.

[Emma Hardy]

With the greatest respect, the Minister has just said that the OfS is independent of the Government, but the chair of the OfS is a Conservative peer, who was a Conservative Member of Parliament. We cannot say that the OfS is independent of the Government when we all know that its chair sits in the House of Lords and takes the Conservative party whip.

[Michelle Donelan]

The hon. Member has made that point before. The chair of the OfS was appointed accordingly, and the director for freedom of speech and academic freedom will be as well. I hope that Members are reassured that the Bill already ensures the accountability of the director for freedom of speech and academic freedom, and the OfS itself.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matt Western]

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

[Emma Hardy]

My hon. Friend might recall that the Education Committee did not approve the appointment of Amanda Spielman as chair of Ofsted, but that was ignored by the Government and she was appointed. It does not even say in the Bill that there would be scrutiny through the Education Committee, which is something the Minister could at least clarify.

[Matt Western]

I was not aware of the case of Amanda Spielman, but we are increasingly seeing this sort of interference across the board. I have mentioned the case of the museum, and there is also the case that my hon. Friend has cited. What we want to do is put checks and balances in the system. If we were in government, we would expect the Conservative party to be saying the same of us. An honest and appropriate approach is needed. My right hon. Friend the Member for North Durham mentioned the US system, which is far tighter than so much that we have in this country. I just do not understand how the US can be doing it so well, yet we are not.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matt Western]

It sounds as though we may be being slightly selective in our quotes from Dr Ahmed, because I take something slightly different from what he said. I take on board the point that the right hon. Gentleman has made, but I reiterate that, as Dr Ahmed has said:

“There are always concerns with the regulator—that it has to be impartial”.––[Official Report, Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Public Bill Committee, 7 September 2021; c. 20, Q36.]

That is where we have real concerns about the direction of travel with the OfS.

[Emma Hardy]

To clarify, and to put this as succinctly as possible, we are asking for the person to be appointed on the basis of what they know, not who they know. That is pretty much what all these amendments amount to. I draw the Committee’s attention to the appointment process for the OIA chair, because it looks much fairer. It focuses on the need for relevant skills and expertise, and the chair is

“appointed through fair and open competition in line with the Nolan Principles because of the value and relevance of their skills and experience.”

The OIA is not Government-owned or funded, and the chair is appointed as an independent trustee. That is the kind of thing that we are looking at here. If we refer back to the evidence given by UUK and many others, including the lawyer, we can see that they were looking for someone with some kind of legal experience and knowledge of the sector, who was appointed independently. Everybody from those evidence sessions would say the same thing if they were sitting here: “Let’s have some independence in this process.”

[Matt Western]

I thank my hon. Friend, who has mentioned points that I was just about to come to.

[Emma Hardy]

Sorry.

[Matt Western]

It is absolutely fine, and I appreciate it. The Universities UK advisory board said quite explicitly that openness and transparency are needed in this appointment.

I wanted to come on to the models that we could be using to improve the appointment of the director for freedom of speech; we recognise that the Government are determined to have such a position. In the Office of the Independent Adjudicator, nine of the board of trustees, including the chair, are independent director-trustees. They are appointed through a fair and open competition in line with the Nolan principles, as my right hon. Friend the Member for North Durham has just mentioned, based on the value and relevance of their skills and experience. From what we heard in the evidence sessions, it was not absolutely clear what skills and experience the director for freedom of speech might need, but we certainly had some insight into the values that they might have.

In December 2016, the Cabinet Office published its governance code for public appointments, in which it was made clear that all public appointments should be governed by the principle of appointment on merit. I accept that there were conflicting views in the evidence sessions on whether the director should have legal experience—personally, I believe that that is necessary—but surely we can all agree that the position should be awarded on the basis of merit, as defined by the Government’s own governance code.

--- Later in debate ---

[John McDonnell]

I caution Government Members. There have been reports recently of a pattern of behaviour by Government of making appointments of, in effect, members of and donors to the Tory party—some have described them as cronies. That evidences, I think, an attitude in some parts of Government that overrides the very principles that my hon. Friend refers to and, to be honest, the traditional practice that we have come to expect of Governments. We are nearing a limit on that.

[Emma Hardy]

It is worth pointing out that we have no written constitution in this country. Everything we have is based on practice and tradition, because of the lack of a written constitution. Our university sector has always acted as a counterbalance to any Government of the day in offering criticism and scrutiny, forming another counterweight in our democracy. Any attempt to undermine that by politicising it through a political appointment exercising the powers in the Bill should concern each and every one of us. Governments and parties change and, as I said before and was agreed with, the people sitting on the Government Benches would be very concerned if the proposals in the Bill were those of the Labour party and we were wishing to exercise the kind of political control over the universities of the day that the Government do with this Bill.

[John McDonnell]

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Jones]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his intervention, but he is confusing people’s political principles with the Nolan principles. If Dr Ahmed was suggesting that the Government believe passionately in the Nolan principles, I would have no problem with that, but I do not think that is a fair interpretation. Do the Government have form in this area? They clearly do in the appointment of Lord Wharton as the head of the Office for Students. I actually quite like the individual as an individual, but what are his qualifications for that job, apart from having been the former Member for Stockton South?

[Emma Hardy]

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

[Mr Jones]

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Michelle Donelan]

Amendment 85 seeks to ensure that the director is a person who has not donated to any political party in the last three years, and it would prohibit the director from making donations to political parties for the duration of their tenure. New clause 9 seeks to set out additional requirements for the appointment process of the new director for freedom of speech and academic freedom at the Office for Students, requiring approval by the Education Committee and that the Secretary of State take into account the views of an independent advisory body. New clause 11 would require the Secretary of State to conduct a review of the appointment process for the director within six months of the calling of a new Parliament. That review would assess the suitability of the process for selecting politically impartial candidates. The Secretary of State would be required to lay a copy of the review report before Parliament.

The director for freedom of speech and academic freedom will be appointed in the same way as other members of the board of the Office for Students, under the Higher Education and Research Act 2017 by the Secretary of State. I assure Members that that will be done in the usual way, in accordance with the public appointments process. I emphasise, as has been demonstrated in our sittings, that freedom of speech and academic freedom are fundamental principles in higher education; they are not the preserve of one political party.

[Emma Hardy]

The Minister is genuinely very generous in giving way. She always lets me in, and I appreciate that. Will the job description for this brand-new role be written, as discussed previously, in consultation with the sector, including the National Union of Students, so that we get the right description to ensure that we get the right person?

[Michelle Donelan]

Throughout my tenure as Minister of State for Universities, I have worked closely with the sector, listening to its views and its requirements for the role, as the Department has done. We will continue to do that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Michelle Donelan]

We are going very off topic. We have a lot of clauses to get through, so I will continue.

There will also be important oversight built into the system when the director has been appointed. The director will be responsible for reporting to other members of the OfS on the performance of the OfS’s free speech functions. That reflects a similar provision in paragraph 3(1)(c) of schedule 1 to the Higher Education and Research Act 2017, which makes the director for fair access and participation responsible for

“reporting to the other members of the OfS on the performance of the OfS’s access and participation functions.”

That will not only ensure oversight of the role of the director for freedom of speech and academic freedom, but the rest of the OfS board will also allow the OfS to better co-ordinate and monitor its free speech functions.

I therefore hope that Members will be reassured that the appointment of the director will be in line with the usual public appointments process and that the role of the director is ultimately overseen by the rest of the OfS board.

[Emma Hardy]

rose—

[Michelle Donelan]

I have finished.

[Matt Western]

This has been an important debate. As we have said, this will be way too much power invested in one individual. That will then lead to that individual’s interpretations of situations against their personal set of values and principles.

[Emma Hardy]

Hopefully, the next time the Minister stands up she might be able to clarify whether the appointment of the director for freedom of speech and academic freedom will be subjected to a pre-appointment process with the Education Committee, in the way that Amanda Spielman was when she was appointed to Ofsted, for example, and in the way that the Committee deals with other educational appointments? Will we have that pre-appointment hearing?

[Matt Western]

Indeed. The purpose behind new clause 9 is to have a process whereby the appointment goes through the appropriate body in the House of Commons, which we suggest is the Education Committee.

The bottom line is that we do not see any safeguards in the process. We do not see any checks or balances to ensure that this individual does not abuse the power and influence that they may weald. It is important to have some trust in the appointment process, which is why new clause 9 says the appointment should go through the Education Committee, ideally with some pre-appointment consideration. There are many advantages to that, not just in terms of the power to veto.

The Education Committee should have more say anyway. It is important to empower these bodies, as my right hon. Friend the Member for North Durham described when he talked about the veto processes that exist in the US system but that we seem to ignore completely. Those are the sorts of checks and balances that we want to see introduced.

[Emma Hardy]

The reason for talking about the Education Committee is that people said in some of the evidence that they wanted democratic oversight. We are fully aware that the Education Committee is balanced by who has the majority in Government, so there would currently be a Conversative majority, but it is still an important democratic safeguard to have a separate body to scrutinise the appointment and have a veto. I hope that is something the Minister will take away and seriously consider.

[Matt Western]

I am sure that the Minister is listening to these points. I think the Education Committee should have certain powers and status, and its involvement in these processes would be useful. I would even widen this to a broader panel if possible, with sector involvement as well, because experience, expertise and understanding of the reality on the ground is important. Having someone parachuted in because their political persuasion suits the Prime Minister is not a good way to govern such an important part of our democratic landscape.

The concern is that there will be a clear differentiation between—

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

Emma Hardy Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd September 2021 Public Bill Committees

[Matt Western]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for the clarification. As he has said, in essence this was a policy introduced by the coalition Conservative Government. I am interested to hear what the Minister’s view is in response to this amendment.

I have read that, in the view of Corey Stoughton, director of advocacy at the human rights organisation Liberty, the tactics of the strategy for monitoring campus activism has had a

“‘chilling effect’ on black and Muslim students, provoking self censorship for fear of being labelled extremist.”

We have to be very careful here, because blanket exemption is just as bad as blanket application. I have looked through the responsibilities of universities, which already have done very well to balance freedom of speech with the Prevent duty. My hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown and I have discussed how the Nottingham Two incident—the right hon. Gentleman may be familiar with it—played out, and how such situations can be avoided. There must be an obvious method of ensuring that academics can research these subjects, whether it be the cultural impact of drugs or the impact of certain political movements, without the police knocking on the door. I would have thought that an obvious way of avoiding problems and difficult situations on campus would be to introduce processes to allow academics to make their governing bodies and departments aware of their work.

[Emma Hardy]

I believe I understand what the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings is trying to do with this amendment, but I return to our previous point that the big problem with this Bill is how it interacts with other pieces of legislation, and what impact it will have. That is why we talked about putting into the Bill the other pieces of information that we have mentioned. I am sure the Minister will refer us to guidance that is coming shortly to deal with this. The Bill does not exist on its own, so, as my hon. Friend says, the implementation will be incredibly complex. That goes back to the points we made this morning about who the person will be who has to try to decipher this very complicated piece of additional legislation.

[Matt Western]

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Emma Hardy]

I try not to get cross, Mrs Cummins, but I am going to get a little bit cross now, and then calm down again.

As I have said many times, this whole Bill has been written with Oxford, Cambridge and all the Russell Group universities in mind. The intervention on my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown by the hon. Member for North West Durham reinforces that view. I keep going back to the 165 FE colleges that are affected by the Bill. How is a small FE college with no full-time student union representatives or independent income going to pay the insurance costs? The assumption is that all will need insurance to cover themselves against any liability. How will they be able to afford that and keep going if all the Bill applies to them?

The Minister says that the provision has to apply to FE colleges because they are higher education institutions, but it does not directly apply to junior common rooms. I will not repeat the long debate that we had about that, but if there is one rule for JCRs, why not look again at further education colleges? All the new clause does is say that there must be adequate resources. I said on Monday that the outcome of the Bill could be the creation of shell-like structures of student unions outside all the ones that can afford it—those of the Russell Group and Oxford and Cambridge. Beyond that, student unions would not exist in any meaningful way, which would be a travesty.

--- Later in debate ---

[Michelle Donelan]

As we have heard, new clause 3 would require the Secretary of State to invite a Select Committee of the House of Commons to review the effectiveness of the provisions of the Bill at least once a year, whereas new clause 6 would make the Bill subject to a sunset clause, so it would expire three years after the date of enactment unless a report is made to Parliament and regulations are made to renew the Act. It would also Ministers to remove provisions of the Bill one year after enactment if they are not working as intended.

On new clause 3, I can assure Members that the Department for Education will work with the sector to ensure that the measures are properly implemented, and we will review the legislation in the usual way with a post-implementation review. There are also provisions in the Bill as drafted that will help to measure its effectiveness once it comes into force.

Clause 4 provides that the Secretary of State may require the Office for Students to report on freedom of speech and academic freedom matters in its annual report or a special report. The report must be laid before Parliament, so that Parliament and the sector can scrutinise it. Equally, paragraph 12 of new schedule 6A to the 2017 Act and clause 7 of the Bill provide that the Secretary of State may request the OfS to conduct a review of the complaints scheme or its operation, and to report on the results. We therefore do not think it necessary to add yet more provision in the Bill to include a requirement for a Select Committee to conduct an annual review of the effectiveness of the Bill. It is worth noting that the current freedom of speech duties in section 43 of the Education (No. 2) Act 1986 do not have such a requirement, and nor does the Higher Education and Research Act 2017, which is being amended by the Bill, so there is no precedent in this context.

[Emma Hardy]

May we return to the issue of the Select Committee and whether it will have a pre-appointment hearing for the freedom of speech director? Will the Select Committee be able to call the director to give evidence and to have scrutiny, as it did with the leader of Ofsted, Amanda Spielman?

[Michelle Donelan]

A pre-appointment scrutiny hearing is the prerogative of the Government. The Government could decide that, but it does not need to be on the face of the Bill. As for whom the Select Committee calls, I fully anticipate that once the new director is in office, the Select Committee will want to speak directly to them.

Turning to new clause 6, we do not think it would be right or appropriate to set a sunset clause in the Bill. Equally, it would not be right to allow Ministers to remove provisions in the Bill by way of regulations only one year after Parliament had approved the Act, when there has not been enough time for the Act to bed in. A sunset clause for a whole Act would be extremely unusual and considered appropriate only in very particular circumstances. We see no reason why the Bill should be treated differently from the majority of other primary legislation.

The Government believe that the Bill is important and necessary. It must be allowed to take effect in the sector to deal with the issues, so that we no longer have cases of freedom of speech and academic freedom being wrongly restricted. If we do have instances of that, those affected must be able to seek redress. We must have a change of culture on our campuses and create a climate of accountability for decision making, to ensure that our universities are places where debate can thrive. I trust that the Committee will agree with me that these amendments are not necessary and the Bill should be allowed to do its work once it is enacted.

--- Later in debate ---

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Emma Hardy]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

I believe that we have debated the issue of guidance at length, so I am happy to beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 12

Harassment

“In section 26 of the Equality Act 2010, after subsection (4)(c) insert—

‘(d) When the case concerns the conduct of academic staff of a registered higher education provider, the importance of freedom of speech and academic freedom, as provided for under Part A1 of the Higher Education and Research Act 2017 (as inserted by section 1 of the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act 2021).’”—(Matt Western.)

This new clause amends the Equality Act 2010 so that, in deciding whether the conduct of academic staff of a registered higher education provider constitutes harassment, the importance of freedom of speech and academic freedom must be taken into account.

Brought up, and read the First time.

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

Emma Hardy Excerpts

Monday 20th September 2021 Public Bill Committees

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

The same.

[Emma Hardy (Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle) (Lab)]

My partner works at the University of Hull on the degree apprenticeship programme.

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

I am a trustee at the University of Bradford union. I have received payment from the University of Sussex to provide educational opportunities, and I have received money from the University and College Union.

--- Later in debate ---

[Michelle Donelan]

I will make some progress and then give way.

As individuals will be able to seek redress for free via the OfS or the Office of the Independent Adjudicator, we expect individuals to make a complaint to the OfS or the OIA before relying on the tort.

[Emma Hardy]

I thank the right hon. Lady for giving way.

I refer the Minister to the Office for the Independent Adjudicator’s written evidence, where it said:

“It is generally accepted that it is not good practice to have multiple routes of ADR redress for the resolution of a complaint because it can make the landscape difficult to navigate and make it harder for individuals to make the right choice for them—particularly if they are vulnerable.”

I wonder how the OIA’s concerns can be satisfied by the clause the Minister is moving?

[Michelle Donelan]

I thank the hon. Member for their comments. It is a good point that students, academics and visiting speakers all need to know the routes available to them. That will be a fundamental part of the new director’s job; I fully anticipate that they will not only set out comprehensive guidance, but communicate with all the different individuals so that they know the options available.

--- Later in debate ---

[Emma Hardy]

Going back to the evidence, one of the points made by the OIA is that

“if a student isn’t fully informed or does not understand”—

bearing in mind its previous point about vulnerable students—

“all the consequences of their choice, the decision they make may not be the most beneficial for their particular circumstances.”

The evidence points out that people rarely make a complaint relating just to freedom of speech; rather, it often involves many other different aspects, which the director of freedom of speech would not be able to address. This is a highly complex and difficult procedure for an individual student to be able to understand and navigate, and I am not sure that written guidance from the Office for Students would fully address that.

[Michelle Donelan]

One thing we must be clear on is that the current system is not working. It is failing individuals who are having their freedom of speech breached, as we also heard from multiple sources in the evidence. At the heart of this Bill is unlocking a greater choice for individuals, whether that is going down the OIA route or the one-stop shop of the director who will be responsible for free speech and academic freedom. While it is true that at the moment not many cases that are brought forward are purely to do with freedom of speech, I argue that that is because we need this Bill in place and the new director in their position.

Given that individuals may not want to incur the legal costs and risks associated with bringing a claim before the courts, we do not expect this provision to give rise to many claims. It will operate more as a backstop for complainants, to cover claims by individuals who may feel they have no other recourse.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matt Western]

I am sure the Minister has heard my right hon. Friend’s question. It is certainly not clear to me who has standing, and I hope she will come to that. It is quite clear from the questions that have been posed by my colleagues that there is so little clarity about how this is going to work. I have not seen any reference to the Charity Commission, for example. Where does the Charity Commission fit into this? Surely it is part of the process for students to refer a complaint to that organisation, but there has been nothing about it in any of the papers from the Government that I have seen, nothing in debate, and nothing, so far, during two days of debate in this Committee.

[Emma Hardy]

It is worth pointing out that what is proposed in the Bill does not come cost-free. The impact assessment estimated that the cost of compliance with the Bill would be around £48.1 million. Bearing in mind the points I have made previously about the overlap with the Office of the Independent Adjudicator for Higher Education and the confusion that some students will have, it seems fairly ludicrous that the Government wish to spend £48.1 million replicating something that already exists in another form.

[Matt Western]

I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention, and she is absolutely right: this is not just something that already exists, but something that exists relatively cost-free. The cost of £48.1 million that she has mentioned—which is the Department’s estimate of what the Bill will cost student unions and universities across the country—should not be ignored.

We sought to remove the whole of this clause through amendment 30. We are of course disappointed that it was not accepted—although I sort of understand why that was the case—but I am sure that the House of Lords will be extremely interested in the clause. While we do not believe this Bill is necessary, we have been doing our very best throughout this process—as my right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington said last week—to be constructive about mitigating the problems and costs of what we think will be a disastrous piece of legislation, in terms of its impact on our students, student unions and universities. However, we feel that this clause is a huge mistake, because as we have heard, it enables individuals to seek compensation through the courts if they suffer loss as a result of a breach of the freedom of speech duties.

In its submission, the Russell Group—as so many have said—puts it like this:

“The lack of clarity over how a new statutory tort offering a route to civil legal claims around free speech will interact with existing internal and external complaints procedures”

is absolutely—well, it did not say “shocking”, but I think the Russell Group is very frustrated and concerned about it. It also said:

“At present, internal grievance and complaints processes offer staff and students significant opportunities to seek redress when they feel their right to free speech has been infringed. These include comprehensive rights to appeal. In the event internal processes do not conclude in a way that satisfies an individual, then students can take their grievance to the Office of the Independent Adjudicator (OIA)”—

a point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle. The Russell Group also said:

“Where free speech concerns interact with employment decisions, university staff have recourse through employment law and tribunals.”

It is pretty clear that the system was working. Perhaps it could have been tightened up—maybe there could have been better practice across different institutions—but I see that as a failure by the Government to engage with the sector and the OIA, and to work with the Charity Commission and all the other representative bodies to bring about a better or a tighter system, rather than resorting to this clunky Bill, which is so onerous, burdensome and potentially hugely costly to the sector.

We are against this clause for three reasons. First, as I have said, we believe it is unnecessary. Secondly, we believe it could create a culture of lawfare, as it is described in legal circles, that will take vital money away from students and researchers. Thirdly, we believe that it will ultimately restrict free speech, rather than the opposite: it will be the inverse, an unintended consequence, as we have talked about on so many occasions.

Let me start with the point that this clause is unnecessary. The creation of the tort, as has been said in the opening interventions, duplicates other avenues for complaints. Students and staff have already raised complaints with their institution, which will be dealt with via an internal complaints process. Students can then complain to the Office of the Independent Adjudicator. So far, so good.

--- Later in debate ---

“An amendment to the Bill that make clear the new tort is intended to act as a backstop to the existing grievance processes in place would help ensure its introduction genuinely adds an additional layer of protection for individuals with free speech concerns who have suffered loss. This would reduce the risk of the tort creating extra bureaucracy, causing confusion for claimants faced with multiple complaints processes, or undermining existing disciplinary procedures.”

[Emma Hardy]

It is worth pointing out what the remedies are when somebody brings a complaint forward. If the OIA upholds a complaint, it has a variety of remedies at its disposal—academic appeal, or disciplinary or fitness to practice procedure. Under the Bill, if the complaint related to freedom of speech, the OfS can offer a remedy to the student only for the freedom of speech concerned, as opposed to the OIA, which can offer a remedy for any aspect of the complaint that is upheld. Basically, the OfS is offering a narrower source of remedies than is currently available under the OIA. If anyone is confused listening to me, then, my goodness, just imagine how an 18-year-old undergraduate would feel trying to grapple with what the best route forward is for them.

[Matt Western]

Exactly. Where is the flow chart to help someone navigate through this? It is certainly not clear to any of the representative bodies—the student unions and so on—and it is going to be impossibly difficult for the average 18-year-old or 19-year-old to comprehend.

[Emma Hardy]

In its evidence, the OIA gave an example where a group of students may have the same complaint regarding freedom of speech, but go down different routes: one down the OfS route, one down the OIA route, and one down the court route—maybe because they have enough finances behind them. Each of them ends up with a slightly different solution to exactly the same problem. That is the reality of the Bill. I fail to see how enough guidance could provide clarity for each individual student. We could have a very varied system, where individual students do not know where to go and complaints are not upheld properly. Alternatively, in the case of the OfS, students make a number of complaints and only the freedom of speech issue is dealt with, not the other, resulting issues that could be to do with the way that the course is being taught. It is as confusing as anything.

[Matt Western]

I will address those points in due course. It is the possibility of students going through different bodies that is quite alarming and that will cause even more complication and complexity.

To go back to the point I was making about the processes, the then Secretary of State for Education himself said during the Second Reading debate that although

“this legal route is an important backstop, we do not want all cases going to court where they could otherwise be resolved by other means.”—[Official Report, 12 July 2021; Vol. 699, c. 50.]

I think that is what we all want, but it is certainly not clear to any of us how that is going to work in practice, particularly given the several bodies that can advise and take cases from students. The Bill as it stands does not ensure that the legal route is a backstop. During the evidence sessions, we heard from Smita Jamdar of Shakespeare Martineau—the only lawyer—who was called on by the Opposition. She gave striking and clear evidence and advice. She said:

“Built into certain types of court proceedings—judicial review, for example—is the expectation that you will first exhaust all alternative remedies, and that would include any internal remedies available under the complaints process. However, that is not the case in statutory torts; you could bring a claim outside the processes”––[Official Report, Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Public Bill Committee, 7 September 2021; c. 50, Q93.]

That must be a real concern: the simple fact that you can bypass all the processes and go straight to court. The clause should therefore be removed or at least amended to reflect the Government’s own views on how they wish the tort to operate.

My second point is on facing the prospect of “lawfare”. We have wider concerns that the Bill will create a culture of lawfare against universities. Clause 3 does not restrict the tort to those who personally feel that their speech has been restricted or those who have been directly affected. It therefore risks opening up vexatious claims against universities from those who seek to do them harm. As Dr David Renton and Professor Alison Scott-Baumann said in their written evidence, the Bill means that,

“any lecture, seminar or guest speech could lead to a lawsuit.”

They pointed out that the statutory tort element of the Bill will open the floodgates to civil litigation and forms of lawfare, most likely from well-funded American groups on the hard right, or perhaps groups such as the Chinese state Communist party.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matt Western]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I will come on to a few examples of how that might play out, because I have given a lot of consideration to the extent of this issue. Given the evidence of certain witnesses in the evidence sessions, there are concerns out there—certain concerns are greatly exaggerated, but there are concerns. We have to take those on board, which is why we are approaching this in a constructive way.

As my right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington said, the real concern, which I would like to believe that the right hon. Gentleman would accept, is that we will see ambulance chasers, for want of a better term. There will be people putting their cards around student campuses who are looking for opportunities to be mischievous and to make money out of situations that can be manufactured on our campuses.

[Emma Hardy]

Further to my hon. Friend’s point about the “no win, no fee”, “where there’s blame, there’s a claim” culture we have in other areas of law, there is no limit on how long ago a perceived breach of freedom of speech took place. The clause refers to a “person”. There is no definition of who that person is. Does it relate to academic staff or students? How long along were they at the university? Are they someone in the vicinity who happens to feel infringed by something that has happened on the campus? It is such a broad definition. There is no limit on how long ago something could have happened and who could bring these claims forward.

[Matt Western]

I will come on to that. We have an amendment to that effect, which would ensure that this is not some kind of free-for-all and that we do not open the floodgates, as described by Dr Renton and Professor Scott-Baumann.

--- Later in debate ---

“The danger with the government’s statutory tort is that it will have a chilling effect—students’ unions or their student groups weighing up inviting an external speaker may well conclude that the risks are outside of their control yet too great. The government should work with us to broaden and deepen engagement with controversial views—not cause students to risk-assess the life out of campus.”

[Emma Hardy]

I did not have time to table an amendment, but I hope that the Minister and other Government Members will look at whether we should include in the Bill FE student unions as well, bearing in mind the resources of FE college student unions. I refer the Committee to the evidence given by the Association of School and College Leaders. I hope this is something that the Minister will take away to look through, because if the legislation is too complicated for junior common rooms, surely it is too complicated for a small FE college.

[Matt Western]

Costly and burdensome, is what we were told on Thursday.

Institutions and student unions would therefore become risk averse and avoid inviting speakers, for fear of financial repercussions if they are subsequently cancelled. As a result, there would be fewer speakers, fewer debates and, we believe—not just us, but the whole sector believes—an overall reduction in free speech.

Let me give some examples and come back to the point put to me by the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings about what that might mean. I was reading about the former Home Secretary, the former right hon. Member for Hastings and Rye—I never had the opportunity to speak to her in the Chamber, although I spoke to her outside it, and I had time for her. She was due to speak at the UN Women Oxford UK society in March 2020, and I remember her response when she was barred from speaking, following a vote in the UN Women Oxford UK committee on her role in the Windrush scandal. The invitation was withdrawn an hour before she was due to speak. Those sorts of things have happened through the decades on campuses and across our universities. It was the society’s decision. Would I have done it? I would not have done that; I would have seen it through. I would much prefer to hear from someone and to put the point to them face to face. Sadly, that was the society’s decision.

What would happen with the tort in the Bill? What would Ms Rudd, the former right hon. Member, do? Would she take the society through some legal process, or threaten to do so, or would she just walk away? Rather than getting involved in some sort of complex legal process, which might have damaged her reputationally and made everyone look stupid, I imagine she would have walked away. Certainly, that is what I would have done. What happened, however, which I think is telling, is that the University of Oxford deregistered UN Women Oxford UK from its affiliated societies and asked it to apologise to Amber Rudd. The university concluded:

“We have determined that the cancellation of this event was not carried out in accordance with university procedures, codes of practice and policies, in particular that of the freedom of speech.”

I believe that was handled very well by the university and perhaps not so well by the society itself.

What damage was caused to Ms Rudd, other than in terms of her time and her train fare or whatever it was? Was her reputation damaged? I do not think that it was. In fact, even her daughter tweeted:

“Can not believe mum was ‘no-platformed’ at my old Uni yesterday. Mum doesn’t need the platform and travelled to talk for FREE”—

good for Ms Rudd, travelling to talk for free. It is a shame that the society did not allow her to speak on campus—though of course that was their prerogative.

Let me speak next to the case of the academic Selena Todd, who was dropped from the Oxford International Women’s Festival hosted by Exeter College for her views on transgender rights issues. That decision prompted the OfS to warn that there is a legal requirement on universities to take steps that are reasonably practicable. Again, I think it was a shame that she was dropped—these sorts of debates should be had—but it was the organisers’ decision. I believe, as I think do most of us, that there is good practice out there; we keep citing it. We heard about the work of Professor Jonathan Grant of King’s College London, who has created a collaborative, co-operative process between the students’ union and the university to ensure that all the steps are gone through before the invitation goes out, so that there is no subsequent problem and the person can be heard.

The third example that I want to raise—

--- Later in debate ---

[Matt Western]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The examples that are being cited by lobbyists—perhaps more on the Government side—of where there is perhaps an issue are centred around those bodies. Currently, as we debated on Thursday, they are not included in the Bill.

We believe the tort should be scrapped. We believe it is unnecessary, encourages lawfare against universities and will ultimately end up restricting discussion and debate on our campuses. At the very least, we believe it should be amended with maximum fines. A threshold of harm should be introduced, and it should be restricted to those who are directly affected.

[Emma Hardy]

FE colleges would love the luxury of having a high-profile, well-known speaker come to visit them; that would be a wonderful problem for them to have. As I am sure the Minister is aware now that she has both briefs in her grasp, however, that is often hugely difficult for them. To exempt JCRs and not FE colleges—I am not aware of a single incident involving free speech ever having been raised at an FE college—seems slightly absurd.

[Matt Western]

Indeed. It is important to repeat just how burdensome the measure will be for colleges. For decades, they have rarely had issues, but the burden is now being placed at their door.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir John Hayes]

I beg to move amendment 73, in clause 4, page 6, line 8, at end insert—

‘(2A) The OfS will compile an annual review of registered higher education providers, ranking their compliance with their duties under sections A1 to A3; to be made publicly available by such means as the OfS considers appropriate.”

In moving the amendment, I draw attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, which details my role as an academic at Bolton University.

I was speaking at the weekend at a dinner with a group of friends who are academics. We addressed in conversation how we could ensure that universities will comply with the terms of the Bill, should it become an Act, as I expect it to do. I talked about the amendment we debated earlier––I will not seek to do so again, Mrs Cummins, because you would not let me––in which I recommended a periodical report. I suggested quarterly, but I am open-minded about what that period might be and its precise terms.

There is an alternative that I now suggest in the form of an amendment to this clause, which is for the OfS and, in particular, the new director, to provide information annually about compliance with the duties in new sections A1 to A3 and to make that publicly available. It would be less onerous, so it would pass the test that the Minister set of not being excessively bureaucratic, which was the argument that she used—in my view rather surprisingly—in resisting my first amendment, although she said that she would give it further consideration, for which I am grateful. It would certainly pass that test, but also give reassurance that universities will be expected to respond, and respond consistently.

My doubt about the legislation is not about its principles––I agree with them entirely. It is not about the practice, which I expect to be effective. It is more about the universities and how they respond. I suspect that, if we are not careful, it will be a variable response. Some will feel that they can comply with these duties more straightforwardly than others and some may even be reticent to do so. I am very keen to avoid creating what might be described as a littered landscape of all kinds of universities acting in all kinds of different ways.

[Emma Hardy]

I recognise the point that the right hon. Gentleman is making about how when a list is compiled, it can be influential on students choosing a university. They often look at rankings. My concern about the amendment is with the resource implication. I have mentioned before about higher education provided by FE. How much resource would student unions have to comply with this duty by putting on these kinds of events? Could smaller universities or colleges be downgraded in the ranking he referred to because they do not have the resources to offer the greater breadth that, for example, Oxford or Cambridge would be able to offer?

[Sir John Hayes]

It was at Cambridge that I had the discussion with the academics that I mentioned, by the way. I am involved with some postgraduate work there, which is not registered in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests because it provides no financial reward, so it is not a pecuniary interest, but I mention it in passing for the benefit of the Committee and others.

The hon. Lady is right that there is a challenge in respect of smaller providers, and I accept that. A good point was made in the earlier part of our consideration about FE colleges and about thresholds. There does seem to me to be an argument around thresholds. I would hope that that would become clear in the guidance. The hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington made a good point about that. Good practice will necessitate the new director establishing some protocols that do not allow the free for all that he suggested might be the consequence of not being clear about the sort of things that would stimulate his interest and lead to further steps. To be honest, I think that the good practice detailed in the Bill would include the director making clear his expectations of universities. The Minister will no doubt confirm this when she speaks, but I find it inconceivable that the director will not set those expectations out in guidance. He is missioned, after all, to provide advice, and it is inconceivable that that advice will not include some mention of the kind of circumstances in which universities might want to draw matters to his attention.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matt Western]

I wish to grab the amendment with some enthusiasm, but maybe in the wrong direction from what the right hon. Gentleman is hoping for. I do worry about bureaucracy, particularly among smaller institutions, and the general cost and responsibility and burden that falls with it. As I said the other day, I believe that the demands that the Government are looking to place on institutions through this legislation is just another example of the head office wanting yet more reports from various institutions. It will be another form to fill in, and the Government will do what they want with it—maybe just sit on it, like so many reports.

I struggle with the amendment, because I think it misjudges the benefit of bureaucracy. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, we have tabled amendments on looking for best practice. We want to understand what is good out there, as well as examples of events being cancelled unduly. That is of interest to all across the sector, it is right and it is proportionate, but ranking universities according to their obligations under the Bill would be impractical and undesirable. I will expand on those two points in just a moment.

[Emma Hardy]

I understand what the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings is trying to do. Would it help him to know that there were consultations on the national student survey—the annual review of student satisfaction—and that one of the questions looked at related to free speech? Might that satisfy his aim, without having a negative impact on smaller providers, which will end up further down the rankings because they lack the resources to put on the events that wealthier institutions can?

[Matt Western]

I thank my hon. Friend for that suggestion.

What the amendment proposes is impractical. In evidence, we heard about the undefinable nature of the chilling effect. One of the Bill’s stated aims is to erode that effect, but how can the OfS be expected to rank universities on how they do that? As my right hon. Friend the Member for North Durham put it:

“Getting your head around the idea of self-censorship is like having blancmange in your hands.”––[Official Report, Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Public Bill Committee, 13 September 2021; c. 95, Q194.]

How is it substantive? How is it made quantifiable and therefore a true measure?

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

Emma Hardy Excerpts

Monday 20th September 2021 Public Bill Committees

[Michelle Donelan]

The hon. Gentleman makes a point about the previous activities of the OfS, whereas today we are focusing in this Bill on freedom of speech. This is a new set of requirements, with a new director, that will be coming into force, and they will be doing an annual report, as we have already discussed.

[Emma Hardy (Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle) (Lab)]

rose—

[Matt Western]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[Michelle Donelan]

I completely agree with my hon. Friend. That point was laboured by many of the witnesses we saw in evidence. As I said to the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington a moment ago, this is much more than an issue of dealing with no-platforming; we are trying to address the chilling effect.

[Emma Hardy]

I am slightly confused. The Minister is saying that the OfS has been collecting the data, but why has it not been reporting on it? The difficulty with the chilling effect is how quantifiable it is. This is about hard data and events that have been cancelled or no-platformed. The amendment would provide hard data, rather than reliance on some mystical ability to mind-read or judge how chilled someone feels in a particular environment.

[Michelle Donelan]

I heard the hon. Lady, but yet again the Opposition are failing to grasp the severity of the problem we are trying to deal with, and so honour our manifesto commitment to squash the issues with free speech on our campuses. Those issues are much more entrenched than simply no-platforming. We have heard that from various sources, academics and students alike, who have told us that they have felt curtailed in their ability to speak out on certain issues, to teach certain topics, and so on.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matt Western]

I beg to move amendment 77, in clause 6, page 7, line 10, at end insert—

“(3A) Any monetary penalty will be limited to a maximum amount set out by the Office for Students decided in consultation with representative bodies of universities and of students’ unions.”

This amendment would ensure that there is a limit on the penalty to be paid by an individual or institution as a result of this legislation.

With the amendment, of course, we have clause 6. The concern that we have throughout the Bill is the additional burden that it will place, as we have said so many times, on the universities, colleges and others that will be covered by it, as well as the student unions. We have to put this in the context, which I have cited before, of what is going on and what the Government seem to be doing, which is centralising powers in bodies that are not necessarily independent in the way that they are suggested to be. I really am very worried, like my right hon. Friend the Member for North Durham, about how this really centralising and very authoritarian Government are introducing red tape and placing more burden and more cost on institutions and student unions. We see this in other fields as well.

What is clear from this legislation and what we have heard in evidence is just how much responsibility will fall to student unions. The regulatory burden that they will face is really disproportionate. They are already subject to the regulation in this area by the Charity Commission. However, in the Bill, there is no mention of it, even in the schedule, as far as I can see; perhaps the Minister can point it out to me in due course. I cannot see anything about the Charity Commission, which is the regulator of student unions. Looking at the Bill, we would not even know that the Charity Commission existed or had any remit over student unions. It is not in the body of the Bill; it is not even in the schedule—it is nowhere. Perhaps it is the case that the Government want to leverage out the Charity Commission from any say in what goes on in our universities. Perhaps the Minister could address that point specifically. As has been said before, how will the Office for Students and the Charity Commission engage? Student unions are unincorporated associations, so it is not clear how these penalties will apply in practice. Also, the proposals covered in the Bill do not recognise the devolved nature of student unions’ governance, as we have said before. For example, a chair of a society may not follow an agreed procedure, which could result in an invited speaker needing to be disinvited once due process was followed.

[Emma Hardy]

I will continue to make this point, because it is an important one that needs to be made: not all student unions are wealthy institutions. As I have already mentioned, the Bill includes higher education organisations and further education colleges that might not even have any full-time officials working for their student union, but will have to comply with this heavy piece of legislation.

The problem with the Bill is that it has been written in the belief that every university is like the Russell Group universities, forgetting the many York St Johns and Liverpool Hopes out there, which are much smaller institutions but still part of the higher education landscape. How on earth would some of those student unions be able to afford to comply with the legislation, as the Minister is asking them to?

[Matt Western]

My hon. Friend is right, and that is a point I was going to come on to. I was just looking through my notes about the Office of the Independent Adjudicator and I saw that it said its membership has increased from 150 providers in 2014 to almost 800 providers in 2021, and that is an absolute plethora of universities, colleges, and so on. They are all of different sizes. An agricultural college might have a couple of hundred students, or as could a specialist performing arts college, a music college or drama college. What on earth will this measure do to such institutions, in terms of their liability and responsibility? They will certainly not be able to afford and sustain societies in their student unions.

It is incredibly concerning and there is almost a failure in the Bill to accept the burden that will head the way of these colleges from Government. I think we heard that really clearly from Hillary Gyebi-Ababi, the vice president of the National Union Students. She talked about the huge financial impact on the sector, saying:

“If I am being completely honest, a lot of stuff in the Bill is really, really concerning, such as measures under which people could get monetary sanctions for breaches of freedom of speech.”––[Official Report, Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Public Bill Committee, 13 September 2021; c. 128.]

In another evidence session, my right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington made the point to Professor Kathleen Stock that

“The Bill itself lays a huge range of conditions on student unions and university and academic institutions, and then it brings in potentially draconian sanctions, but we do not know what the sanctions are”.

Professor Stock replied:

“I can see that it is a risk.”––[Official Report, Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Public Bill Committee, 7 September 2021; c. 14.]

Professor Layzell of Universities UK also gave evidence, saying:

“Again, we would want the sanctions to be proportionate. I think I would look at it in the context of us all wanting to do better in this space.”––[Official Report, Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Public Bill Committee, 13 September 2021; c. 126.]

On Second Reading, a point was made by my hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham (Mary Kelly Foy):

“In fact, Durham University has informed me that, far from encouraging a wider range of views, the threat of sanction could actually result in a more risk-averse speaker programme.”—[Official Report, 12 July 2021; Vol. 699, c. 106.]

A great many more people from across the sector, including from student union bodies, have registered that concern about how they see the Bill having the reverse impact to the one intended, and having a chilling effect of reducing free speech and debate on our campuses, irrespective of their size.

Since becoming shadow Minister, I have met the National Union of Students several times—remotely, of course—and I am pleased to support amendment 77, which it helped to construct and which would introduce an upper limit on the fines. It is vital to have visibility of what sanction or cost there will be. There needs to be a schedule of the maximum penalty an institution could face. How will it be proportionate? Will it depend on the number of students at a college, or will it depend on the nature of the transgression? How on earth will it work?

[Emma Hardy]

I am in complete agreement with my hon. Friend. Going back to the point regarding student unions, a one-size-fits-all fining system could find that for a student union with a much lower income and smaller resources, the proportion as a percentage would be much higher, which is why, as my hon. Friends propose, we need consultation with representative bodies of universities and student unions. If we want to impose the same punishment in relative terms, that could then be done accurately.

[Matt Western]

The frustration from right across the sector is that there has not been more consultation, discussion and engagement about the issue and how to address it, and how to deliver legislation that might be workable across the sector with the representative bodies, the Government and so on.

My concern is that this measure is another example of how the matter has been left wide open, and that is problematic for the bodies—in this case, the National Union of Students and the various student unions. In the short time that I have had in terms of exposure to the sector, I say to the Minister that it has a profound and growing distrust of the Government because of this legislation. It feels as though the sanctions have been designed to damage or nullify student unions. On that note, I will sit down.

--- Later in debate ---

[John McDonnell]

There is the process of the tort, the process of the civil actions that will take place and the process of the monetary penalties imposed by the OfS. The courts eventually, after precedents have been set, will arrive at some level of compensation. Unless we can set out a legal tariff early on, it will be up to the courts and anything could happen.

[Emma Hardy]

Maybe I am unfairly anticipating what the Minister will say, but I assume it will involve the words “guidance”, “waiting” and “after the Bill”—perhaps not in that order. Therefore, if this will be looked at in guidance after the Bill in consultation, does my right hon. Friend agree that it should be put in the Bill right now?

[John McDonnell]

Confidence in legislation is secured through engagement, consultation and, where there is disagreement, an understanding to disagree. Then when the Bill is taken to the Floor of the Commons, the confidence of Members has been gained because there has been that thorough consultation. Unless that is done, Members are voting for a pig in a poke. Unless the detail of the regime is set out—in particular, the tariffs and what the maximum will be—how can people vote for this legislation, knowing what its implications are?

To go back to the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown made, let us distinguish between what the courts will do—they will set the level in due course through precedent and so on—and the scheme. The sanctions, the tariffs and the maximum monetary penalties are to be set by the Government. I therefore make the very simple point that when Governments set tariffs in this way, to gain the confidence of the House it is usually best to explain what the tariffs will be.

[Emma Hardy]

Again, to stress the point about consultation, as I was trying to explain previously, if this is not done in consultation with student unions, especially small student unions at smaller higher education institutions, this will bankrupt them. I am sure the Minister does not wish to be the person responsible for the bankruptcy of a number of student unions up and down the country. I therefore advise that the consultation and guidance be done before Members of Parliament get to vote on the final Bill.

[John McDonnell]

It is just the simple approach of talking to student unions and saying, “What effect would this tariff have on you? Would it push you over the edge? Would it bankrupt you? Is this an appropriate sanction? Would it act as a deterrent? Would people appreciate the risk that they are undertaking by non-compliance with the OfS’s requirements on these individual bodies?” Universities and student unions will almost certainly be consulting their insurance providers about the potential risk and the level by which they have to insure themselves to ensure that they, quite properly, exercise their fiduciary duty of protecting their organisation in the light of that risk. How can they do that if they do not know what is coming at them down that tunnel? The light that is coming at them could be a huge train hitting them with a huge fine.

--- Later in debate ---

[Michelle Donelan]

I am not going to set out a detailed timetable, but I assure the hon. Member that there will be sufficient consultation with both the sector and student unions.

[Emma Hardy]

Further to the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington, the Minister mentioned parliamentary scrutiny, and I want to press her on this issue. She should be able to give us at least an outline of whether we will know about this before Report, before Third Reading and before it goes to the Lords. When will parliamentary scrutiny happen? On something as important as this, surely we should have some indication from the Government.

[Michelle Donelan]

This is in line with how we have done legislation before, and to have in the Bill the details of the exact things that the hon. Member is asking for would not be appropriate.

--- Later in debate ---

[Michelle Donelan]

I think what is actually important is to have sufficient time for engagement and consultation with the sector and student unions, for the very reasons given about their varying size, financial assets and so on. Rushing the regulations would have an effect contrary to what Opposition Members are arguing for.

It is important to note that the power of the OfS to impose a penalty will be subject to the safeguards set out in schedule 3 of the 2017 Act. That reflects the approach taken to the monetary penalty under section 15 of that Act. We see no reason to deviate from that tried and tested approach.

[Emma Hardy]

I thank the Minister for giving way again—she is being generous. To make it as simple as possible, we would like to know when we will find out what the maximum penalty will be. She talks about parliamentary scrutiny and the need for consultation. To be as clear as possible, will we know before the final vote on Third Reading?

[Michelle Donelan]

I think that I have been quite clear, but I shall be even clearer: the regulations will be passed via secondary legislation, when there will be an opportunity for hon. Members to scrutinise those decisions. We want to ensure adequate time for consultation with the sector and with students unions to get that right.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matt Western]

It was not just our amendment 77. The nub of the problem is how student unions are being muscled by the Government to do certain work for them. I cannot help but use the word “authoritarian” throughout, but this heavy jack-boot seems to be stamping down on student unions across the country, particularly the smaller ones, which will not have the scale, finances or resource to sustain the obligations that the Government are putting on them—particularly if that is the Government’s aim. Maybe their intention throughout all this is to see the demise of student unions and maybe some alternative structure to replace them.

[Emma Hardy]

I found this the most disappointing part so far because we are talking about issues of equality. The Minister said she had the higher education and further education brief because they wanted to bring more equity into those areas. We know what will happen under the Bill: the student unions with money and resources will be able to comply and continue, and the student unions without them will not; they will not be able to offer what they have been able to offer so far. It is incredibly disappointing for the Minister to say that secondary legislation will be where the consultation happens. That is an incredibly disappointing response from the Minister. I hope she will recognise that what the Bill actually does is create a system where only the elite universities have functioning student unions and the rest of the students can do without.

[Matt Western]

Labour cannot support this clause in its entirety. There are many points that could be highlighted. New section 69B(9) states::

“If a students’ union fails to comply with a requirement under subsection (8) and does not satisfy the OfS that it is unable to provide the information, the OfS may enforce the duty to comply with the requirement in civil proceedings for an injunction.”

God, the heavy hand of Government! It is like the opening credits of Monty Python with that hand coming down from the clouds and stamping on the little person, and that is the case for student unions across the country.

--- Later in debate ---

[Emma Hardy]

I want to give a tangible example, just in case the Minister has missed this. This regulation, as written here, will apply to Basingstoke College of Technology’s student union. By dint of the college being OfS-registered, because of its HE provision, its student union, which is currently governed by some 17-year-olds keen on running Rag Week, will have to comply with the regulations written here and, as we have heard from the Minister, there will be a fine of an undisclosed amount if they do not, yet still JCRs will not have to comply. Does the Minister not accept that applying this to every single student union, regardless of whether it forms part of an FE college or an HE college, is a little over-bureaucratic?

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle]

My understanding is that this relates not just to the student union’s activities be in the HE sector, but to the whole of the student union’s activities, even in the FE part of the institution, so student unions in that sector may face more administrative and regulatory burdens than their parent institutions. It is a bizarre situation. That is why this whole provision must be withdrawn, or voted against, or at least rephrased. The Minister must make sure that this is restricted to only that part of the activity that is HE, and that the regulation is light-touch, and she must make reference to how this relates to Charity Commission regulation. That does not apply for higher education institutions, because they are not regulated by the Charity Commission; they are exempted charities. Since 2010, student unions have not been exempted, so they have to register. They are regulated charities, and this measure is totally contradictory to the current regulation.

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle]

Of course I understand that, but a complaint is not simple and will not be simple. For example, a charity that is seen to prejudice one part of speech, particularly political speech, would be in breach of charity regulations already, because we cannot privilege one part of speech or one part of activities as a charity because it is political speech. That is quite right, excepting the ruling of Baldry v. Feintuck, which says that political party associations of students can be supported within the student union if it is self-organised, because it is not the political activity it is supporting but the educational activity of students mocking up being in a political party, so they can hold mock elections and so on.

There is detailed case law and detailed legislation. The danger is that this Bill runs roughshod over that. People would have two places where they could complain. The complainant can go to the Charity Commission, where there is a basis of case law that is already very nuanced, and they can go to the OfS, where there is no case law and no such basis. Because we know the OfS will not necessarily be built with lawyers or making its decisions based on case law, the danger is that we will end up getting semi-contradictory decisions.

Baldry v. Feintuck says that student unions are free to support a Conservative club, for example, and to give money to that student Conservative club for its operations, as long as it offers the same amount of resources to the Labour club, the Lib Dem club or whatever different clubs might come along. There is a danger, however, that free speech regulation will say, “Actually, the regulations need to be different and will require the clubs to accept a broad range of views.” That is different from the basis on which those clubs have been set up.

I ask the Minister to reconsider ensuring that there is a direct reference to the Charity Commission and to the order of priorities in which someone would make a complaint to a student union. Currently, they could make a complaint to the institution, to the Charity Commission and the OfS.

[Emma Hardy]

And the OIA.

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle]

And the OIA. I would appreciate the Minister doing that, because it is a minefield. We heard as much from the representative of Universities UK, who said that they were deeply worried that this would confuse the matter and make things more difficult in terms of regulation.

Before I finish, I will touch on the finances. Universities effectively have the powers to raise finances through their recruitment of students and the research grants they get. Universities live and die, in that sense, in their corporate actions. Student unions, for the most part, raise no money themselves. Gone are the days of the student bar and the student club. If Conservative hon. Members think that student unions get money from those, I am afraid they are misguided. The vast majority of student unions rely solely on a grant from the university. They are solely dependent on the university, higher education institution or further education institution.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle]

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

[Emma Hardy]

Another alternative is, of course, based on examples like the one I gave of Basingstoke College of Technology’s student union, and the other smaller student unions that exist out there. They simply stop having a student union and stop engagement, because some of these smaller colleges and institutions, which I have drawn attention to several times, could not afford the insurance. Those unions do not get much money from their colleges, which are their main providers, and therefore might not exist in the future. It would be a devastating impact of this Bill if we ended up with fewer student unions around the country.

--- Later in debate ---

[Michelle Donelan]

The time limit refers to amendments 36 and 37, which I will proceed to, but indeed we are not setting a time limit. It would depend on what had happened and the facts that were available. It would be investigated. I am not convinced that getting into a speculative hypothetical will help today’s discussion.

Amendments 36 and 37 seek to impose on the face of the Bill a time limit of five years as to who may bring a complaint to the OfS complaints scheme. As drafted, proposed paragraph 5(2)(a) of new schedule 6A in clause 7 sets out that the complaints scheme

“may include provision that…complaints…must be referred under the scheme within”

a specific time frame. That reflects similar provisions in the Higher Education Act 2004, enabling the Office for the Independent Adjudicator for Higher Education to set a time limit for its scheme. The OIA only considers complaints made within 12 months of the date that a higher education provider told the students of its final decision. That is considerably shorter than the five years in the suggested amendments. To refer back to the point made by the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington, that needs to be decided by the director and in the guidance and regulations. We are not setting out a timeframe in the Bill. That would come in the detail.

[Emma Hardy]

May I clarify whether a time limit will be set out, if not in the Bill, in the guidance produced later?

[Michelle Donelan]

To clarify, in the Bill there is no time limit, but our full expectation is that there will be one in accordance with precedent, such as that of the OIA. There will be a reasonable time limit, set in conjunction with the voices that have been heard, of the sector and of the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington, who made his suggestion today. Accordingly, when the OfS sets out the details of the complaints scheme, it will be able to set an appropriate time limit. It is not necessary to set that out on the face of the Bill, as I have stated.

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

Emma Hardy Excerpts

Thursday 16th September 2021 Public Bill Committees

[Sir John Hayes]

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

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

[Emma Hardy (Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle) (Lab)]

I understand the motivation behind the amendment. However, resources are not endless. The Office for Students has many other duties and responsibilities. This amendment gives preference and priority to quarterly reporting on this issue above all others.

The OfS’s remit is incredibly wide: it is meant to ensure that students have a high-quality education. In terms of the past year, and the number of online lessons that students have had and the difficulties with the quality of their education, this amendment would have meant the Office for Students devoting more time to looking at freedom of speech than at those other issues. On the question of resourcing, is this amendment practical?

[Sir John Hayes]

Of course, in the amendment I do not specify the character of the report. I assume it will not be a thesis. I am not expecting disproportionate resource to be allocated to the provision of this quarterly report. In my mind, it would be a summary of the steps that had been taken to meet the positive duties. Frankly, I would not have thought that that was a very bureaucratic exercise, if the universities are doing the job.

The hon. Lady is right that it would be onerous if they were not doing the job and were struggling to comprehend or respond to those duties, because they would presumably be having to find explanations to legitimise why they had not done what they ought to have done. If they are doing the job as the Bill instructs them, a short summary to explain that would not be difficult to deliver.

--- Later in debate ---

[Emma Hardy]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for being generous and allowing me to come back. The point is not just that it is onerous and that it involves quarterly reporting, but that it is a question of priority and statement. Under the amendment, the OfS would be saying, “We will give priority to looking at the Bill above all our other duties, because we will have to have quarterly reports,” as opposed to the annual reports they have for most other duties. After the difficult year that students have had, saying that this should be given to the Office for Students every quarter as their main priority is not the message that the Office for Students should be sending to their students.

[Sir John Hayes]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Mr Jones]

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

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

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

[Emma Hardy]

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Matt Western]

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

[Emma Hardy]

As we recall, the previous Secretary of State for Education wrote two letters to the OfS. In both those letters, he demanded that it reduce the amount of regulation given to universities, so I am not sure how the amendment stands with the directions of the now previous Secretary of State.

[Matt Western]

My hon. Friend is right, and her experience is appreciated and valued. I think we have a problem, in that the OfS is a bit of a misnomer. I am not entirely sure that its interests are aimed at students, or whether its responsibilities are more towards the institutions or, increasingly, about being an office for Government, as opposed to an Office for Students.

Do we have reporting on the number of incidents of violence against women? Do we have reporting data on mental health incidents and issues? There are so many important and pressing issues among our student communities across the country, but those are not being listened to by the OfS. I would have thought that, given it is a few years since its inception and it has a new chair, surely those are the sorts of issues that its chair would want to get into—to understand what is of concern to the student body, as opposed to what is of concern to the Government.

With the idea of having the report—we have debated what it might look like—I think back to the days of my previous role in business and, in a subsidiary organisation, of the reporting that would go to head office. How should it look, or was it just something we knew would just sit on a shelf and never really get looked at? It helped those in head office that they had those reports.

The crucial thing, I would say, is that with any move by the OfS, it has to look at systems of standardising the data that comes in on the areas that I have been discussing—mental health, violence against women, accommodation and so on—before it starts to introduce the burdens. As was said in the Government’s own impact assessment, the costs will already be something like £48 million over 10 years—the burden of this legislation, even before we get into quarterly submissions as well. At a time when universities and higher education institutions are under huge pressure, that is an unnecessary additional request.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matt Western]

I will address these amendments in turn. While I appreciate the three of them being grouped together, the essence of the amendments is about ensuring the retention of democracy within our institutions, whether that be among staff, students or the entire body. I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington, who inputted the content of these amendments and is keen to speak to them.

It was interesting to hear from Danny Stone from the Antisemitism Policy Trust, who referenced the Manchester principles, which he worked hard on back in the day. Under those principles, an event was first advertised, in order to allow students to object if they thought it necessary. That is important. Amendments 75 and 76 echo the sentiment of the Manchester principles. We also heard in the evidence sessions from Professor Jonathan Grant from King’s College London about the work that KCL and other institutions have done. He said,

“What we did at King’s was work with our student union in developing a joint statement modelled on the Chicago principles and signed by both the president of the student union and the president of King’s College London. On the back of that, we developed a committee that reviewed all so-called high-risk events. That committee was made up of equal numbers of university staff, academics and professional staff, and students. It made recommendations to the senior vice-principal for operations and, potentially, to the principal. In my mind, creating a sort of co-production and co-creation process around managing those events was deeply beneficial because”,

as Professor Layzell had said,

“both sides started having conversations about the boundaries of what is and is not acceptable. Both groups then owned the process and the mitigations thereafter.”––[Official Report, Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Public Bill Committee, 13 September 2021; c. 123, Q268.]

The approach of KCL, University College London and many other institutions has been to establish these sorts of co-production and co-operative processes to ensure the rights to free speech are heard, but within an understanding and responsibility to the Equality Act 2010. That shows changes could have been put in place across the sector if the Government had consulted and engaged more openly with the sector, and looked at the likes of KCL, UCL and others to see best practice, what can be done, and what could be developed.

In response to the comments made by Professor Grant, Professor Layzell said that Universities UK would absolutely support that approach, and that what Professor Grant was saying was right. This can be achieved and it could have been achieved. That underlines the belief right across the sector that this legislation is unnecessary. Their process and these amendments seek to ensure the inclusion of all voices and all relevant parties interested in free speech on campus, and to achieve the cultural effect the Government are trying to achieve. We believe that, through a democratic process and through the engagement of all parties, that could have been, and could still be, achieved. As many have said, the legislation is a real sledgehammer to crack the proverbial nut.

I turn to amendment 74 on the countervailing right to peaceful protest by staff, students and other interested parties. We seem to be losing some sort of perspective on how important protest is. In the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill, there is a move by the Government to suppress freedom of speech and people’s right to protest on whatever it may be, whether they be on the right, the left or anywhere in between. People have different views, and they should be allowed to express them. Protest is just one simple form of freedom of speech. I am sure, Sir Christopher, that you will appreciate that. Back in your days as a student, you would have wanted to exercise that right just as much as anyone else.

[Emma Hardy]

One of the contradictions that I find with the Bill is that it gives the right to freedom of speech anywhere at any time within a university; however, under the Government’s new Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill, they wish to ban protest in Parliament Square. It seems slightly muddled.

[Matt Western]

We could be slightly cynical. I would not personally suggest this, but some might suggest that it is about freedom of speech as long as your speech is the sort of speech that the Government want to hear, as opposed to a genuine desire to have freedom of speech. You have to look at the legislation in the context of not just the PCSC Bill but what is going on with our museums. Sir Charles Dunstone, who I thought was once upon a time a Conservative donor, has resigned from the Royal Museums Greenwich because of the interference coming from the Government.

That echoes the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for North Durham that there is meddling, interference, and an authoritarian chill going on from No. 10. I do not necessarily believe that the Minister thinks or behaves like that, but an incredibly centralising force is coming through from the Government. Trevor Phillips, in his evidence, said:

“In common law there is a right to protest in this country. I would have gladly seen something in this legislation that referred to that, but the truth is that we do have that right.”––[Official Report, Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Public Bill Committee, Tuesday 7 September 2021; c. 26, Q50.]

We have that right presently, but it is being challenged by the Government. We need to remind ourselves how important freedom of speech is, and how important protest is to it.

Professor Whittle, who I had heard of and read about, gave quite moving evidence. He said:

“I have organised protests outside events myself but that has never been to close down the conversation. It has been to express an alternative point of view—to say, ‘Here are many voices who disagree with the voice inside.’”

It is really important that wherever we may be coming from we have the opportunity to protest and to put across our point of view, exercising our freedom of speech. He added:

“My main concern about the Bill is that it will provide an additional chilling effect overall, not to speakers but to potential protesters. It will result in people who want to express an alternative viewpoint, who are not speakers and do not have that opportunity to participate in the event…having no way of expressing that without appearing to challenge somebody’s right to free speech.”––[Official Report, Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Public Bill Committee, Tuesday 7 September 2021; c. 38, Q71.]

That was picked up by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle, who said to him:

“So you would want to see amendments to the Bill that gave students the right to continue to protest, and not therefore fall under the guidance of the Bill.”

He replied:

“Absolutely. Legitimate protest within universities is an absolute must.”––[Official Report, Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Public Bill Committee, Tuesday 7 September 2021; c. 44, Q81.]

What would universities be without protest? What would they be without true free speech? Amendment 74 serves to provide that protection of protest—a physical manifestation of freedom of speech and academic freedom.

--- Later in debate ---

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

My right hon. Friend reminds me that one of the first acts of the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May) in 2010 when she became Home Secretary was to ban a march of the English Defence League in Bradford, not because she was a dangerous person undermining free speech, but because only nine years earlier, we had devastating race riots in Bradford that left a long scar on the community. I do not say that because I think there is a danger that the English Defence League will march through university campuses—although I do not rule it out. Because it was a public space, the Secretary of State had the ability in that instance to make a ruling that, even though what the English Defence League was marching about was legal in that it was not directly inciting hatred—many people say that it was doing so indirectly—there was a public order issue that she was concerned about. We need the ability in the code of practice for universities to look at that balance of ensuring public order and safety on their campuses.

[Emma Hardy]

I refer the Committee again to Sunder Katwala’s evidence. He said:

“I feel that an event at a student union, ‘No blacks in the England team—keep our team white,’ does not seem to be the kind of event that we want to protect, and yet that is lawful but reprehensible speech, which we want to stigmatise, even though it is free speech within the law.”––[Official Report, Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Public Bill Committee, 13 September 2021; c. 130, Q213.]

Unless we build some protection—some ability to consult—into the law, such events could take place. As our right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington said, they would be likely to lead to confrontation.

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle]

I agree. I am sure that the Minister will point to clause 1 and proposed new section A2(2) of the Higher Education and Research Act 2017, which provides that universities must create a code of practice that considers the conduct required of people speaking at the university. She may say that that is sufficient, but given that the Bill provides for a code of practice, it is a perfect time to consider how it is drawn up. It is not the Opposition saying that there should be a code of practice or that there should be limits on how people behave in public meetings or even in academic practice; the Government have included the provision. The Government are saying that universities must have a system to determine and delineate.

However, we have heard that what management thinks is acceptable is often very different from what the academic community and students find acceptable. Management might be motivated by thinking about good PR and what looks good in their recruitment, whereas academics might consider what is important for academic rigour, creating new debate and so on. The amendments are important because they propose including students and staff in the discussion about and creation of the code, and therefore the voting to approve it. Without including them, there is a danger that the code of conduct will be written up and created by universities and do everything that some people do not want it to do.

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

Emma Hardy Excerpts

Thursday 16th September 2021 Public Bill Committees

[The Chair]

I start by inviting Members to declare any interests.

[Emma Hardy (Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle) (Lab)]

My partner works at the University of Hull on the degree apprenticeship programme.

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

My wife works at a higher education firm.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matt Western]

I beg to move amendment 44, in clause 1, page 3, line 28, after “education” insert—

“and in the conduct of research”

This amendment would ensure that higher education providers must promote the importance of academic freedom in the conduct of academic research as well as teaching.

This is another example of a small detail that we wish to amend. As we said throughout yesterday’s proceedings, we want to keep to a minimum any damage that the legislation might cause to our institutions, the viability of student unions and, indeed, the entire sector. The amendment equates protecting freedom of speech and academic freedom, not just for teaching, but for the conduct of research as well.

The point that we want to stress and to have reflected in the Bill is that all too often, observers of the higher education sector think purely about education in the form of instruction, as my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown said. Teaching can be instruction, of course, but in the realm of higher education institutions in particular, there is differentiation when it comes to research.

Research is so important; it is the fundamental differentiator in institutions’ success and reputations. The amendment would add the words

“and in the conduct of research”

because research is important not just to society but to the development of our understanding of humanity and more. Dr Ahmed said that academics should be allowed to pursue

“lines of research that they think might be fruitful”.––[Official Report, Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Public Bill Committee, 7 September 2021; c. 13, Q22.]

That is why we want to ensure that, as we heard in evidence, research is at the core of the sector. It needs to be included where possible, to remind everyone of just how central it is to the debate.

[Emma Hardy]

This discussion follows on quite well from debate on amendment 59, tabled by the hon. Member for Congleton, in that it seeks to close a loophole for masters and PhD students. That is what amendment 44 is intended to resolve. Our discussion about academic freedom and freedom of speech applied to those involved in teaching. The amendment nips off that loophole so that the provisions can apply to masters and PhD students.

[Matt Western]

I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention. In response to a point by the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings about the detransitioning of research at the University of Bath, Professor Whittle said in evidence that

“had Bath addressed it properly, they could have done more to say, ‘This needs sorting and this does before we will consider it.’”––[Official Report, Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Public Bill Committee, 7 September 2021; c. 41, Q75.]

The amendment would incorporate innovative research under the academic freedom duty, and that would push the likes of the University of Bath towards further exploring how such research proposals could be encouraged. It is a very simple amendment, but we hope that, in the spirit of how we have tried to co-operate, the Government will accept it.

[Michelle Donelan]

This amendment seeks to extend the duty of higher education providers to promote the importance of freedom of speech and academic freedom so that it specifically applies in the conduct of research, as well as in the provision of higher education more generally. The duty set out in proposed new section A3 of the Higher Education and Research Act 2017, created by clause 1 of the Bill, is a new one. It requires a provider to promote the importance of free speech within the law and academic freedom throughout its provision of higher education. This is a general duty that intends to drive a positive tone on campuses across the country, promoting a culture in which everyone on campus can express their lawful views, and in which academics feel safe to question and test received wisdoms and put forward new ideas and controversial or unpopular opinions.

[Emma Hardy]

The amendment is specifically meant to address cases in which an individual is sometimes a student and sometimes a teacher. As a PhD researcher their activity falls under academic freedom, but as a student it falls under freedom of speech. An individual can hold two different roles at two different times depending on what they are doing, and that problem is what we were trying to resolve with this amendment.

[Michelle Donelan]

I think that the next part of my comments will address the hon. Member’s concerns. A key element of this duty is to promote academic freedom for academic staff. It is widely understood and set out in international case law that academics should expect that their academic freedom is protected for any research they seek to undertake, as well as in the design and delivery of their teaching and wider comments or writings that they issue. The duty to promote the importance of academic freedom in the provision of higher education will therefore cover research undertaken in that context, noting the high-level nature of the duty. However, I have listened to hon. Members today, and while this will be made clear in the guidance, I shall commit to take this issue away and see whether further clarity would be of assistance.

--- Later in debate ---

“(d) staff and members of the provider and of its constituent institutions, and”.—(Michelle Donelan.)

[Emma Hardy]

I beg to move amendment 83, in clause 2, page 4, line 3, after the first “the” insert “sole”.

This amendment, with Amendment 84, relates to use of the premises of a registered student union, stating that they can be provided and will not be denied on the basis of the grounds referred to in subsection (4).

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 84, in clause 2, page 4, leave out lines 6 and 7.

This amendment is linked to Amendment 83.

[Emma Hardy]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairwomanship, Mrs Cummins. The amendments were linked to other amendments, but unfortunately they were not tabled in time, so I will try to make as much sense of this as I possibly can.

The amendments are a reaction to the written evidence we received from the Free Churches Group of England and Wales. For those who are not familiar with it, it is a group of academics and it includes the Baptist Union of Great Britain, Churches in Communities International, the Methodist Church and various other Christian groups that work together in higher education. I do not know whether I should declare an interest, but as a Christian Methodist I think very highly of this group and take very seriously its written evidence and its concerns about the Bill.

The group’s written evidence addresses the question of premises and where people are able to debate free speech. We have said many times that we all support free speech; we all accept that people have different views and that those views can be heard in different places. The amendments seek to address the issue of premises, and I would summarise them as being about respect. While we can hold a different view, sometimes we need to think very carefully about the place in which we choose to express it.

I will quote directly from the group’s evidence:

“One problem is that it is not clear which groups might claim use of premises under what circumstances under this clause. Even the Government is unclear whether it will mean universities are required to provide premises for holocaust deniers. What seems equally unclear is whether the clause means that groups opposed to views or activities a space is designated for will be allowed to enter that space to express their views. Arguably not to allow such access would be to deny those wishing entry use of premises, and freedom to speak there, on the basis of their views, beliefs etc. Thus the Bill may be taken to provide for a group opposed to religion to enter an Islamic prayer room to exercise their freedom to speak their views on religion, or, indeed to enter a room booked by, say, a Christian Union or a Jewish Society for similar reasons. Does the Bill provide for holocaust deniers to have entry to a room booked by the Jewish society, or can holocaust deniers be denied entry on the basis of their beliefs?”

The written evidence from the Free Churches Group of higher education institutions does not say that people should not be allowed to express such opinions or to be given space to express them, but it does say that thought needs to be given to the need for respect for the place in which those opinions are expressed.

The right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington has mentioned the idea of consulting people when permission is sought to hold an event. For example, we would not expect an event that denies the existence of God to be held in a Christian Union building, out of respect.

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

Obviously, I sympathise with the hon. Lady’s sentiment because there is a need for privacy in different circumstances—she talked about churches and mosques and so on. However, the Bill does not confer on anyone the right to demand the opportunity to speak when and where they want. Perhaps it is being cast in that way by some—I do not think by her, but by others outside this place—but it does not give that right to anyone. We are talking about invitation and privacy, are we not? Those things pertain, regardless.

[Emma Hardy]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman.

[John McDonnell]

That is an interesting point. I have been in situations where an individual has joined an organisation as an agent provocateur and has undertaken activities in the name of the organisation deliberately to bring about bad odour and destroy its reputation. I do not see any protections in this Bill against someone joining the Muslim society, or whatever, within the organisation, then demanding that an invitation be put out to a fascist, and then the organisation getting caught. It is very difficult to prove that there was some form of vexatious participation. I remember—this is partly related —when the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis) joined the Labour party to infiltrate it and bring bad odour. It happens. I congratulated him on it as a tactic eventually. These things do happen, and my worry is that there is no defence against that in this Bill.

[Emma Hardy]

My right hon. Friend makes an extremely valid point: there is not that protection. I again refer hon. Members to the written evidence. This is not written evidence from some small organisation that does nothing; it is the Free Churches Group of England and Wales. It is a group of higher education institutions.

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle]

I am thinking not about invitations to external speakers but about students—students’ unions, where there are students of opposing views. The Bill says:

“the use of any premises occupied by the students’ union is not denied to any individual or body on grounds specified in subsection (4)”—

belief and so on. We need to be clear—perhaps the Minister can come back and clarify this on the record, which would help—that when we say “any premises”, we do not mean that the students’ union cannot decide which rooms are used. It is not that someone has the right to say, “I want to meet in the Christian prayer room,” or, “I want to meet in the Muslim prayer room to talk about things that would be inappropriate for those spaces.” Students’ unions must have the right to say, “Yes, we give you a free speech platform, but we decide where within our premises we do that.” Or sometimes they might say, “Not those premises, but we have other premises down the road that you can meet in.” The phrase “any premises” gives that indication. Often, chaplaincies use university premises.

[Emma Hardy]

That is exactly right. I refer again to the written evidence, which says:

“We are concerned about the drafting of Points (3) and (4) in section A1 of the Bill, repeated later in connection with Students’ Unions. These clauses have to do with the provision or denial of premises and appear to prohibit both the making and the denial of such provision on the basis of ‘ideas, beliefs or views.’…Our advice is that these clauses are ripe for a variety of interpretations or misinterpretations, with unhelpful unintended consequences possible and even likely.”

The Free Churches Group goes on to say:

“Clause 3 (a) as explicated by clause 4 is similar to Section 43 of the Education (No.2) Act 1986, but in a new context.”

That is the point it is making. The submission continues:

“The clause says use of premises cannot be denied on the basis of ideas, beliefs etc. It has, as far as we know, led to no problems so far and that may continue to be the case. However, inserting it into this Bill, with its strengthened requirements, lack of clarity, and temperature-raising highlighting of a very few cases as justification for the Bill, may affect its previously benign record.”

I accept that I was rushed in putting together these amendments—the Clerks were very helpful—and this might not be the exact wording that the Minister wishes to use, but the question of premises and when something can be allowed or not needs to be addressed. We need that reassurance. As I say, these amendments are meant to be not about denying opposition or other people’s point of view, but about just having some respect about where they are held.

That goes back to the point made so eloquently by my right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington about some events needing to be done in consultation with other groups and people within the student union body and the higher education system to ensure that such things do not happen.

I do not believe for one moment that any hon. Member in Committee would think it acceptable to hold an anti-Islamic debate in an Islamic prayer room and I do not believe for a moment that the Minister or the Government intended that when drafting the Bill. I am saying, with the helpful intervention of my right hon. Friend, that people could join those groups, they could invite someone to be provocative and they could insist on the debate taking place in particular premises, which would cause incredible upset for many people.

[John McDonnell]

I fear to tread into this, but there are schisms within individual organisations. Anyone who has had any dealings in recent years with the gurdwaras in this country knows that we have had real issues, as we have had in the Christian religion. There have been disputes, debates and so on within different groups in a particular religion, some denying premises to individual groups and that becoming a matter of contest. We are treading into some extremely dangerous territory, if we are not careful. We could be dragged into disputes that result, eventually, in claims in court.

[Emma Hardy]

Absolutely. I state again, referring to the written evidence of the Free Church Group, that it

“affirms the importance of freedom of speech and academic freedom.”

I would not wish this to be interpreted in any way as the group being against free speech—it is not. It is saying that, for the purposes of the Bill, we need to have a look at the question of premises and whether some premises, or some individual rooms within premises, should be in some cases denied to certain groups, out of respect for what those premises are meant to be used for.

When the Minister replies, I hope that she takes the amendment in the spirit in which it is intended, although it is perhaps not perfectly drafted, as I have explained. However, we need to resolve that problem, because we should be mindful of the fact that people have different beliefs and opinions, and we have to show tolerance and respect at all times. All of us in this debate on free speech have said that we want to encourage a climate in which ideas are challenged, but that they should be challenged in a respectful way.

[Matt Western]

I thank my hon. Friend for the amendments, the clarity with which she presented them and the debate that they provoked—if I may use “provoked”. When we start to delve into this, it is interesting just how far-reaching the unintended consequences become. As has been examined, that is not just between external groups or about mischievousness between one group and another—whether religious or whatever—but about infiltration of groups, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington mentioned. Factions within different societies or groups might have challenges or issues of power, leading to problems on campus. Many will have views that are sacrosanct, for example, on the denial of the holocaust, and we have to respect that some places on campus should also be sacrosanct.

That can be reduced to a simple point: there is a time and a place for vigorous debate, and universities are good places for that, but we have to provide protections. That is what we have been seeking to do throughout, to ensure that individuals have protections and, here, to protect against an anti-religious group who might want to occupy a prayer room, for example. That is a conflict of duties, which would skew the balance too far in favour of freedom of speech, without referencing any of the competing freedoms to which Danny Stone referred in his evidence.

[Emma Hardy]

Referring again to the written evidence, the Free Churches Group is asking for urgent clarification and redrafting of this clause. It says:

“Whether the clause means no premises can be provided on the basis of beliefs etc is unclear and needs clarifying. If it does, the consequences for prayer rooms, chapels, chaplaincies, kitchens designed with sensitivity to religious beliefs, amongst other facilities, could be dire.”

That is the point that my hon. Friend makes. The problems with the way in which the Bill is drafted mean it is open to vexatious and disrespectful abuse.

--- Later in debate ---

[Michelle Donelan]

An important aspect of the Bill is that it does not place freedom of speech above other duties, such as freedom of religion. It is down to the university or students’ union to balance those competing duties and make a reasonable assessment. We think that freedom of speech duties should apply to the terms of use of premises. It would not be right if a students’ union decided, for example, to charge one group more for room hire than another group. In any event, proposed new section A4(3) is clear that the freedom of speech duties include the stated provision on premises, so the exact wording of the amendment would not be likely to have any effect in practice. However, I am happy to reconsider how we could make it clearer in the Bill.

[Emma Hardy]

On the basis of the Minister’s promise to go away and have a look to ensure that we can offer the clarity and reassurance needed, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment proposed: 34, in clause 2, page 4, line 13, at end insert—

“(4B) The objective under subsection (2) does not apply to any person or body that—

(a) has made any statement in public that amounts to the denial of genocide; or

(b) intends to make any statement that amounts to the denial of genocide within the premises of the students’ union or to any members of the students’ union.”.—(Matt Western.)

This amendment ensures that the duty on students’ unions to secure freedom of speech within the law does not cover those who make statements that amount to a denial of genocide.

--- Later in debate ---

[Emma Hardy]

I want to keep making one point. When we are talking about student unions and organisations, we are not just talking about Oxford and Cambridge; we are talking about all the small universities and colleges as well. It seems fairly ludicrous to me that every aspect of the Bill would apply to the very small higher education provision at Hull College, but would not apply to the junior common room. That does not seem equitable or fair.

[Matt Western]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. To that we can add all sorts of institutions—Warwickshire College Group in my constituency and many others up and down the country. That is the concern. We have this absolutely bizarre situation where we will have a two-tier system operating. For some reason, those groups that are viewed by many as being more privileged and, some would say, elite—though I would not necessarily describe them as such—are somehow being protected and insulated from the legislation in a way that others are not. It seems to be an extraordinary contradiction of the legislation when they are perhaps in need of this legislation more than, or as much as, others.

That was the first point in terms of the dual effect: preventing student bodies from explicitly deciding not to affiliate. That is a real concern about the future of student union bodies. The second point was the effect of including outside student bodies, such as JCRs and MCRs. I mentioned the point about removing the picture of the Queen from Magdalen College in Oxford. JCRs and MCRs are just as lively forums as any affiliated student union. I therefore struggle as to why the Minister would not wish to support this proposal. All we are seeking is consistency and a level playing field. There should be one rule for all, not one rule for some.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matt Western]

My right hon. Friend hits the nail on the head. It is an absurdity and, as I keep saying, an inconsistency. All legislation should be fair and consistent, and the public and, in this case, organisations will see it as disadvantageous or favouring some rather than others. That is really problematic for the sector, and it is one of the unintended consequences that the legislation will lead to. As my right hon. Friend says, we will see what, as I said a moment ago, I fear is a disaffiliation. I see groups being spawned on university campuses that are outside the student union—they will have the moniker “JCR”, or whatever it may be—that will seek to circumvent any responsibilities under the legislation.

[Emma Hardy]

Some organisations, and some student organisations, will have the ability, resources and staff power to work out how to disaffiliate, and that will happen, but many will not. It comes back to equity. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington put it perfectly, we are either all in or all out. Liverpool Hope University, which is one of the smaller universities in Liverpool, has only three full-time members of staff at its student union. It simply does not have the same resources as many other organisations to put to working out how to circumnavigate the loophole that the Minister seems intent on leaving in the Bill. Again, we have this system of inequality and unfairness in the legislation as it is written at the moment.

[Matt Western]

My hon. Friend is right: there is an issue about how this will work across diverse organisations in the sector. It is problematic because it means that yet again there is one rule for some and another rule for others. When we are discussing, debating and writing legislation, we cannot allow that difference to be compounded in it. It seems absolutely wrong.

I listened with real interest to the conversation that my right hon. Friend the Member for North Durham and his counterpart the hon. Member for North West Durham had about some of the issues that they face on a local campus regarding certain organisations. My right hon. Friend cited particular problems with some of the Chinese-based societies and how they might be acting. This is nothing specific about China—it includes other groups as well—but to amplify that point, if we are not careful such groups will ensure that they are extracted from the remit of the legislation so that they are able to act freely and beyond this law. I urge the Government to take on board this very straightforward, sensible, consistent and pragmatic new clause and include it in the legislation. It is really important, and I am sure that we will hear more from my colleagues.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle]

Neither are student unions. The Education Act 1994, which I am probably the only Member of Parliament to bang on about, because most MPs will talk about previous Education Acts, requires universities to supervise all student unions, just as they would JCRs. It requires universities to ensure that the finances of student unions are conducted fairly and to oversee the policy of the student unions, so that the universities fulfil their duties under other Education Acts, such as ensuring freedom of speech. So what the hon. Gentleman just said is the case with all student unions.

However, this Bill sees fit to mention student unions specifically, even though they are regulated—in terms of their policies, their funding, their use and their terms regarding discrimination—by the university and by the Charity Commission.

[Emma Hardy]

On the point about the regulation of student unions, it is worth pointing out that one of the criticisms of the Bill is that it introduces new and varied ways of regulating student unions, which, as we know, are also regulated by the Charity Commission. So some of the issues that we will seek to address as we get further through the Bill are about exactly which layer of regulation student unions are meant to follow first, because, as the Bill is drafted, the situation seems to be incredibly confusing.

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle]

That is quite right. One of the problems with the Bill, as my hon. Friend suggests, would be where there was an activity run by a student union, and someone felt that something had been denied and wanted to seek redress. But the student union is funded by the university, which most student unions are now—most do not rely on commercial income for the bulk of their income, because of the changing nature of students. The money is not gathered from bars that make a big profit. Gone are the days of NUS Services Ltd being the biggest beer purchaser in the country. My uncle, who used to be the director of Whitbread, used to love going to the NUSSL conferences and flogging cheap beer. Those days are just gone. The students union gets money and it uses the facilities of the university, but despite that we will now have a situation where someone could complain to the student union and complain to the university. That is very confusing, but it is not quite the point of this new clause, so I must redirect back to that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle]

That may be, but the Minister said that JCRs do not have control of their own bookings, their own policies or their own finances, and that is not quite true, if we compare them with student unions. I do take the hon. Gentleman’s point that junior common rooms are not automatically registered with the Charities Commission, for example, but I am not sure that, legally, there is anything preventing them from registering. That would be an interesting legal point.

Each junior common room, again, is slightly separate. We had a quasi-junior common room system set up at Lancaster University when that was created, to model the Oxford system, but it was significantly different, because the system of Lancaster University was different and was based in halls and housing, much of which is now run by private institutions based at the university campus because of the private finance initiative systems and so on that we have in many universities. Again, for those junior common rooms that are now often in private student halls because they had a residential-based junior common room system, how is it regulated? They are on campus, but they are private blocks now, run by private service providers. It would be clearer if we included everyone.

[Emma Hardy]

This debate highlights the wildly differing amount of resource that many of these different student unions and organisations have. It seems ludicrous that we would not directly include a JCR or MCR, with the resources and finances it has, but we probably will include, as I have mentioned before, my beloved Hull College higher education institution. It comes down to an issue of fairness. I respect the point the hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner makes, but if we are going to directly regulate one form of student activity within organisations, why not simply regulate and direct them all?

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle]

I will move away from the JCR, where we will maybe not seek agreement. I must admit I am not as au fait with the Oxford-Cambridge-Durham JCR system as maybe I should be, because I am a child of 1960s-based universities—quite literally; I went to a crèche in one—but there were, and are, equivalent JCRs run in different forms that do not follow the Oxford and Cambridge form, which therefore might not be included in this.

I come on to what I would call not a JCR, but a student space—student facilities provided alongside accommodation. Accommodation, even when it is on university campuses, which for the larger part it is not, is mostly run by private providers. The university will recommend that provider; it might even have a contract with that provider to provide a certain number of student halls. The facilities for those students—sometimes including the bar, and often including meeting spaces and recreational activities—are all provided by that private provider. Bookings are done by that private provider. The private provider might well organise a student committee of the residents to help to run that and facilitate it—in a way that is similar, I guess, to how a JCR committee would run those facilities. But they are not a student union; they are not a JCR in the Oxford-Cambridge sense. They are running a common room for students who live in those halls, but they would not be regulated by this provision, and the danger is that those spaces more and more often are being used to invite speakers, because students are self-organising, and of course people will go through all this stuff again—the ridiculousness of having to close curtains or shut down meetings which would seem totally legitimate. From a student point of view, they are using a student space that is designed only for their educational use.

[Emma Hardy]

Listening carefully, as I am, to my hon. Friend leads me to think, which I had not done before, about purpose-built student accommodation and the common spaces there. When I shadowed this brief, we had huge issues about students paying rent for things that they could not use, and that deepened my understanding that purpose-built student halls of residence are often provided by private providers. The question is whether this Bill would apply to their common room space as well. I would seek clarity from the—[Interruption.] The Whip just shouted something over to me that I missed. Perhaps the Minister could clarify the matter when she comes to make her remarks.

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle]

It might well be that the Minister can—[Interruption.] I am not sure that I am allowed to ask the Whip to speak, but he was muttering something under his breath that I did not quite hear. Let us say that we had another amendment, with slightly different wording, which was specific to, for example, student halls, places that are focused on students, places that the university authorises for students to be exclusively at—like student halls but also other student clubs. For example, I have known universities that, rather than having a student union-run bar, will make an arrangement with a commercial bar provider to provide a student-specific bar with student-specific meeting rooms. It might well be that an amendment that just ensures that the duty is extended to commercial providers would be better than this amendment. I am open to that, but we need something; otherwise there is a real danger, particularly with universities moving more and more to commercial partnerships.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle]

The point here is other student bodies. It is about when they are not directly a student union, which is what we are debating now. Our amendment would extend to all student bodies, whether or not they are directly part of the institution. That is why it is relevant to this clause. It seeks to cover an exclusively student body––not a general pub down the road––that has a relation just with students from that institution or from other institutions and that should also have some of these basic duties. If it does not have them, there is a real danger of loopholes here.

I will move on from talking about the type of provider, but there are other areas where this is relevant and important, such as non-affiliated societies. According to the lawyer we heard in evidence, the Bill would extend to the day-to-day activities of each individual society. I can understand saying to the student union, “You must allow the society to meet.” That is fine. This is about allowing societies to do that. But our understanding is that that society must fulfil the principles of the Bill. That would mean that there were two different legal frameworks for a non-affiliated society that was for all other purposes a student society in that university, and for an affiliated society.

If we go back to the essence of the chilling effect with an external speaker, a student does not necessarily know whether it is an affiliated or non-affiliated society. When an event is cancelled or a speaker is no-platformed or whatever we are worried about happening––again, I am not sure that the Bill is necessary, but these are the accusations and evidence that we heard––the danger is that the chilling effect still happens. The speaker is cancelled, the event is postponed, the society is shut down and students say, “I cannot talk about those things,” even though it might have happened in a non-affiliated space. It is important to extend that duty to all exclusively student bodies.

[Emma Hardy]

I hope that the Minister is listening, because we are trying to be as helpful as possible. Affiliated societies tend to rely on the assurance offered by being affiliated directly to the student union, and are therefore less likely to have huge sources of their own income. Non-affiliated student societies tend to have external financial support, from other countries or organisations. It comes down to equity and fairness, which is the point my hon. Friend is making about non-affiliated organisations with external support. I cannot see how the Bill would be relevant to them if they are not part of the student union, even though as my right hon. Friend––my hon. Friend rather––keeps saying, they are comprised almost entirely of students.

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle]

Exactly. We know that a number of these non-affiliated societies already exist. There is a particularly large network of Chinese student unions or Chinese student societies that receive large amounts of funding from the Chinese Communist party. Of course, their role is to be beacons of a chilling effect around campuses. They will have a property on the edge of the campus that might not be affiliated to the campus but will be open exclusively to students at that institution, and that institution will often advertise that society as the place for students to go. There are a number of ways around this. Again, I am not saying that the wording of the new clause is perfect, but we could say that the institutions would have to make it clear that such societies are not to be recommended unless they fulfil the general duties in the guidelines. We could say that institutions cannot recommend organisations that have not fulfilled the basic guidelines. That would include housing providers, but it would also mean that Chinese student societies that do not fulfil the duty could not be recommended as places for students to go locally. All of these are options that I urge the Minister to look at; otherwise, we have inequality, and there needs to be some balance.

[Emma Hardy]

As my hon. Friend keeps saying, we accept that the wording of the new clause might not be perfect, but I hope the Minister will go away and have a look at it. With regards to purpose-built student accommodation and the relationship that its providers have with some universities, it could be a condition of that relationship that they follow the procedures and guidelines in the Bill. I hope the Minister will not just dismiss our many points on this issue, because we are talking about whether we want a fair and equitable system that applies to every student in all the higher education institutions in the country. That is ultimately what the amendment is designed to achieve.

[The Chair]

Before I call Lloyd Russell-Moyle again, although we want as wide and inclusive a debate as possible, I ask Members to ensure that interventions are interventions.

--- Later in debate ---

[Michelle Donelan]

Any transgression of freedom of speech and academic freedom goes against the fundamental principles of the higher education sector in England. It is therefore essential that our universities are places where freedom of speech can thrive for all staff, students and visiting speakers, so they can contribute to a culture of open and robust intellectual debate. Student unions provide support and services to their members and their universities. It is therefore appropriate and essential that the legislative framework is extended to cover student unions directly.

The extension of the duties imposed only on higher education providers will ensure that freedom of speech is protected to the fullest extent. This will ensure our universities can continue their long and proud history of being a place where views may be freely expressed and debated. Clause 2 will provide the legislative framework to extend these important duties to student unions at approved fee cap providers—a category of registered higher education providers. It will insert two new provisions into the Higher Education and Research Act 2017. Proposed new section A4 provides that student unions will be required to take reasonably practicable steps to secure lawful freedom of speech for their members and staff; for students, members and the staff of the provider; and for visiting speakers.

[Emma Hardy]

May I seek a point of clarification? I will be super-quick.

[Michelle Donelan]

Opposition Members have spoken at great length on this clause, so I will give way only once.

[Emma Hardy]

Thank you. I want clarification about non-affiliated student societies—student societies that are not directly affiliated to the student unions.

[Michelle Donelan]

If the hon. Lady will bear with me, I will come on to student societies.

In deciding what is reasonably practicable, student unions must have particular regard to the importance of freedom of speech. This will allow those involved in all aspects of university life to contribute to a culture of open and robust intellectual debate, without fear of repercussion. Those are new duties, providing new protections and ensuring coverage across campus. Proposed new section A5 will require student unions to maintain a code of practice, which will act as an aid for compliance with the new duty in proposed new section A4.

The code of practice must set out the procedures to be followed when organising meetings and activities, as well as the conduct required in connection with them. That is in addition to the criteria for making decisions about student union support and funding, and who can use premises. The clause sets out the new duties on student unions that are vital for ensuring that freedom of speech is protected to the fullest extent within higher education in England. It is therefore an important and necessary part of this Bill.

New clause 4 would extend the duties on student unions at approved fee cap providers so that they also apply to junior and middle common rooms at colleges and student societies. Taking student bodies at constituent colleges first, the colleges fund their junior and middle common rooms and can exert a high level of control over their activities. We do not believe that imposing the duty on junior and middle common rooms would be appropriate, as they are autonomous, as has been said. Freedom of speech duties would be unnecessary and bureaucratic if applied to junior and middle common rooms. A point was made about booking systems, but even given that junior and common rooms may book rooms, those rooms are owned by colleges and the JCRs have no actual control over them. Given that, we do not believe that including them is necessary as the freedom of speech duties on the colleges will apply to the activities of their student unions. It is important to note that student unions at constituent colleges are not classified as student unions under the Education Act 1994. In addition, the administrative burden on providers to give the Office for Students details of the student unions of their constituent colleges in addition to their own student unions, with the OfS then under a duty to maintain a list of them, monitor their compliance with their duties and deal with them in regulatory terms, as well as under the complaints scheme, would be resource intensive and disproportionate. That point has been made many times by Opposition Members in relation to other issues that have been raised today.

As for student clubs and societies, if they are affiliated to the student union, they will be covered by the student union’s code of practice. If they are not affiliated, they will still be subject to their provider’s code of practice, a point that I think has been missed in today’s debate. For similar reasons to those I have already set out in relation to JCRs and MCRs, we therefore do not think it would be appropriate to extend the duties to cover those clubs and societies directly. I hope that this clarifies the points made, and that we can agree not to accept new clause 4 and to move forward with the rest of the Bill.

[Matt Western]

The debate on these particular points has been really healthy and robust, and my Labour colleagues’ contributions have been extremely important—I particularly note those of my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown. What we have been saying for the last hour or hour and a half is that all we are seeking is consistency in this Bill, and that we cannot afford to have a two-tier higher education system. The words “iniquitous” and “unfair” have been used, but the problem is that either we recognise there is a need for coverage for all bodies and all groups that are exclusively student, as was rightly said, or there is not. The Minister has just said that it would be unnecessary and bureaucratic for this provision to be applied to middle and junior common rooms. We would say that it is unnecessary and bureaucratic for all institutions, irrespective of what they are or their heritage and history, and particularly for the smaller organisations that we keep speaking up for. As is well understood by many of us in this room, the whole higher education sector is incredibly diverse. Many smaller bodies—further education colleges and so on—will not be geared up to sustain these changes.

[Emma Hardy]

Maybe the Minister cannot provide the evidence for this, or maybe I am making a mistake, but I do not understand how non-affiliated student societies that are privately funded will be covered under the Bill as it is written.

[Matt Western]

That is my real concern, which I was just about to come on to. There is real fear about these well-funded bodies; I mentioned the Chinese groups specifically because that point was raised by both sides, by my right hon. Friend the Member for North Durham and by, I think, the hon. Member for North West Durham. There is increasing evidence that these groups are seeking to influence our campuses from beyond, and that those groups will not be affiliated to those institutions.