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

John Hayes Excerpts

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.

[Matt Western]

I now give way to the right hon. Gentleman.

[Sir John Hayes]

I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. I take his point about the technical difficulties with what is proposed. He is right about the different status and, indeed, different challenges faced by students and teachers. None the less, as my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton said, there is an issue—we heard this in evidence—about students self-censoring, and students may fear that they cannot say what they think. That could be outside teaching or it could be in seminars and so on. Therefore we do need to address the issue of students. Whether or not this proposal is the best vehicle to do so, I am sure the hon. Gentleman would agree with that.

[Matt Western]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his point and, likewise, my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle for hers. I accept that there is a need for protection under freedom of speech. The differentiator for me is about academic freedom. I totally concur that all students, whether they be postdoctoral students or students in week two, arriving on campus in September or October of this year, have the right to freedom of speech, to say what they wish to say—with responsibility. But there is an area where I differ, and this was what I was edging towards in my questioning to various academics during the two witness sessions. What Professor Stock actually said was interesting. She made this very distinction. She thinks that

“the difference between academic freedom and freedom of expression”—

I am quoting her word for word—

“assuming there is one, can only be in principle grounded in expertise.”––[Official Report, Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Public Bill Committee, 7 September 2021; c. 11, Q17.]

That is the case however we wish to define that expertise. And there is a problem, actually, about how people might consider what expertise is. I would say that the expertise is much more to do with methodology and understanding of academic rigour and discipline and how an academic arrives at a process of thinking, which a student is not necessarily—

--- Later in debate ---

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

I really do think that the hon. Member for Congleton has a point. The issue is how we define that point. I hope that it applies retrospectively as well, because I would not mind challenging some of my essay marks from about 50 years ago.

The point is that the only way that a large number of students can finance their PhD research is by doing separate tutoring at the university, and therefore they have an academic status. Somehow we must find a form of wording for this Bill that protects them. At the moment, it is too loose. Colleagues have tabled other amendments—actually, I have tabled amendment 45, which focuses on innovative research. I am fearful that someone who, like me, is a pain could challenge their mark for a particular essay purely and simply because they disagree with what is being taught, even if they are wrong.

One of the biggest contentious issues at the moment is climate change. There are rows going on while academics are trying to identify a whole range of the causes of climate change as well as some solutions to it, and it is incredibly contentious. Lecturers and professors do have a responsibility to point out where they think something is wrong or ludicrous, and mark it down on that basis.

[Sir John Hayes]

The right hon. Gentleman makes an extremely important point. It is easy to mistakenly see this through the prism of political ideas. However, it is actually not just about political ideas, but about all kinds of challenges to orthodoxy. Some of those challenges will be scientific, some will be technological and some will be about philosophical principles, which are not to do with the politics we enjoy here. The right hon. Gentleman is right: innovation is a much bigger subject than political debate.

[John McDonnell]

There are even elements in science itself where there are really contentious issues and we know that some scientific theories are being brought forward for political motives—we have seen that around race in the past, about genetics linked to racial groups and so on—but an academic would throw the whole essay out on that basis. There are some really contentious issues here.

The hon. Member for Congleton is right to point out the issue of non-inclusion of students, but we must find a definition that enables us to ensure that there is a level of academic expertise at which the student should be operating, which qualifies that person to have academic freedom and the right to free speech. I think that is very difficult.

To come on to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown, in academia, people are now extremely litigious. They will challenge individual gradings or the award of the degree classification. What we often find now—ask any university—is that a large amount of money and time is being spent on defending the awarding of degrees due to this sense of being a consumer, of buying a product. It is as though they are challenging the quality of the degree awarded as though it were a washing machine. There is a real issue here.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir John Hayes]

I beg to move amendment 80, in clause 1, page 2, leave out lines 9 to 14 and insert—

“(6) In this Part, ‘academic freedom’, in relation to academic staff at a registered higher education provider, includes their freedom within the law—

(a) to question and test received wisdom,

(b) to put forward new ideas and controversial or unpopular opinions, and

(c) to design and deliver their own teaching, notwithstanding direction as to the topic or occasion of their teaching,”.

This amendment affirms the freedom of academic staff to exercise their professional judgment in the design and delivery of their teaching. It allows that Departments may nonetheless direct academic staff as to the topic on which they should teach, and when.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 28, in clause 1, page 2, line 10, leave out from “provider” to the end of line 16 and insert “includes freedom—

(a) to question and test received wisdom,

(b) to put forward new ideas and controversial or unpopular opinions, and

(c) to express opinions about a registered higher education provider, including without limitation opinions concerning its curricula, governance, affiliations and the teaching and research conducted at the provider,

without unlawful interference, and without being adversely affected (or being placed at risk of being adversely affected) in any of the ways described in subsection (7).”

This amendment would enshrine the protections afforded to academics under ECHR case law (Article 10) to speak about their institution without unlawful interference.

Amendment 27, in clause 1, page 2, line 11, leave out

“within their field of expertise”.

This amendment aims to ensure that the definition of “academic freedom” is not restricted by a requirement for it to be exercised within an academic staff’s “field of expertise”.

Amendment 45, in clause 1, page 2, line 13, after “new ideas” insert “, innovative research”.

This amendment would expand the definition of academic freedom to encompass innovative research carried out by academics.

Amendment 46, in clause 1, page 2, line 14, at end insert—

“(c) to freely pursue chosen topics for teaching and research without government or institutional interference, and

(d) to express their opinions in relation to higher education providers, including that at which they are employed,”.

This amendment would expand the definition of academic freedom to encompass an academic’s ability to freely pursue chosen topics for teaching and research, free from external interference, and express an opinion in relation to a higher education provider.

Amendment 49, in clause 1, page 2, line 14, at end insert—

“(c) to criticise or otherwise express opinions about—

(i) the governance of the higher education institution, and

(ii) decisions taken by the higher education institution, including decisions about affiliations with other bodies,”.

This amendment would provide protection to academics, under the auspices of academic freedom, to express opinions about the governance, decisions and affiliations of higher education institutions.

Amendment 47, in clause 1, page 2, line 20, after “the provider” insert “or other providers”.

This amendment seeks to expand the ways in which an academic cannot be adversely affected due to an exercise of their academic freedom, to include loss of their job or privileges at any other provider.

Amendment 48, in clause 1, page 2, line 20, at end insert—

“(c) the denial of a just and open path for career development, including fair procedures for appointment”.

This amendment seeks to expand the ways in which an academic cannot be adversely affected due to an exercise of their academic freedom to include the denial of a just and open path for career development.

Amendment 60, in clause 1, page 2, line 20, at end insert—

“and

(c) adverse impact on educational progress.”

This amendment seeks to protect the right of academic freedom for students in addition to academic staff.

Amendment 57, in clause 1, page 2, line 28, leave out

“and within their field of expertise”.

This amendment is consequential on Amendment 27.

Amendment 58, in schedule, page 15, line 17, leave out

“and within their field of expertise”.

This amendment is consequential on Amendment 27.

Amendment 68, in schedule, page 15, line 27, at end insert—

“and

(a) adverse impact on educational progress.”

This amendment seeks to protect the right of academic freedom for students in addition to academic staff.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir John Hayes]

My amendment would have been pertinent in any case, but it has been made more so by the debate we have just had and the progress of the Committee so far, which has drawn our attention to the distinction between freedom of speech and academic freedom. That was made clear in the evidence sessions by a variety of witnesses, and it has been amplified today by speakers from both sides of the Committee. My amendment attempts to revisit that matter and add it to the Bill.

This is not a straightforward affair, as has been widely acknowledged by the Committee. As the Minister has made clear, freedom of speech is a broad term, and it might be said to be sufficiently broad to encompass a range of liberties, including academic freedom. But there is something specific about academic freedom, and this is rooted in the very principle of university learning. I could wax lyrical about John Henry Newman and the idea of a university, but you would not allow me to do so, Mrs Cummins, and the Committee would not thank me for doing so. The Whips certainly would not, given that it would prolong our proceedings unduly.

The essence of university education is giving academics the space to innovate, as the right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington made clear in his last contribution, but it is also about fuelling intellectual curiosity, which leads to creativity. That could be in all kinds of spheres of work. We are inclined, because of who we are and the job that we do, to see this through the prism of political discourse, but it is much wider than that. We really do need to recognise that academic freedom is a fundamental part of allowing that curious creativity, if I can put it in those terms, to flourish in our places of learning. There is some evidence, from what we have heard, that that is being restricted—being stymied, one might say. That is partly because, in the words of Professor Goodwin, many academics

“no longer feel particularly welcome, safe, secure, or ultimately able to say what they really think, and for every one of me, there are 20 or 30 people behind me who do not feel able to come and speak and voice their concerns”––[Official Report, Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Public Bill Committee, 13 September 2021; c. 100, Q208.]

as he did when he gave evidence. There is a concern that some academics feel as though their academic freedom is being restricted.

We also heard from witnesses what that academic freedom amounts to, and I have tried to reproduce those ideas in my amendment. They include the freedom

“to question and test received wisdom…to put forward new ideas”

and have those scrutinised, too, even where they are unpopular or controversial. The hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown said that one of the tests of a good student is their ability to make a case that they do not believe in. By the way, I could say the same about a good teacher. When I taught at university before I became a Minister in 2010, I would often advance arguments that bore no relation whatsoever to what I thought, because I was teaching government and politics. All good teachers do that, all the time, and students should be tested on that basis too, exactly as the hon. Gentleman describes. That is what a vital and creative learning environment is all about. I think Members on both sides of this Committee would want to see that reinforced by the provisions of this Bill, and that is precisely what I am trying to do in my amendment.

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[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—

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle]

rose—

[Sir John Hayes]

To whom should I give way first? I am terribly old fashioned, so I shall give way to the hon. Lady.

[John McDonnell]

Don’t fall for it!

[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.

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle]

I broadly agree with what the right hon. Gentleman says and with the subsequent amendments, some of which say similar things. My problem is around academic rigour, which universities must ensure is provided. Would he address the issue as it relates to basic instructional courses such as optometry, or any of the life sciences. I mention optometry because the University of Bradford has a very good optometry department. I have mentioned my connections with the University of Bradford, the University of Sussex and University and College Union before, and it is on the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. It might be dealt with better in regulation than on the face of the Bill, but might there be something to be said for the freedom of the academics to sit around the table and work out their plans without interference from management, rather than the freedom of an academic to decide what they do?

I put that forward because academics sit down together and work out a course of teaching, so they have a duty to sometimes challenge each other and say, “You need to teach this. You might not want to, but we need to get through it.” Could the wording around that be better? It would also address some of the right hon. Gentleman’s points on how academics have been removed from the management of course design over the years, and could restore their role at the heart of course design and teaching and learning. That would be a move forward.

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matt Western]

I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention. I totally agree.

In response to the point raised by right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings about the detransitioning research at the University of Bath, Professor Whittle said 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, which would push the likes of the University of Bath towards exploring further how such research proposals can be encouraged.

The issue goes both ways and cuts across the political divide, as we have heard. A briefing I received from Ruth Pearce from the Center for Applied Transgender Studies revealed examples of where research has been disrupted by aggressive anti-liberal voices. That included Peel and Newman’s survey on legal gender, which received an uptick in polarised, confrontational responses after being shared on a UK anti-trans forum. Stein and Appel describe how a survey on young LGBTQ people’s experience of cyber-bullying in Germany was derailed, with nearly every dataset containing expletives and hate speech.

That work needs to be protected under the legislation, and most academics would agree that this kind of work falls within their academic freedom. Amendment 47 would also bring us in line with the German model, which is based on the Humboldtian approach and focuses on the unity of teaching and research, with both staff and students able to enjoy academic freedom. It is important to include innovation within the definition of academic freedom in the Bill.

Amendment 27 addresses the point about field of expertise, which was raised by the hon. Member for Congleton. I share some concerns about this, as do my colleagues. Indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle commented in the evidence session on the submission from Professor Anderson, saying:

“His concern is around changing the wording in the Bill from ‘freedom within the law to question and test received wisdom’ to ‘freedom within the law and within their field of expertise’.”––[Official Report, Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Public Bill Committee, 7 September 2021; c. 10, Q17.]

I have concerns that a Bill allegedly intended to promote academic freedom could limit it if people are limited to what their field of expertise is.

[Sir John Hayes]

rose—

[Matt Western]

And speaking of expertise.

[Sir John Hayes]

I entirely agree, and I wanted to say that on the record. Professor Biggar made that point, too, as the hon. Gentleman will remember. The problem is how we define someone’s field of expertise. If we define it too narrowly, they will not be covered. The Minister, I know, will have an explanation of this and a counter-argument that may satisfy us, but I am concerned, as witnesses were and the hon. Gentleman is, that we risk getting this wrong in the Bill unless we take account of the fact that people’s field of expertise is often broader than the definition of what they do professionally. Expertise is a complex thing. I think we need to look again at this. I am sure the Government will have heard what the hon. Gentleman and others have said.

[Matt Western]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his intervention. Yes, we heard virtually all the academic witnesses and others express the importance of this point. Dr Ahmed, referring to Professor Stock, spoke about Professor Richard Dawkins, saying:

“theology is not his area of expertise. Many…would argue that it is not even his area of competence. I would dispute that myself, but it could be argued. Nevertheless, we would certainly want a Bill that protects his freedom to muse about religion as he likes. That is one issue.”––[Official Report, Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Public Bill Committee, 7 September 2021; c. 11, Q18.]

[Matt Western]

I thank my hon. Friend again for a valuable intervention.

[Sir John Hayes]

Is this not about areas of interest versus fields of expertise? An academic may have areas of interest that extend beyond the strict and narrow definition of their expertise in their subject. By using that sort of term—I am sure the lawyers will go one better—we might be able to solve the problem.

[Matt Western]

I thank my—I was about to say hon. Friend. I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that point. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle will elaborate.

The reality of the academic community in higher education is that their areas of work are fluid. They do not see themselves as necessarily specialists in one field or another. As we heard in our evidence session, a statistician is a mathematician, but a mathematician could become a specialist or well versed in issues such as migration or epidemiology—medical science, in essence. How does one define “their area of expertise”? We have to be extremely careful. The right hon. Gentleman’s suggestion may well be in the right area, but much more consideration is needed, and for the purposes of the Bill we have to remove these words.

I will not expand on what Professor Nigel Biggar said. That has been done already.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir John Hayes]

Or just because he is wrong.

[Fiona Bruce]

My right hon. Friend may have his view, but I could not possibly comment.

Without another look at the words “field of expertise”, academics could find themselves with fewer free speech rights than those in other vocations, since straying outside of their perceived field of expertise might lead to more complaints, increased disciplinary action and dismissal—outcomes clearly at odds with the intention and purpose of the Bill.

A second difficulty is that an academic’s expertise often stretches over a variety of fields. A biologist could have an insight into economics, and a theologian may well have useful musings about sociology. The interaction between a variety of subjects is often how ideas are tested from fresh perspectives, leading to innovation and thought-provoking insights for the benefit of society as a whole. A requirement to stay within one’s field of expertise could have an unintended chilling effect, which I will elaborate on when I speak to amendment 28. Academics, particularly junior academics, might seek to modify their speech and academic inquiry in a bid to ensure that they qualify for protection under the law.

It cannot be right to penalise an academic simply because he opines on the issues of the day. The issues may be completely outside his field of expertise, and he may speak from a political perspective or with faith-based views, such as on marriage or being pro-life, but is not deliberating on issues of the day a key part of university life?

--- Later in debate ---

[Michelle Donelan]

Academic freedom would indeed cover academics’ own research; the research of students would be covered by the broader freedom of speech. If it were the Government interfering with an academic’s freedom of teaching or research, that would be covered in just the same way as if it were the institution interfering. I hope that reassures the right hon. Member.

I understand the concerns that have been raised today, and I assure Members that it is not our intention to unnecessarily limit the right of academic freedom. I therefore will, as I have already stated, commit to exploring this issue, particularly as regards the field of expertise.

[Sir John Hayes]

I have heard what the Minister has said. I am not entirely satisfied, although I appreciate her point about taking this issue away and looking at it again. There is a debate to be had about how explicit legislation should be, and there is a case to be made—and the Minister has made it well—that much of what we are asking for is implicit: that freedom of speech is a sufficiently broad term to allow those who will have the power to oversee these matters, particularly the new regulator, to take into account many of the points that have been made by Members of this Committee. However, I am inclined to the view that we do need to be more explicit in respect of academic freedom, and I am mindful of what the witnesses have told us and Members from both sides of the Chamber have reinforced: that, if there is indeed a climate of fear and a culture of silence given expression by self-censorship, as we heard from Professor Goodwin, Dr Ahmed and others, we need to be crystal clear about the protections that the Bill will afford.

Nevertheless, mindful of the integrity of the Minister and her assurances, I hope she will look at this issue again, and on that basis I am happy to withdraw the amendment that stands in my name in order to facilitate our progress. In doing so, let me just say that I also welcome her assurance about the amendment in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton in respect of fields of expertise. I do think that “areas of interest”, or some such similar phrase, might be more appropriate, and would deal with some of the points that have been raised by Members. Furthermore—the right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington knows I have form on this subject—I am very happy to support his remarks about the need to protect employees’ interests from employers. My views on that are just as deeply held as his, as he knows from previous exchanges that we have enjoyed. It is important to take that away and think of it afresh, as the Minister has suggested she will. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment proposed: 46, in clause 1, page 2, line 14, at end insert—

“(c) to freely pursue chosen topics for teaching and research without government or institutional interference, and

(d) to express their opinions in relation to higher education providers, including that at which they are employed,”.—(Matt Western.)

This amendment would expand the definition of academic freedom to encompass an academic’s ability to freely pursue chosen topics for teaching and research, free from external interference, and express an opinion in relation to a higher education provider.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

I invite Members who have not already done so in this session to declare their interests for the record.

[Sir John Hayes]

I draw the attention of the Committee and others to my entry in the Register of Members’ Interests, which cites my professional connection to the University of Bolton, where I am a professor.

[John McDonnell]

I register my interest as an honorary fellow of Birkbeck College, and my wife is a tutor at University College London.

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

John Hayes Excerpts

Wednesday 15th September 2021 Public Bill Committees

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

I am sympathetic to the hon. Gentleman’s view, and I entirely endorse the view articulated by the right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington about how legislation is improved through scrutiny, and how these Committees can work at their best. When I was on the Front Bench doing the Minister’s job, I always adopted that approach with shadow Ministers and others. [Interruption.] I shall ignore the sedentary comment, although I will give way if it was not a sedentary comment.

[John McDonnell]

I simply said that the right hon. Gentleman always spoke with literary skill as well.

[Sir John Hayes]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. Like him, I certainly never compromised on what I believe.

On the point that was made—I invite the hon. Gentleman to acknowledge this—these things, generally speaking, are dealt with in guidance, as the Minister said, for the very reason that once the Bill becomes an Act, as we hope it will, and it beds down, we will need to refine precisely how universities interpret it, and the guidance will reflect that continuing work. I therefore think we have got a win in the Minister saying that she would expect the guidance to include that, and we should take that win and move on.

[Matt Western]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that intervention. I genuinely respect him and would like to accept his point. However, I have profound concerns over the direction of the Office for Students and its leadership. He said that generally these things are put in place, but “generally” is not good enough for me, and I do not think it can be for any of us today.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir John Hayes]

I very much welcome the tone that the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington has adopted this morning, following the advice of his senior colleague—he is senior in so many ways—the right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington. In particular, the hon. Gentleman made a profoundly important point about the online transmission of information, because of course that is pertinent given the events of the past couple of years. Many universities have taught exclusively online. Seminars and lectures have been provided by that means by necessity. Others have adopted a more flexible approach, and so on.

Nevertheless, mindful of that, I think the hon. Gentleman makes a good point. This is an improvement to the Bill. I had not given it as much consideration as I might have done until I read his amendment and heard him articulate it, but it seems self-evidently an improvement to the spirit and tone of what the Government are hoping to achieve. Far be it for me to teach the Minister to do her job—if I start doing that, I will get chastised by both her and my Whip, no doubt—but this is a very good example of where a Bill can be improved by sensible Opposition amendments. I hope we will have a lot more sensible amendments from them, and no wrecking or destructive ones.

[Matt Western]

I very much welcome the right hon. Gentleman’s tone, too, and I thank him for it. This is absolutely about trying to do the best. I described the Bill as a bit of a dog’s breakfast. I do not know whether, in his experience, he has had a 17-page Bill to which so many amendments have been tabled, but this is certainly the first time I have come across quite so many per page. I would also welcome the right hon. Gentleman’s comments on amendment 31, which he is perhaps about to move on to.

[Sir John Hayes]

I am coming to that. The hon. Gentleman anticipates my next contribution—which will be brief, I hasten to add. I think that the point he makes with amendment 31 is also good. He is right that where universities deliver what they do is not a simple matter, not just because of the changes in technology and the way in which they operate, but in other respects as well. There are many premises, many different kinds of operators and many people involved in the university community. That has become increasingly true over time, and again I think the hon. Gentleman makes an extremely reasonable and valid point. I have been inspired by the right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington to embrace the spirit of collaboration and helpfulness, and I hope that the Minister will do so, too.

[John McDonnell]

I would not want the right hon. Gentleman to go too far, because I still think that it is a rubbish Bill. I want to address the issue of occupied premises; the online point has been made well by Members across the Committee.

The issue of the occupation of premises is important in a number of areas where the university is not sited in the constituency but uses, often temporarily, premises around the area. Without the amendment, the Bill will have a potential loophole that could be exploited. My hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington made a valid point about that.

On the online issue, if we do not build it in early, we will really miss a trick. The scale of online abuse that most of us receive is enormous—perhaps I receive more than others; I do not know—and if we do not venture into that territory and secure it, we will not be seen to be actually operating in the real world as it now is. Most of the universities that I have been dealing with recently are only now going back to any form of physical participation; virtually everything up until now has been online. They have also encouraged students to maintain some form of student life as well, such that where physical meetings cannot take place, student societies go online, using Zoom, Teams and so on. The Bill could make explicit reference to that. Failing that, I would welcome the Minister’s views on any alternative solution, but we need to be convinced that the issue is being addressed.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle]

I became quite fond of the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings during the evidence sessions, and during our discussions about the necessity for broader academic reform in our universities and about how tenure works. There is a lot of agreement on that. However, for three reasons, I am worried that the amendment creates an outcome that he is not actually seeking. First, Professor Stock described how her academic freedom and free speech was not limited just by—I would argue not at all by—the university and the institution, but by the harassment from colleagues, students and the academic community more broadly. They called her names such as TERF, which she found objectionable, and said that she was not academically rigorous. In effect, she described what we would call harassment, because she was exerting her right under sex protections to talk about sex, and they were harassing her for that. I disagree with her views on the sex agenda, but it is her right to express them without fear of harassment.

This amendment would be a harasser’s charter—a charter to harass her outside the university, making snide remarks online or in academic forums, degrading her and ridiculing her. We heard in the last evidence session—it feels like yesterday—how many academics feel mocked and ridiculed by their colleagues because of their activities, and that sometimes leads to harassment, because they have protected characteristics. This would be a charter for those academics to be harassed out of their practice. That would be very worrying. I do not think that is what the right hon. Gentleman wants, but I am worried that is what the amendment would do.

We also heard from Trevor Phillips, with whom I disagree on a number of matters, who said that the importance of the Bill is not about directing details but empowering a regulator to provide guidance about where these things need deliberation. Bizarrely, whereas the Minister has previously said, “This needs to be dealt with by the Office for Students”, and I have disagreed, on this issue I would take the line that the Minister has taken: this is an area where we need decent guidance from the Office for Students to ensure that universities are balancing that duty.

The right hon. Gentleman is right that sometimes universities incorrectly interpret the balance of where they should be on harassment and academic rigour. The clunky nature of this amendment might not fix that, but decent guidelines will change the way universities work, so I hope the Minister will say that she will push for them.

[Sir John Hayes]

The hon. Gentleman is taking us towards some sort of Hegelian synthesis of my intention, which is to ensure that, as Professor Biggar said, universities do not over-interpret their duties and define harassment so broadly that it closes down debate, while ensuring, on the other hand, that universities do the right thing, in the terms that the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle was describing, in protecting people from the kind of activities that the hon. Gentleman spoke of. Maybe, as he says, that is best achieved in guidance, because he acknowledges that there is a tension, or a risk of it, as I tried to point out,.

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle]

The whole Bill is full of tensions, which is why many of us would say this is not best put in legislation; instead, it could be done through other mechanisms, such as guidance and support for universities, given that we already have the Office for Students. That is the Opposition’s whole argument on whether we need a Bill. However, we have a Bill, so we need to create a framework to ensure that those tensions are dealt with sensitively.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle]

Six—I thank my hon. Friend. Those bans usually have national governmental guidelines behind them, because the organisations are proscribed under Prevent or under other duties. We need to be careful when we lambast the no-platform policy of the NUS, because it is a policy that furthers Government policy and guidelines for keeping our campuses safe. Sometimes the phrase no-platforming is used, but it is actually a policy that is implementing Government guidelines.

[Sir John Hayes]

Of course the hon. Gentleman is right that, where organisations are proscribed or by law prohibited from operating or existing, they should not come. Furthermore, it may be that other organisations are not welcomed into particular forums, but he will know that, over the years, no-platform policies have been used in all kinds of different institutions to prohibit a much wider range of outside speakers, including in some cases speakers from the Conservative party and other perfectly legitimate and indeed noble political organisations of that kind.

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle]

In a previous sitting, the Chair mentioned facing this issue when he was a student. That is exactly why the NUS has laid down a national policy that refers to six named organisations—so that individual student union branches or universities cannot erroneously put forward others. The right hon. Gentleman’s exact concerns have been implemented by the NUS, which has listed the organisations—only six, and all backed up by national guidelines. An individual student union cannot just say, “We do not like that Conservative,” or “We do not like that academic.” I agree with him that there is concern that that has been misapplied in the past. That is why we now have national guidelines. Again, that is an example of where these things are best settled under guidelines, through negotiations with the national unions and through the regulator, and not put in legislation, which might lead to unforeseen circumstances.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir John Hayes]

The Minister may persuade me to withdraw the amendment, in the spirit that has pervaded the Committee so far, if she addresses the issue raised by Professor Biggar and other academics, who said that at the moment, universities may be over-interpreting their responsibilities in respect of the Equality Act. Professor Biggar made clear that they are interpreting it in a way that the courts would not. All I ask is that universities stick to the law and what the courts would do on harassment, rather than over-interpreting in the way that Professor Biggar suggested. If she included that in her remarks and in the subsequent guidance, I would be happy to withdraw my amendment, but I will wait to hear what she says.

[Michelle Donelan]

I wholeheartedly agree with my right hon. Friend that neither universities nor anybody else should be over-interpreting the Equality Act. That will be made clear in the guidance that the Office for Students will bring forward, and I fully expect that to help clarify the situation and ensure that freedom of speech is prevalent on our campuses. With that in mind, the Bill meaningfully strengthens protections for lawful freedom of speech and academic freedom, but absolutely does not, and should not, provide a vehicle for people to harass one another.

[Sir John Hayes]

With that hearty recognition of my point, I will happily withdraw the amendment. I take the points that have been made on both sides of the Committee about how vital it is to protect students from all the things that I think we would all regard as fundamentally unacceptable. In the light of the comments from Professor Biggar and others on the need to get the balance right, and with the Minister’s assurances, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Matt Western]

I beg to move amendment 55, in clause 1, page 2, line 7, at end insert—

“members and visiting academic speakers”

This amendment would ensure that the objective of securing freedom of speech within the law includes securing the academic freedom of members and visiting academic speakers.

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

John Hayes Excerpts

Monday 13th September 2021 Public Bill Committees

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

Q You do not work at a university and you are a journalist by background, are you not?

Sunder Katwala: I have worked in think-tanks, journalism and so on.

[Sir John Hayes]

Q The previous witness said that no one who had not worked in a university could quite understand both the climate of fear and the culture of silence that prevails in many universities. Do you think you are better placed to make a judgment about that than someone who works in a university or not?

Sunder Katwala: No, I am not. I am not trying to bring you evidence on that. At the level of public policy, we are trying to decide on the principles we should be legislating for in our country, about where is the expanse of free speech we want to protect and where are there dangerous misuses by people who are claiming to use free speech to do something to undermine liberal democracy. That is my work. I am not telling you what is going on in universities.

[Sir John Hayes]

Q In common with my colleagues, I have to declare my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests: I am an academic at Bolton University.

The point you are making is that some speech should be prohibited that is legally lawful. Who would arbitrate that? Would it be university authorities, Governments or the mass of students? Once you get into the territory that you are describing, which could lead to a liberal tyranny, as I am sure you appreciate, who is going to decide what is acceptable or unacceptable, if it is not the law?

Sunder Katwala: All sorts of institutions make these decisions. The Labour party, the Conservative party and the Democratic Unionist party make these decisions. They prohibit people from saying things that are lawful and reprehensible. Newspapers make these decisions about lawful speech. As I say, social media companies are coming under more pressure. What should happen in the universities? Let me give you the three case versions that I think you should examine.

One is where the content is directly discriminatory: this would be the clash with the Equality Act. If somebody said, “Let’s have a lecture on how women are not fit to study maths and sciences,” and they brought the Taliban over to advocate their view on that, you could say, “Let’s just stand up and tell them that’s wrong.” Fine, we could do that, but, as with the Government’s position on antisemitism, there might be some kinds of versions of that—like no gays, Jews or blacks on campus, or whatever—where the responsibilities to treat students equally might be undermined.

My second category would be where people are advocating against academic freedom. If I held a campus event called “The burning books party” on 5 November, I might be burning the books that Hitler burned or burning “Mein Kampf,” but burning books or advocating the burning of books is against academic freedom. Should we have that debate? Clearly, burning a book is, in a sense, freedom of expression of a particular kind, but I don’t think we would invite people to have bonfires of books on campus. Would that be a public order offence or not? There might be an argument saying, “There are some books we should ban,” or “Women should not be allowed to write books. My vision of society is ‘The Handmaid’s Tale’.” That is a stupid view, but it is a lawful view. Are we protecting that as academic freedom?

My third case would be very extreme conspiracy theories. Here we have a real dilemma. We know about Galileo, Darwin and so on, but when it comes to 9/11 “Truthers” and people who have David Icke’s view of covid—that it does not exist anywhere; it is just a plot by Bill Gates—where is the balance between the sunlight on that being right and the expression of that view? These things blend into each other. Why is there a conspiracy theory?

Those are the categories where I think that you need to think about whether there are versions of reprehensible but lawful speech that are inimical to academic freedom rather than needing to be protected as academic freedom. The Government have taken that position on holocaust denial, as I understand it, but they have not outlined a set of principles on what is wrong with holocaust denial. How does that relate to the denial of other genocides? How does that relate to the identical position of other minority groups who are not Jewish?

[Sir John Hayes]

Q I just want a straightforward answer, really. You are right, of course, that many things are offensive, rude or unsavoury. Indeed, some things are alarming, shocking and disturbing, but some things that are alarming, shocking and disturbing should be said because innovators have done that through the ages. Copernicus was alarming. Darwin was certainly alarming and shocking to many people—pretty shocking to me, actually. Having said all that, you have not really been clear about who determines what is lawful but prohibited. Is it the university?

Sunder Katwala: Is it the vice-chancellor? National Action has now been proscribed, but a very violent, aggressive group such as Britain First has not been, and the Islamist equivalent of such groups. Most people have different views about these different groups, but do you give Hizb ut-Tahrir, a group whose sole existence is to undermine liberal democracy and academic freedom, the floor and argue against it, or are there some versions of the content where you draw the line, either because of—

[Sir John Hayes]

Q Sorry to interrupt you, but I want to get to the bottom of this. The vice-chancellor in a particular university, or the university management, would determine what was unacceptable but lawful.

Sunder Katwala: Or it might be a national policy. In the case of holocaust denial, it will be a national policy that the lawful speech of holocaust denial will not be welcome on our campuses. The Government have taken that view. Do the Government want to protect 9/11 conspiracies as academic freedom or not? Do the Government want to take a view, or does the vice-chancellor take a view? It is up to the Government first—

[Sir John Hayes]

Q So it is the Government who determine it, not the vice-chancellor.

Sunder Katwala: It would depend. The Government will decide in the case of holocaust denial that it needs to be very clear that it is not welcome on campus. I am saying that there are analogous cases to holocaust denial for other reasons, for other minority groups.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle]

That is very helpful—thank you very much.

[Sir John Hayes]

Q The witness immediately before you suggested that lawful speech on campus might be mitigated, restrained or even prohibited, and said that that job would perhaps fall to the Government or vice-chancellors. What is your view on that?

Nicola Dandridge: These sorts of decisions about what is lawful and what is not are both hugely complex and very facts-specific, so I think it would be very hard for the Government to anticipate those sorts of decisions. I think it is appropriate for that to fall to someone like the director and the Office for Students, who could take all the facts into account to make the appropriate decision.

[Sir John Hayes]

Q Presumably, with lawful free speech on campus assumed to be a given, it is important that its defence is not in the hands of particular vice-chancellors or university management but carried out by an independent third party on the grounds of consistency.

Nicola Dandridge: I think the whole point behind setting up a director is that those will be independent decisions, whether for the university or for anyone else. That is fundamental to the way the role is cast, and I think it is fundamentally important.

[Fiona Bruce]

Q One students union has submitted to us:

“This bill addresses a non-problem”

—certainly at their student union and university. Do you agree?

Nicola Dandridge: The evidence suggests that there is an issue.

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

John Hayes Excerpts

Monday 13th September 2021 Public Bill Committees

[Charlotte Nichols]

Q Hillary, is there anything you would like to add?

Hillary Gyebi-Ababio: It is important, especially in reference to your first question and whether we think about discrimination and what the Bill could allow for. First and foremost, the Bill needs to give stronger reassurances that will not allow for free rein on discrimination, especially of vulnerable groups. However, it is also really important that we recognise that there are students who are made much more vulnerable by different types of speech than others, and unless the Bill recognises that they need protections and unless it can work alongside existing Acts and duties, it is going to make a lot of those students feel unsafe on campus—even more so than they do now with just their general experiences. I think that many elements of the Bill need to be looked at closely to ensure that that is embedded in there.

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

Q Further to the last point, speaking from a personal point of view and a NUS point of view, presumably you believe in freedom of speech in the sense that you believe in the freedom to disturb, to alarm, or even to shock or outrage.

Hillary Gyebi-Ababio: Yes. As the NUS, we believe in freedom of speech.

[Sir John Hayes]

Q Even if that makes people feel very uncomfortable?

Hillary Gyebi-Ababio: What I would say is that to focus on freedom of speech as just being about making people uncomfortable is quite restrictive. If we are going to speak about freedom of speech in that regard, we also have to speak about the freedom of people to have opposing views and the right of people to protest when they do have opposing views. Even more so, I think it is important that when we think about freedom of speech, we acknowledge the fact that freedom of speech is important to have, to champion and to promote, but we also have to be mindful of where it might encroach into places where people feel harmed, and are harmed, especially if they come from a vulnerable or marginalised group with protected characteristics under the Equality Act.

[Sir John Hayes]

Q Of course, you are right that freedom of speech is unqualified in the sense that both views need to be put and many opinions need to be shared. There should be no prohibition on that within the law, and the law does prohibit incitement to hatred, incitement to terrorism and various other things, as you know. However, within those lawful constraints, is the freedom to offend important to you?

Hillary Gyebi-Ababio: I would say to that that we could speak about the freedom to offend, but I think it is important that if we are so focused on offending rather than promoting an environment of debate in which people are able to voice opposing views, rather than just allow people to have the freedom to offend, I think we are not speaking about freedom of speech in the way that it should look like—in a balanced way, you know. If people should have the freedom to offend, people should also have the freedom to express opposing views, and to express that as freely as people would offend. Again, going back to the Bill, we cannot talk about this until there are proper reassurances that the Bill will not allow that freedom of offence to flirt with where it might encroach on hate speech or harmful speech, especially when people are from marginalised communities.

[Sir John Hayes]

Q Hang on, I want to be clear about this. I totally agree with you that there need to be plural opportunities for people to express their views. I may find those views entirely unacceptable, possibly shocking and maybe offensive, but I would defend people’s right to be able to express them. We have laws that protect against hatred, incitement to violence, incitement to terrorism and so on, so are we clear that what the Bill does is to allow pretty pervasive freedom of speech within the law, allowing all kinds of views to be articulated on campus? That is a good thing, surely.

Hillary Gyebi-Ababio: Again, I would just reiterate that we believe in and champion freedom of speech on campus. It is not a secret that the NUS and the student movement have been facilitating this happening for years and years, so that is what I would say to that.

I think, though, that what the Bill proposes, and some of its elements, come across as finding ways to promote free speech by introducing a body to bring in punitive measures where that is inhibited. I think that does not give enough acknowledgement to the fact that there are already existing processes to ensure that, when free speech is inhibited, that is dealt with. There is already promotion of free speech by student unions, by universities and by the NUS, even, and we need to think about whether the Bill will have the effect of promoting free speech, or whether it will have an opposite effect that causes people to be very risk-averse.

[Sir John Hayes]

Q Very briefly, Chair—I know others want to speak—let me be clear. I am relieved and delighted by what you said about the NUS’s position. So, the NUS is against no-platforming, it is against a list of proscribed speakers who can lawfully make their views known elsewhere, and it is basically in favour of a pretty permissive free speech policy across universities.

Hillary Gyebi-Ababio: If I may, that is not what I said exactly, especially in reference to the no-platforming policy. We have a no-platforming policy that includes six organisations, most of which the Government would also see as racist and fascist organisations. To say that we do not agree with no-platforming is simply not true.

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

Order. I am afraid that brings us to the end of the time allocated for the Committee to ask questions of this panel. I thank the witnesses on behalf of the Committee for their evidence. I invite any member of the Committee who wishes to register an interest to do so now.

[Sir John Hayes]

As I did previously, I refer to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests relating to my role at the University of Bolton.

[Mr Holden]

I declare an interest as the vice-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on Durham University.

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

John Hayes Excerpts

Monday 13th September 2021 Public Bill Committees

[Charlotte Nichols]

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

[Sir John Hayes]

[Sir John Hayes]

[Sir John Hayes]

[Sir John Hayes]

[Sir John Hayes]

[Emma Hardy]

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

[Sir John Hayes]

[Mr Holden]

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

John Hayes Excerpts

Monday 13th September 2021 Public Bill Committees

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle]

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

[Sir John Hayes]

[Sir John Hayes]

[Sir John Hayes]

[Sir John Hayes]

[Sir John Hayes]

[Mr Jones]

--- Later in debate ---

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle]

[Sir John Hayes]

[Sir John Hayes]

[Fiona Bruce]

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

John Hayes Excerpts

Tuesday 7th September 2021 Public Bill Committees

[Matt Western]

Well, thank you for joining us in those circumstances. Professor Stock from Sussex University said she felt that perhaps the university did not promote her enough in terms of her freedom of speech. Do you feel like you do get promoted by Manchester Metropolitan University? The second point she made was that there could be some improvements to current processes on campus; can you suggest any that would obviate the need for this Bill?

Professor Whittle: I have never personally felt that Manchester Metropolitan has not supported me in what I have done, what I have organised or the events that we have had, some of which have been potentially quite contentious. For example, we have had gender critical feminists and trans activists speaking at the same event. The university has always been supportive.

I do not think that universities do enough to promote what we do, to either our student body or to the external world. I often think it is a great shame that we do not get the message out about what our academics are talking about to a wider group than just my department, for example. There must be a better way than sending out a bland email to everybody saying X event is taking place—which most people will then delete. It is thinking about how we want to promote the events that take place; about how we could do that through calendars, through doing more public events, where we invite the public in to listen to what we do and the conversations that we have. That is really important because, the fact is that we have very serious discussions. We often have multidisciplinary and interdisciplinary groups having extremely important conversations about the way we consider the world that we want and how we might live in it. However, in order to do that we have to have the support of the university, in the sense that it believes that we are public-facing and student-facing—we are not little isolated islands within little isolated faculties. There is not a sense, for example, even within the university budget that there is money to promote anything. You have always got to dip into your own budgets. Things like that—the idea that universities really think about looking outwards—would be a really positive change.

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

Q I am interested to hear your view that, essentially, this is a Bill that is not addressing a problem, because the evidence we have received, both in writing and verbally earlier today, suggests the opposite; academics were saying that it is indeed a problem. They claimed that criticism of the Bill by saying what you have said today is, and I quote, “not true.” There is empirical evidence that the freedom to speak and research of a significant minority of university students and teachers is being inhibited. Specifically, in the summer of 2017, at Bath Spa university, research into transgender detransitioning was prohibited on the grounds that it was politically incorrect. There is in other universities, and in the minds of other academics, a problem. How do you explain that?

Professor Whittle: At that time there was clearly a media scare about the power of transgender activists and about the rights of transgender people. I read the research proposal of that particular piece and I looked at why it was not approved. I do not think that I would have approved it for my university, because it was not sufficiently sound. It was not sufficiently based on preliminary research. I think it had a political motivation, which I would not expect from any of my students; I would expect a certain level of objectivity from them.

I looked at that quite closely, thinking, “Have Bath made a big mistake here?” but I think what happened was that their decision to refuse to go ahead with that research at that time became a media story that they had refused because the transgender world would attack them for accepting it. Good research has been done on the question of young people and whether they would continue to transition or would detransition—a lot, in fact—and I have never known anyone else have their research stopped, but that was not sound. When you read it, it did not feel as if it was a good piece of research. Maybe had Bath addressed it properly, they could have done more to say, “This needs sorting and this does before we will consider it.”

[Sir John Hayes]

Q I want to follow that up. In the light of your advice, Mrs Cummins, I declare my interest as a part-time professor at Bolton University, as recorded in the register. Professor, you talked earlier about ideas that are “so off the wall and out of the water”—your words, not mine—but is that not the nature of all academic inquiry, its cutting edge? To disturb, to alarm and perhaps even to shock, is that not the character of that kind of inquiry?

Professor Whittle: Not all research, of course. Not all research is out there to alarm, to shock and to tear down the wall, but a body of research is. We have to have an opportunity to do what I would call blue-sky thinking in the humanities as much as in the sciences. My own research would have got nowhere if it had been left to the people who thought they knew how the system worked—it was completely off the wall, but it brought new ideas and presented the evidence for those changes.

There will, however, always be concerns that some students and some researchers will always want to do work that is very problematic. For example, I am thinking of a student who applied to do a PhD but never actually got his research proposal approved before he presented his dissertation. The dissertation, which looked into the far right in Europe, was basically a presentation of why we should all move to far-right politics. It was not going to go anywhere. I could not ever have signed it off, because he had not gone through the proper processes. If he had, I think he would have come up with different answers, but we will never know.

I do not say to the students who are researchers, “You shouldn’t do this,” or, “You shouldn’t do that,” but I do say, “You need to think about what it is that you are trying to achieve. Are you just trying to make a statement, or are you trying to contribute to the academic debate and to improve the world in which we live?” Some just want to make a statement. I think the research that we referred to this morning on detransitioning was exactly that—a piece of research that was preset to provide an answer that the academic wanted—whereas other research is out there to explore the issues properly.

We have academics who are reviewing research all the time. One of my primary functions is to read research papers of various forms, to make those judgments as to whether the research is sound or could be sound, and to decide whether it will receive support from me, or whatever else.

[Michelle Donelan]

Q Thank you very much for sharing your experiences, Professor Whittle. I am interested to hear whether you have spoken to any academics or students whose experiences have differed from your own. We heard from Professor Stock this morning about, in effect, a threshold that academics should be expected to experience. Some of them, such as you and her, may have pushed past that and almost ignored the pressures on them and the challenges that they faced, but not everyone is prepared to do that, hence the chilling effect. I would be interested to hear whether you think there is room for manoeuvre there and whether we need to open up some of these academic forums.

Professor Whittle: Absolutely. I absolutely believe we need to really think, particularly in terms of recruitment and promotion, how we do it. There is an insularity, particularly in promotion, within universities and between universities that prevents people who speak out, or seem to be doing something that is not common enough, getting those opportunities for promotion.

Manchester Met has been incredibly supportive of me and my work over the years, but in 27 years I have never been shortlisted for a job, which means I have never even got to the point of sitting in the chair and being interviewed. It is those things. I know I am facing the concrete ceiling in that because I am doing research that is considered to be a minority interest. I actually do not think I am. I think I am talking about core human rights and about how identity fits within that legal framework of core human rights, but the universities and university departments are incredibly cautious about taking somebody on who might be considered too challenging to a sort of mantra of “we are a safe space.”

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Jones]

I beg to differ with you on that.

[Sir John Hayes]

Q I am grateful to Emma for drawing attention to my views of the relationship between consciousness and unconsciousness. That is a philosophical debate we could have. I am interested to talk about your views on trust and truth, and whether you think trust is found through synthesis or, as Hegel said, truth was—but let us talk about that on another occasion and in a different place. Dealing with truth and trust, how far has the culture in universities changed? Has this concern about free speech and openness altered in recent years, in your view?

Thomas Simpson: I can give my personal experience. I am cautious about drawing too strong conclusions from that. My personal experience was that as an undergraduate from 1999 to 2002, I felt free to argue a position in my final year dissertation that I knew my markers would reject, but would recognise the quality of the work on its own merits. I had the confidence to do that. The topic was whether God existed, broadly speaking. Cambridge was a very secular faculty at that time; I was examining a recent contribution to that debate.

I had a moment about three years ago where an undergraduate student in a different department from where I work was talking to me about their political philosophy paper. They had written all the ethics of migration, which is a sensitive subject. The philosophical debate is whether countries have the right to control who crosses the borders into their country. The two positions are what is called open and closed borders. The philosophical debate is already right on the edge of the Overton window for public discourse on that topic. It became clear in the conversation that the student’s personal views were in favour of closed borders, so I said, “What did you argue for in the essay?” The student replied, “Oh, I argued for open borders. It would be silly not to do that, because that is where the lecturers were coming from.”

That to me had a sense of tragedy: here was an individual who believes something different and thought they had arguments for that, but felt that the grade they would receive on the exam would be different because of the content of what they argued for. That sense of danger about particular viewpoints is something I have sensed grow within the university over the last five or six years. I think it roughly tracks some of the turmoil we have had in the public space more generally in that time. It is mitigating somewhat now, but the patterns are in place and we need to take steps to counter that.

[Sir John Hayes]

Q The implication from earlier witnesses, Arif Ahmed, Nigel Biggar and others, is that there is what amounts to a culture of fear. You are setting out the very reason why the Bill is pertinent now there has been a change. Is it that what is acceptable has been redefined, and what is unacceptable is now no longer permissible? It will always be true that there will be differences of opinion, and some people would find certain views agreeable, but is the change that ideas have gone from being disagreeable to, in effect, prohibited?

Thomas Simpson: I have been really inspired by the observation that Scalia and RBG, the two SCOTUS justices, used to go to the opera together. They were ideological opposites and I am sure that they even viewed the other person’s views as reprehensible at times, but there was a collegiality about their ability to do their work together. That collegiality exists in very many places, but it is under pressure, and that is the challenge that we are facing.

[Mr Jones]

Q Where is the evidence?

Thomas Simpson: I have already given the evidence.

[Mr Jones]

We need figures, facts and this, that and the other, but we are not seeing any of that.

[Sir John Hayes]

Perhaps a way of resolving the difference of view between the right hon. Member for North Durham and the witness is for the witness to cite some of that evidence in writing as a follow up? I would like to know about courses that have been cancelled, stopped or never delivered, speakers who have not been invited or where invitations have been withdrawn, and funding that has not been granted on the basis of all of those things being “unacceptable”. It would be very useful if you could provide some kind of note with that as a follow up, which will hopefully allow us to move on.

[Gareth Bacon (Orpington) (Con)]

Q Paraphrasing slightly, you talked about the chilling effect when you were answering the Minister earlier. Over what period of time do you think the chilling effect, as you put it, has developed?

Thomas Simpson: In my view, the past five years have been particularly difficult. I think it is a longer-running trend and probably stretches back to early 2010s. I was out of academia for a key period during the early 2000s. I do not know where the data is on that. If I may come back on the data question, Professor Eric Kaufmann is in a much better position on that, as that is his speciality, whereas I am the philosopher here, so he would be well placed to speak to about those challenges.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

[Sir John Hayes]

Q And in that sense, it will change the balance of power between academics and university bosses, because there is a sense—and this is about governance as well, isn’t it—that in that kind of process that you have described, academics are often not involved, so they are asked to do things that they have not had a role in helping to shape. Is this not also good in the sense that it only protects academics, but really curbs the power of some of the university chiefs, who sometimes impose these policies top-down? As an addendum to that, every time Kevan speaks about this dystopian future of a militant Government, he waves his hands vaguely in John’s direction. I wanted to defend John.

[Mr Jones]

John and I disagree on quite a lot.

[Sir John Hayes]

It could be unconscious bias.

[Mr Jones]

No, it’s conscious bias—[Laughter.]

Dr Harris: Yes, absolutely. For instance, in the determination of curriculum content, that is something where there absolutely must not be imposition of bureaucratic standards. The example that I cited in the written submission was that of the University of Oxford’s music faculty, which decided to decolonise its curriculum. I should say that that is a legitimate exercise of academic freedom, but it then said, “Members of the faculty must not disparage the curriculum.” Obviously, curriculums are changed by disparaging them—that is how they came to be decolonised in the first place—so we cannot stop the process.

There needs to be, and I think the Bill could include, a right of consultation. It is academic good practice anyway, and it slightly demeans universities that they need to be told that, because it should be part of academic ethics. There is also the right to criticise one’s institution. That is part of the international law standard of academic freedom. It is embedded in a number of university statutes. Whatever happens, the standard adopted by the Bill should be at least what is already best practice in the sector. I do not think it should go beyond that.

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

John Hayes Excerpts

Tuesday 7th September 2021 Public Bill Committees

[The Chair]

It is, but you are not the one giving the evidence. Dr Ahmed, do you want to say anything on this?

Dr Ahmed: I have relatively little to add to what Kathleen said on that point. The only thing I would add is that I would like to see a situation in which there was a possibility of extremely draconian measures against universities that are not fulfilling their basic function, and in an ideal world they would never be used.

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

Q I am going to use this microphone as instructed, Sir Christopher—my apologies for speaking from the wings. I refer members of the Committee and others to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.

Dr Ahmed, you wrote in your evidence, and you have repeated it today, about self-censorship and how that had changed. Would it be fair to say that the culture in universities has changed quite radically? You mentioned the Equality Act, and you might just as well have mentioned the growth of the internet and the intimidation that is delivered through that. How far does that soft censorship, which you implied a moment ago, affect people’s prospects at universities—the acquisition of fellowships, promotions, funding and so on? What evidence do you have that that has changed in universities, in your academic experience and more widely?

Dr Ahmed: With regard to your point about the internet, I would echo some of the things that Kathleen said in her written evidence, to the effect that Twitter, for instance, allows the mobilisation of mobs, quite quickly, against individual academics. That has been one of the effects. As you said, in addition to the Equality Act, the internet has had an effect on that—by which I mean Twitter.

With regard to self-censorship, my own experience has been that it has changed drastically over the last 10 years. Now, for instance, one would regard it as a typical experience to be in meetings where things are being proposed where I certainly sometimes—rarely, in my own case—bite my tongue. I know that there are people who bite their tongues in the sense that they will not object to certain things that are pointless and stupid, simply because they are afraid of the consequences.

What are those consequences? It is different in different cases. In my own case, I have tenure, fortunately, and I am relatively secure, but for someone who is on a temporary contract, you do not even have to be fired or face disciplinary action. All that needs to happen is that you come to end of your temporary contract, which you would normally expect to be rolled over, which typically does happen in academia, and they will just decide for some reason—as one of your colleagues was saying, it can be quite easy to invent a pretext—“Well, actually, we won’t be needing you any more.”

People in short-term positions are, I think, especially vulnerable and are perhaps the ones who are most likely to self-censor. My own experience is that this is happening a lot more now than in the past. That is from my experience of meetings with decision makers at high and low levels within Cambridge University.

[Sir John Hayes]

Q The implication of what you are saying is that a lot of that will be invisible, because we do not know what people do not say. We do not know who would have been promoted had they said something else, believed something else or taken other stands. Actually, what we may be seeing is the tip of the iceberg. Is that fair? We cannot know how many people are constrained by the culture you have described and by the capacity of the mob to pursue them.

Dr Ahmed: Correct. Of course, you are quite right that it is the tip of the iceberg. The evidence that we have—I am referring again to the UCU survey, which is the largest evidence base that we have—says that 35% of academics self-censor. When you think that that includes people who work in totally uncontroversial fields, such as Diophantine equations, that is a very significant proportion. There is some evidence, but, as you say, it is probably the tip of a huge iceberg.

[The Chair]

Before you go, Sir John, may I ask you to expand on your interests?

[Sir John Hayes]

How long have you got?

[The Chair]

I ask because, obviously, people do not have access to the register.

[Sir John Hayes]

I am a professor at the University of Bolton.

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

Q I have to declare an interest. I am a trustee at the University of Bradford union. I have received donations from the University and College Union. I was the UCU co-ordinator at the University of Sussex and I received money from that university to provide educational opportunities for their students. I would like to think that I work in the sector.

Professor Stock, thank you for your evidence. I must say, actually, that your vice-chancellor did sing your praises to me the last time that I met him and said how excited he was for you to be coming here to show the diversity of views at his university. He was very positive, actually, and I have the email to prove it. That might reassure you. He is leaving anyway, so we will see.

You have raised some really important points about making sure that there is diversity in views at a university. Is there a problem, however, if this is put in legislation, that that becomes too strictly defined as requiring balance? We have debates about the BBC and climate change denial, and the need to have equal airtime for people who disagree and for people who agree. Is there sometimes a necessity for a university to develop a course that is balanced not just numerically but also in terms of where the academic weight is?

Professor Stock: There is a useless way to balance and then there is a productive way to balance. The BBC is a completely different context, because often you have to present both points of view simultaneously, and they just start shouting at each other and nobody’s the wiser. However, on a course that extends through time, and possibly over years, it would be unacceptable not to balance. Balance just means going through lots of different points of view that disagree with each other and trying to work out what you think. It means telling the students that it is their job to work out what they think—that they are not necessarily supposed to agree with you just because you think something, but they are supposed to develop their own points of view.

What is happening at the moment, for me personally, is that—completely extraordinarily, relative to the norms of the sector—whenever I do manage to get an invitation to speak somewhere from some poor, hapless person who does not know my reputation in advance, complaints pile in, and they say, “We’ve got to find a trans person to be on stage with you for balance.” I have had the Francis Bacon keynote at the University of Hertfordshire completely changed in format—until covid meant that it did not happen anyway—just because this idea of balance was required. That is much more like the BBC kind of balance. I do not see why I should have had someone right there when no one else is required to have someone there.

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

John Hayes Excerpts

Tuesday 7th September 2021 Public Bill Committees

[Matt Western]

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

[Sir John Hayes]

[Michelle Donelan]

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Jones]

[Sir John Hayes]

[Sir John Hayes]

[Mr Jones]

[Mr Jones]

[Sir John Hayes]

[Gareth Bacon (Orpington) (Con)]

--- Later in debate ---

[Emma Hardy]

[Sir John Hayes]

[Sir John Hayes]

[Mr Jones]

[Sir John Hayes]

[Mr Jones]

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

John Hayes Excerpts

Tuesday 7th September 2021 Public Bill Committees

[The Chair]

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

[Sir John Hayes]

[The Chair]

[Sir John Hayes]

[The Chair]

[Sir John Hayes]

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