Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Bill

Debate between Emma Hardy and John Hayes

Report stage
Monday 13th June 2022 Commons Chamber

[Sir John Hayes]

Benjamin Disraeli said:

“Upon the education of the people…the fate of this country depends.”

That greatest of Conservative Prime Ministers went on to say:

“A university should be a place of life, of liberty and of learning.”

However, if the flame of liberty is to burn brightly, and if the university sector is to be a beacon of learning, we must face up to the fact that, in many of our universities, freedom of speech is in jeopardy, censorship is happening as we speak tonight, and academics and students feel intimidated by that censorship.

We know that from the evidence that the Bill Committee heard from academics on the frontline of that struggle. The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington (Matt Western), quoted Professor Arif Ahmed, who was clear that there is a series of means by which universities restrict and limit freedom of speech. He said:

“what I mean is universities placing formal obstacles in the way of people saying things that are perfectly legal.”––[Official Report, Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Public Bill Committee, 7 September 2021; c. 13, Q22.]

He went on to say, quoting the Universities and Colleges Union survey of 2017, that

“35% of academics self-censor”––[Official Report, Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Public Bill Committee, 7 September 2021; c. 16, Q27.]

because they are nervous about saying what they truly believe; the number of students doing so is probably even greater. The truth is that there is a tyrannical minority in universities, among the academic staff and in the student body, who do not believe that universities are places of light, liberty and learning; instead, they think that universities should limit free speech.

I find it hard to understand why Opposition Members such as the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Emma Hardy), whom I respect greatly, and the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington, with whom I have—I was going to say “collaborated”, but that makes me sound rather like a fifth columnist—co-operated in this place on many subjects, oppose a Bill designed to reinforce precisely the freedoms that are essential to an open society. I thought about that and cogitated on how it could be that such decent and honourable people—I include the hon. Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner) as well—could do this.

In doing so, I should draw the attention of the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests in respect of higher education, as I did perpetually and—some people felt—relentlessly during the previous stages of our consideration of the Bill. By the way, I stimulated a number of others to do the same, and I have no doubt that they will want to chip in on a similar basis this evening.

The conclusion I drew, having thought about it, was that those decent people on the Labour Benches who certainly believe in free speech and the exchange of honestly held opinion find that hard to reconcile with a zeitgeist that is preoccupied with a fear of causing offence. We are perpetually told now that because we must not make people feel uncomfortable, we must not offend them. We in this House know, do we not, that the ability to alarm is closely associated with the ability to inspire, that the ability to disturb is intrinsically linked with the ability to enthral, and that even the capacity to shock is necessary in the development and exposure of new ideas and fresh thinking?

[Emma Hardy]

rose—

[Sir John Hayes]

Having said such nice things about the hon. Lady, it would be extremely impolite of me not to give way.

[Emma Hardy]

I say to the right hon. Member that, as Bill Committees go, it was a very enjoyable one. I thank him for being one of the few Conservative Members who listens to the contributions. On the point he is making, it is not about disagreeing with this idea of shocking people or of having different opinions; the fundamental problem, as I have said repeatedly, is how this piece of legislation interacts with existing legislation already in place. How does this interact with equality legislation? How does this interact with other existing pieces of legislation? My concern is further developed when I see the person who is making the decision on how these different pieces of legislation interact with each other. It is, as has been mentioned—and this is the reason for new clause 4—somebody appointed by the Prime Minister of the day, which then leads to all those issues around impartiality of process. We have a situation here where we have a piece of legislation that almost buts up against existing equality legislation, but it is not quite clear how their processes will rub together, yet there is no specification that the person making the decisions has to have legal experience or knowledge; they are instead a political appointment. That is where we have the difficulty—it is not with freedom of speech, but with the legislation itself.

[Sir John Hayes]

At the risk of putting our professional association in jeopardy, I say to the hon. Lady that I agree with her. I agree that the Government need to look at the equality legislation. I note the Attorney General’s recent comments that, as well as unpicking the Human Rights Act 1998, which we certainly should do without delay, we need to revisit the Equality Act 2010 and the rest of the long tail of Blairism. The hon. Lady is right that some of that unfortunate legislation on the statute book is inhibiting much of the very good work that the Government are trying to do. In particular, she is right—this was raised in Committee by me and others—that the Government need to be very clear that this legislation can be squared with other statute and, so the means by which it might be challenged.

--- Later in debate ---

[Emma Hardy]

I think it might also be worth the Government having a look at the recent legislation that they have already passed on the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 and the issues around protest and free speech. We could end up with a situation where free speech is the preserve of students who attend university, but those outside university will have their free speech limited unless they are very, very quiet and do not protest too loudly. We could end up with more conflict, with one part of the Government saying one thing in terms of restricting protest, and another part of the Government saying something else about supporting free speech. It is fair to say that having this Bill along with existing and proposed legislation will create a muddle.

[Sir John Hayes]

We are dealing with a complex subject. Free speech by its very nature means people saying all kinds of things in all kinds of ways about all kinds of subjects. The hon. Lady is right that there will be tensions to be settled, which is precisely why the Government have put in place mechanisms to do that. They are going to appoint, as was said earlier, an office with responsibility for ensuring that this Bill’s intentions and provisions are applied consistently. The Government acknowledge the difficulties that she has highlighted, which is precisely why they are putting in place a person and team to do exactly that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir John Hayes]

Burke said, as you well know, Mr Deputy Speaker:

“He that struggles with us strengthens our nerves, and sharpens our skill. Our antagonist is our helper.”

Part of developing intellectually and personally, particularly for young people at university—we should not assume that only young people go to university—is exactly that. It is being stimulated, sometimes being excited, sometimes being challenged and, yes, sometimes being offended. I am often offended in this Chamber by all kinds of things, and not always things that I hear from those on the Opposition Benches.

[Emma Hardy]

Even if the right hon. Gentleman is offended, he is never offensive, so I always enjoy debating with him. On the issue of the need to challenge and to shock, there is always a line to be drawn somewhere. In Committee we talked about the offensiveness of holocaust denial. Okay, there is not a physical threat from holocaust denial, but I think that we would all agree that it is very offensive and it is therefore very hurtful. A line will always have to be drawn when it comes to free speech, but we have the difficulty, which I keep going back to, of who makes the decision on where that line is drawn—what experience do they have, what criteria is set, what is their knowledge, and what is their understanding of the subject. Having the right person at the top is important. I am sure that the right hon. Member will accept that, yes, someone might want to offend, to shock or to stimulate discussion, but there is always a point at which we say, “No, that is not intellectual stimulation. That is just offensive and rude and not part of an intellectual debate at university.”

[Sir John Hayes]

Yes, but the problem is that that line moves with the times, with fad and fashion, with what I described earlier as the zeitgeist. Perhaps the most chilling example of that is the case of Kathleen Stock. The hon. Lady will remember that Kathleen Stock gave evidence to the Bill Committee of which she was part. Within a few weeks, Kathleen Stock was driven out of her job as a distinguished professor at the University of Sussex by the mob, a group of students who pursued her and intimidated her and her family.

Kathleen Stock received scant support from many of her academic colleagues, although latterly the university authorities claimed they were supportive, and she was so affected and so damaged by all that that she ended up leaving the job she loved. I thought how chilling and ironic that she should have been one of the people who came to us, as Members of this House, to a Bill Committee debating this Bill, and yet just weeks later found herself a victim of the very problem she highlighted and emphasised in her evidence.

I will move fairly rapidly on to the amendments that stand in my name, Mr Deputy Speaker, because otherwise you will claim that I am making a Second Reading speech—and with some just cause.

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

Debate between Emma Hardy and John Hayes

Monday 20th September 2021 Public Bill Committees

[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.

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

Debate between Emma Hardy and John Hayes

Thursday 16th September 2021 Public Bill Committees

[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.

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

Debate between Emma Hardy and John Hayes

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.

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

Debate between Emma Hardy and John Hayes

Wednesday 15th September 2021 Public Bill Committees

[Sir John Hayes]

I beg to move amendment 71, in clause 1, page 2, line 2, at end insert—

“(3A) Any conduct that would otherwise constitute conduct having the effect of harassment in accordance with section 26(1) of the Equality Act 2010 shall, notwithstanding any provision to the contrary in that Act, constitute freedom of speech within the law for the purposes of subsection (2), provided the conduct constitutes, or forms part of, discussion of an academic or scientific matter in a higher education setting.”.

The amendment draws attention to the concern that was expressed during our evidence sessions about the possible relationship between this legislation and existing statutes, notably the Equality Act.

The point was raised by witnesses and I am particularly mindful of what Professor Biggar said when he spoke to us. He said that,

“the Bill is not proposing to amend the Equality Act. That is quite clear; however, there is tension between the requirements of the Equality Act and the duties to secure and promote free speech and academic freedom that the Bill would establish. The tension arises around the definition of harassment. It is quite right that those with protected characteristics should be protected from harassment. The problem is that harassment is often interpreted by universities—not so much by courts—in such a fashion that dissent from, disagreement with and criticism of becomes harassment.”––[Official Report, Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Public Bill Committee, 7 September 2021; c. 30, Q59.]

We heard something on that in the evidence from the National Union of Students. When I challenged the witness on whether she believed in the right to disturb or to shock and offend, she claimed she believed in free speech, but went on to defend the idea of no platform. She talked about vulnerable people. It is hard to know who these vulnerable people are. We cannot be talking about shy or reticent people—after all, the meek are so blessed they are going to inherit the Earth, so it cannot have been them—but there is a concern that the broadening of the definition of vulnerability and harassment could inhibit the intentions of the legislation.

Of course it is true that we all abhor offensive, discourteous and other unsavoury or unpalatable kinds of speech, but in a free society it must be permitted if it is lawful. It is necessary sometimes, as several witnesses told us, to challenge orthodox thinking. If orthodox thinking becomes so narrow that it prohibits those who question the status quo and the zeitgeist, nothing would ever alter. Most innovators through time, from Socrates onwards, have done just that. It made him very unpopular with Athenians—in the end, so unpopular that it brought about his demise. Indeed, I was reading Socrates this morning, on just that point—on Meno’s paradox. Let us not go into that, Sir Christopher; you will no doubt not let me depart from the subject in hand to that degree.

The amendment is straightforward. It tries to address the challenge identified by Professor Biggar and others to reconcile the legislation with the other requirements that will affect universities in its interpretation. Indeed, other witnesses from the sector draw attention to this more critically than Professor Biggar, who is, broadly speaking, in favour of the legislation. They suggest that it is a problem with the legislation per se, and they feel that it cannot be reconciled with the need to balance their legal responsibilities. I do not share their view, because I think it can be reconciled. The Government can help with that by clarifying the different responsibilities on the face of the Bill, which is what the amendment is designed to do.

The spirit in which the Committee operates will, I hope, be one of helpfulness, collaboration and scrutiny, so that we can improve the legislation. I can tell from what the Minister has said that she shares that spirit, because she has already said that she will go and think about things afresh during the passage of the Bill. Moreover, the work that she does with the new regulatory regime will reflect such further consideration, given the comments from members of the Committee, and no doubt in the other place and on Report. I am most grateful to the Minister for adopting that tone, and I hope she will do just that when she deals with my amendment.

[Emma Hardy]

Before I start, I want to say that I genuinely hold the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings in high regard, especially since we discovered a shared love of skills and FE. However, I think the amendment is gravely mistaken. It is perhaps worth reminding ourselves of the explanatory notes on what constitutes harassment under the Equality Act 2010, so that we know what we are talking about:

“The first type, which applies to all the protected characteristics apart from pregnancy and maternity, and marriage and civil partnership, involves unwanted conduct which is related to a relevant characteristic and has the purpose or effect of creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment for the complainant or of violating the complainant’s dignity.”

I am not aware of any debate, discussion or event in a university that we could rightly say creates

“an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment for the complainant”

or violates

“the complainant’s dignity”.

The second type is sexual harassment, which is

“unwanted conduct of a sexual nature”.

That is surely not something that we would want in a university. The third type is

“treating someone less favourably because he or she has either submitted to or rejected sexual harassment”,

which could indeed become the lecherous lecturers clause. The explanatory notes for the Equality Act 2010 give three examples of harassment:

“A white worker who sees a black colleague being subjected to racially abusive language could have a case of harassment if the language also causes an offensive environment for her.

An employer who displays any material of a sexual nature, such as a topless calendar, may be harassing her employees where this makes the workplace an offensive place to work for any employee, female or male.

A shopkeeper propositions one of his shop assistants. She rejects his advances and then is turned down for promotion.”

That is what we mean when we are talking about harassment under the Act, so we need to think about whether we should amend it for universities. Do we really want to encourage this kind of behaviour? It is important to state that universities are not separate from our community or our country. Something that is permitted when people are inside a university cannot become something that is suddenly not permitted when they step outside the university grounds. In fact, the best types of universities are those that I call civic universities—universities that do not just exist in their communities, but are part of them. Therefore, why do we need a separate law? It would mean that people could be offensive within the university grounds but would suddenly have to remember to be polite to their same colleagues when they step outside. We need to think incredibly seriously when we are discussing using the Bill to amend something as important as the Equality Act 2010.

[Sir John Hayes]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her introductory remarks about our mutual regard. The amendment does not do what she is saying. Clearly, universities have a responsibility under the Equality Act 2010 to counter, prevent and act on the kind of harassment that she describes, but Professor Biggar says that the risk with the Bill as it stands is in exaggerating harassment to include, as my amendment describes it,

“discussion of an academic or scientific matter”.

I entirely agree with the essence of what the hon. Lady said, but my worry is that the tension between the duties she has described and this legislation will be hard to reconcile for universities unless we are clearer in the Bill about that distinction.

[Emma Hardy]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman. I will not continue to give my opinion; instead, I sought legal advice on the amendment. The quote that I shall read is from the highly regarded human rights barrister and expert, Adam Wagner, who gave me permission to read out his statement in full:

“This is a bizarre and retrogressive amendment. All speech is already protected by ‘freedom of speech’, i.e. Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, but that right is qualified and will always be balanced against the rights of others, the prohibition on discrimination and generally the interests of the public. The implication of this amendment would be that, for example, hostile and degrading antisemitic speech targeted at a Jewish individual—i.e. hate speech—during an ‘academic discussion’ would no longer be unlawful. A neo-Nazi could repeatedly refer to a Jewish speaker as ‘Jewish scum’ during an academic discussion and this could—on the face of it—be lawful, as would referring to a black speaker as ‘subhuman’ and so on. Hate speech has never been protected by free speech rights and I would not be surprised if this amendment, if it became law, was not ruled to be in breach of the UK’s human rights obligations by a court here and/or in the European Court of Human Rights.”

I completely respect what the right hon. Gentleman is trying to do with the amendment. Indeed, we need a full and frank discussion later on how we balance the different aspects of the Equality Act 2010 with the Bill and still allow free speech. With the greatest respect, however, the amendment should not be accepted.

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

Debate between Emma Hardy and John Hayes

Wednesday 15th September 2021 Public Bill Committees

[Emma Hardy]

rose—

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

rose—

[Matt Western]

I will give way to my hon. Friend first.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir John Hayes]

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

[Emma Hardy]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[Emma Hardy]

As a former teacher who had the statutory national curriculum and regular reviews from Ofsted on the best way to teach x, y and z, there is part of me that reads the right hon. Gentleman’s proposed paragraph (c) and thinks, “Wonderful! Yes, the passion and the ability to teach in the way you want on the subjects you want”. However, as has been alluded to—and this is where we get to the detail of it—there are subjects at university that require things to be taught in a particular way to get through a certain amount of basic knowledge components on that course. It might be suitable for some courses, such as government and politics, where there can be greater freedom, but studying medicine, for example, might need to be more instructive. Therefore, much as in my heart I am with him, in my head I find that, as it stands, it is not quite the right sentiment.

[Sir John Hayes]

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

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

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

[Sir John Hayes]

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

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

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

[Emma Hardy]

As I said, my heart is definitely in agreement with the principles being outlined, but one of the depressing realities we face—I know this from a particular university—is universities having to drop courses because they are not as marketable and attractive to students and they cannot get the people on. Universities are making decisions to wipe out entire courses, because it costs too much to run them. I would love to say that, yes, academics should have complete freedom to design and deliver courses however they want, but we have to be mindful that there is a cost involved. There have to be some conversations with the management team about whether the course they are putting on will make ends meet and will not end up costing university more in the long run. I wish we did not have to talk about this.

[Sir John Hayes]

The hon. Lady now really is opening a hornet’s nest with the issue of money, how universities are motivated, and how far that is skewed. I have struggled against the narrow interpretation of learning as an entirely utilitarian matter for all my political career, including my ministerial career. As Committee members will know, I was a stout defender of adult and community learning, not because it was necessarily and directly linked to employment, but because it fed societal wellbeing. Let us make the case for the glory of learning for its own sake.

The hon. Lady provoked me into that digression, Mrs Cummins, but she is right to say that sometimes universities are driven by those utilitarian purposes, hence my point about senior management. We have recently heard about money from outside sources—China was mentioned in our witness sessions, and rightly so, given recent revelations. There are all kinds of ways in which what is taught and learnt at universities can be altered by factors that go well beyond the interests of either academics or students. I am concerned about the matters that the hon. Lady has raised, and the Government will have a watchful eye on all that, too.

I have a fundamental disagreement with Opposition Members, in that I think the Bill is welcome and a good thing. I know that they have reservations. However, I am equally sure that if the Bill is to be effective, it needs to be as well drafted as it can be. That is precisely what scrutiny is designed to do. In that respect, drawing out and codifying the distinction in some way seems to me to have value. I make no definitive judgment about how that should be done; my amendment is very much a first stab.

I should not say before the Minister has spoken that I will not press the amendment to a Division, or I will extract no concessions from her. Instead, I shall hang on, hold fire, and hear what she has to say. The amendment is very much designed to push and probe the Government, but if she says it is a complete load of nonsense, I will have to test the Committee’s view.

I feel some responsibility to reflect the fact that the amendment is one of a group. There are some very good amendments in the group, tabled by Members on both sides. I will not name them all, but amendment 48, in the name of the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington, is helpful, and amendment 60, in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton, brings value to what we are doing. A number of strong amendments in the group are designed in a constructive way to hone and improve the Bill. I will not go through them all because that would be tedious and people can speak for themselves, but there are some good amendments worthy of further consideration by the Committee and the Government.

[Matt Western]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his remarks and his amendment, which has generated a huge amount of debate. It is interesting that several of us have had a go at the same provision to embellish and improve it. The definition of academic freedom is loose and hard to pin down. The fact that three amendments are addressing it emphasises how concerned we all are about how it is defined.

The right hon. Gentleman’s amendment seeks to expand academic freedom to encompass how a teacher delivers their classes. The amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Congleton goes a little further in seeking to protect academics under the umbrella of academic freedom whenever they express an opinion about the practices of a provider. I guess that this is where we get into subjective interpretations of what academic freedom should be.

During my research I came across part 6 of the UNESCO definition of academic freedom, which guides my thinking and that behind amendment 46, tabled by me and my right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington. Under the UNESCO definition, the concept of academic freedom is broken down into five parts: freedom of teaching and discussion; freedom in carrying out research and disseminating and publishing the results thereof; freedom to express freely their opinion about the institution or system in which they work; freedom from institutional censorship; and freedom to participate in professional or representative academic bodies.

My concern about the amendments tabled by the right hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Congleton is that they are trying to nail down a definition, but may have left out a couple of crucial components. Amendment 46, tabled by me and my right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington, is a compromise with the position of the right hon. Gentleman and the hon. Lady. It touches on two of the most of crucial elements in providing that clarity: freely pursuing chosen topics and expressing views of their institution. Interestingly, the University and College Union favours an amendment in the realm of ours. It is also deeply concerned that narrowing the definition of academic freedom will limit the ability and willingness of education staff to speak out on wider social or political issues, or indeed against their employers. An amendment such as ours would offer expansive protection for the academic freedom of staff, including from pressure and censorship by public authorities like the Department for Education and the Office for Students or by employers.

The amendments would offer protection against redundancies targeted at particular academic disciplines or those perceived to be politically motivated.

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

Debate between Emma Hardy and John Hayes

Monday 13th September 2021 Public Bill Committees

[Sir John Hayes]

Q Are these lawful organisations? Are you saying that you are in favour, then, of prohibiting lawful free speech in certain circumstances?

Hillary Gyebi-Ababio: No. I am not saying that I am not in favour of lawful free speech. I am not saying that at all. What I am saying is that the NUS supports, champions and cares deeply that free speech is championed, enabled and supported. To say that we do not agree with no-platforming where there are organisation like those I referenced with NUS’s no-platform policy that share and promote hate speech that hurts people from marginalised groups––to say that we do not support that is not true.

[Emma Hardy]

Q This is not just about free speech within the law. Conservative Members may not recall that the Minister wrote to universities asking them to adopt the definition of antisemitism. The Chair of the Education Committee has promoted, and asked universities to adopt, the definition of antisemitism. That definition is not law, so there are times when we want to restrict what people say that are not necessarily within the law. Do you want to comment on why adopting that definition is important, despite it not being law?

Danny Stone: There are two different issues here. Sir John, I found the your exchange earlier with Sunder Katwala really interesting because there are points in society where we turn round and say, “Sorry, this isn’t acceptable. There are societal standards here.” We do that with Ofcom. We do it with the British Board of Film Classification in our film regulation. We do it in other areas of public life where we say there are some kind of limits. That does not mean that the speech cannot happen, but Parliament sets a standard and it allows regulators, for example, to have a say on those standards. That is why I think that the complexities I spoke to should be on the face of the Bill.

I am pleased to have the chance to talk about International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance, so thank you. The IHRA definition is excellent and it was created––people may not know this––to try to bring uniformity for practitioners who were trying to understand why Jews were fleeing antisemitism and antisemitic terrorism in Europe. It helps to bring a standard of understanding to people. What it does not do––I disagree with Sunder’s evidence earlier––is to block people from saying anything. It is an advisory tool. It helps people to understand what antisemitism may be in a particular context. That is a very useful thing for universities, and the Secretary of State and the Minister have been very good in supporting the IHRA definition. But, as you say, it does help to guide what our expectations are around antisemitism, and presumably, if something is found to be antisemitic, we do not really want that. There is a societal standard that we aspire to. Sorry for a long answer but, yes, I do think that these complexities need to be addressed in the Bill.

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

Debate between Emma Hardy and John Hayes

Monday 13th September 2021 Public Bill Committees

[Sir John Hayes]

[Emma Hardy]

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

Debate between Emma Hardy and John Hayes

Tuesday 7th September 2021 Public Bill Committees

[Emma Hardy]

Q Finally, the online safety Bill will be going through Parliament. What thought have you given to that Bill, how it will potentially limit freedom of expression and how it interacts with this Bill going through Parliament at the same time?

Dr Harris: I have not really thought about how it interacts with this Bill. Certainly I have considered it otherwise. There needs to be a joined-up approach between the various instances of reform. The danger is that we end up with an anomaly. For example, Twitter’s house rules under the online safety Bill will have to be consistent with Ofcom codes of practice. There is a danger that something might be perfectly allowable under Twitter’s house rules, but unlawful in some other way.

[Sir John Hayes]

Q Notwithstanding Kevan’s point about university charters, is the real issue not about policy making? While it is true that a university in its charter is committed to openness and free expression, in policy making the story is far from that. Is it not really the case that universities persistently misinterpret the legal definition of harassment and underestimate freedom of expression and openness in their policy documents? You talked earlier about balance. Isn’t the question about this Bill not the effect it will have on law, in the sense of legal cases, but more the effect it will have on universities looking again at their policies and policy-making process?

Dr Harris: Yes, I very much agree. I think that what the Bill needs to do—this fits with the previous question—is elevate freedom of speech to the policy decision-making process, or the matrix, so that it is one of those considerations that is always baked into decision making.

To give you an example, the University of Cambridge launched a really quite restrictive reporting website where it asked staff and students to report micro-aggressions, which could include raising your eyebrows and that sort of thing. Now, the FOI request that we did on that showed that there were something like 400 pages of planning, correspondence and decision making about this report and support website. How was there so much consideration of this policy, and at no point did anyone step in to say, “Is this compliant with our legal free speech duties?” It is this absence from decision making. I think all this Bill needs to do to be successful is to cause a momentary pause. It needs to cause a degree of reflection.

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

Debate between Emma Hardy and John Hayes

Tuesday 7th September 2021 Public Bill Committees

[Emma Hardy]

[Sir John Hayes]