Breaking Down Barriers to Opportunity

John McDonnell Excerpts

Wednesday 8th November 2023 Commons Chamber

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

I fear that the chair of the all-party parliamentary group for Shakespeare, the hon. Member for Halesowen and Rowley Regis (James Morris), has opened a can of worms with his quotations. I hate to say this, but most of us feel that yesterday was Much Ado About Nothing. In fact, I think it was less Shakespeare and more “upstart crow”.

I listened to the Secretary of State’s introduction to the debate. We have heard her personal history a number of times, and there is the benefit of not having to buy the inevitable autobiography when it comes out, but I would have expected her to have learnt, as most of us have, that it is best for children to maximise their educational opportunities when they go to school, and if they are to do that, they should not be going to school hungry. What worried me about the King’s Speech was that there was no attempt to address the problems of poverty in our society.

I am never completely sure what the debate on the King’s Speech is about, because we know what the Government are going to do and there is little influence we can have on them. To a certain extent, though, now that we have the autumn statement, maybe this is an attempt to shout through the Chancellor’s letterbox to say that there are issues that the King’s Speech has not addressed, and one of them is poverty. I do not want to rattle through the figures too much, but we all know that 14 million of our fellow citizens are living in poverty at the moment, that 4.2 million of them are children, and that two thirds of those children are living in households where someone is at work. What does that say about low pay?

The Government also need to be clear that unemployment is rising steadily. We now have up to 1.5 million unemployed. When I was first on the shop floor, unemployment benefit did actually get people through. Back then it was 28% of the average wage, but now it is 13%, so we are forcing people who are unemployed into a life of poverty. The number of people certified as unfit to work is also rising rapidly, and I think part of that is because many of them are on the 7.9 million-long waiting list for operations and treatments to get them back into work.

I can remember having a debate in this House nearly five years ago when the UN rapporteur Philip Alston reported on our social security system and its implications for people in our society living in poverty. He said that our social security system meant

“the systematic immiseration of a significant part of the British population”.

That shocked us, because he also started using a word that we had not used for generations: “destitution.” Last week, his successor Olivier de Schutter reported that the situation was getting significantly worse.

If we do not believe the UN rapporteur, then the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, which we have cited across the House time and again when we have needed advice on how to tackle poverty, reports that 3.8 million in our country are now living in destitution, including 1 million children. It defines destitution as

“when people cannot afford to meet their most basic physical needs to stay warm, dry, clean and fed”.

It reports that destitution has increased by 148% since 2017. That is not a society any of us wants to live in. I have looked at the foundation’s detailed research, but what I found most interesting was when it actually talked to people and asked them, “Just give us an example of your experience.” There is a whole list of quotes, but this is the one that got to me:

“Me and my partner survive on one meal a day. We make sure my daughter is eating. She has three meals a day, but me and my partner, we are lucky if we have one meal a day.”

That cannot be right, can it? In any society, that cannot be right.

There is a whole series of other quotes in which people talk about going hungry because the food bank is open for only a limited number of days, or because they get only so many discretionary opportunities to receive food from the food bank. As my right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham (Sir Stephen Timms) said, the number of people using food banks has shot through the roof again.

So this is an appeal to the Chancellor to do something in the autumn statement, in a couple of weeks’ time, to help our children out of poverty. In the pandemic, it was recognised by the Government that the safety net was not working, so with our unanimous support they added an extra £20 a week to universal credit to see people through. That needs to be done now, just as a first step. The cost would be between £5.5 billion and £6 billion. That sounds a lot, but given the overall weight of Government spending and the impact it could have on lifting children out of poverty, it would be a significant investment. We have also previously debated scrapping the two-child limit, which would lift 250,000 children out of poverty. I also want to make sure that children are not going hungry, which is why free school meals for all pupils will be critical as a foundation stone for the future.

In many of our areas we have people living in poverty because they cannot afford the rent. On Sunday night, a family of constituents came to my home. They are in a property in my constituency. To get on a council housing list, you have to live there 10 years and then you have to wait for five or six years. By that time, some children have grown up. This family came into my house and we sat down. Both parents are in work—one works in childcare—but they cannot afford the rent because the housing allowance no longer anywhere near matches what is needed. The Government need to now consider ending the housing allowance freeze and restoring it just to the 2015 level of 50% of market rents.

There is a brutal form of social security policy in this country: no recourse to public funds. What that means is that the children of migrants, who have done nothing to deserve it, are forced into poverty because their family has no recourse to public funds. I urge the Government and the Chancellor in the autumn statement to do something to lift our children out of poverty. There is a range of measures that are completely affordable and that could have a dramatic impact on the lives of children in our country.

A final point from me: no debate can go on without mentioning the children of Gaza—the 4,000 who have been killed and the 1,000 we think are under the rubble. That is why our calls today for a ceasefire are so important. Sometimes when we have these debates, political calculation overtakes us. When we come into the Chamber, our humanity and sometimes our ability to express our concerns ends there because of the politics of a situation. I thought we saw today, across the House in many respects, the real concern there is about the children of Gaza. I just hope the Government can bring themselves to lead the call for an immediate ceasefire, because I cannot see any other solution to ending that suffering.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is a pleasure to speak in this debate and a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell). He always focuses on child poverty in these debates, and that is the right thing to do. What he refers to in his constituency is replicated across the whole United Kingdom. On food banks, for instance, just last week in my Strangford constituency there was a front-page article about food banks. There has been not a 16% increase in the use of food banks, but a 72% increase. That is incredibly worrying. It is not just those on low incomes who are finding it harder and harder to pay their bills; it is also those on middle incomes. He is right to make those points and I support him entirely.

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for allowing me to speak. What a poignant first speech delivered by His Majesty the King in his role. It was a privilege to be a part of that audience yesterday, to witness his instructions for the delivery of the Government’s aims, and to today represent the good people of my constituency of Strangford, his loyal subjects, as we seek to ensure that the needs of our community are met within those aims. Watching the pomp, pageantry, tradition and history—the whole procession and the King’s Speech for the start of Parliament—makes me feel incredibly proud to be British.

I very much welcome the apprenticeship scheme that the Secretary of State outlined. I also welcome the measures on childcare provision—good news. It might be low-hanging fruit, but the tobacco legislation is also to be welcomed. It may not be earth-shattering as such, but it is important because it will, hopefully, make a change. I also welcome the increase in Ministry of Defence spending. My request within that Government commitment is that perhaps we could look at recruiting more Territorial Army personnel in Northern Ireland. The reserve forces in Northern Ireland are well-recruited. There are opportunities and I believe we should be doing more, legislatively, to ensure that people can join the Royal Navy, the Army and the RAF in Northern Ireland.

I want to make three points, so I will call it a Presbyterian sermon. I am not a Presbyterian, although I am married to one—I am a Baptist—but a Presbyterian sermon is in three parts.

[John McDonnell]

There is a hint of Catholicism there.

[Jim Shannon]

The right hon. Gentleman always has a good point to make.

The title of today’s debate, “Breaking Down Barriers to Opportunity,” resonates with me in a few ways. I seek assurance from the Government that their commitment to breaking down barriers extends to Northern Ireland. I secured a Westminster Hall debate before Prorogation on contracts for difference, and the hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse) has just spoken about the importance of having them in place. I know the Minister will forgive me for raising the matter again so soon, but this is a new Session with new goals and, I hope, a new approach. Contracts for difference are much wider than simply an energy issue; they are also about the Northern Ireland economy.

I am a great believer that the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is better together and, for me, it is important that we all feel the benefits of the King’s Speech by making sure that Northern Ireland plays its part in the economy of this great nation. It is about building a Northern Ireland supply chain, and Northern Ireland’s desire to contribute to the Government’s net-zero target and to reaching that target together equally across this great kingdom. It is about jobs. It is about science, technology, engineering and maths opportunities for ladies and women. It is about new skills, as the Education Secretary said, and it is about Northern Ireland’s desire to be an integral part of providing support for low-carbon delivery across the four nations of this great United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

I love history, and it is no secret that I love this place. It always resonates with me that the four nations become one in Central Lobby, which is what I hope for. The barriers to opportunity must be torn down, and I look to the Government to make sure that happens through the contracts for difference scheme.

I know the Government intend to commit over £1.6 billion to the green climate fund—the biggest single international climate pledge that the UK has ever made—yet I feel there is a barrier within the UK, which can be brought down to help achieve our climate pledge while improving the local economy in Northern Ireland. Extending contracts for difference to Northern Ireland is an essential component of that work, and I hope Northern Ireland’s barrier to opportunity will be broken down. Green energy can deliver job opportunities, so we must break down that barrier.

The obvious barrier to opportunity in Northern Ireland is the Irish sea border. That physical barrier is detrimental to all in Northern Ireland. Unfortunately, the Prime Minister made only a fleeting reference to Northern Ireland yesterday, and the fact is that this issue has not been resolved. He referred to the Union, but he did not go into any details. As someone who believes in the Union, I would have loved to hear more from the Prime Minister.

The barrier to democracy erected by the European Union is still fully in place, as my constituents are subject to laws created by a process in which they have no elected representation. My hon. Friend the Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson) is also here, and we both recognise that local representation makes an important difference. At the moment, we are denied that representation. The barrier remains, as the DUP remains unable to take its place in devolved authority at Stormont until further steps are taken to restore our opportunity to operate as a fully functional member of this United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

I now move on to the third part of my Presbyterian sermon. I say this respectfully to the Minister—I always try to be reasonable in my comments—but the Government continue to bury their head in the sand on child benefit thresholds. This is DUP policy, and we moved a ten-minute rule Bill on this subject before Prorogation. I have raised this issue over and again, and I will continue to do so until the Government acknowledge that the 10-year freeze equates to a reduction in child benefit thresholds. It has created barriers to opportunity, and to much-needed extra funds, for working families, which is unacceptable. It is a barrier not only for us in Northern Ireland, but for us all in this great United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland; it is a barrier in Scotland, Wales, England and Northern Ireland.

Another barrier to opportunity for working families throughout the UK is that they are afraid of accepting small pay rises for fear of dealing with His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, and that while prices have escalated, their wage is stagnant. Something has to break and it must not be, and never can be, the working family. The right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington referred to that clearly and I am saying the same thing. For them, I ask the Government to include this matter in the list of priorities for this coming year.

I am coming to the end of my speech, within the timescale that you asked us all to adhere to, Madam Deputy Speaker. However, let me highlight that all of us here have the tools not only to build barriers in society, but to break them down. Let us break them down together and make sure that we make the right choice, prioritising our economy, our Union of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and our working families in this new Session. May God bless the King, and this Government, as they deliver his and their goals and aims in this year.

Special Educational Needs and Disabilities: Specialist Workforce

John McDonnell Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd March 2023 Westminster Hall

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

I declare an interest, Mr Sharma—my wife is Dr Cynthia Pinto, chair of the committee on the Division of Educational and Child Psychology, and she is active in the Association of Educational Psychologists, so you can imagine what our breakfast conversations are like. I welcome the Minister, who has had responsibility for disabilities in the past, which gives her an understanding of some of the issues we face. She has also been a Parliamentary Private Secretary in the Treasury, so she knows where the money is buried, which is extremely helpful. I thank Professor Vivian Hill from the Institute of Education at University College London, who has provided a number of us with briefings on educational psychology.

I want to draw attention to the issues facing educational psychologists. The chief inspector of education identified that the demand and need for educational psychology services from schools and families, to support early intervention and preventive work, has significantly increased. The inspector’s report also identified that there is a huge geographical variation—to which my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea West (Geraint Davies) referred—in access to EPs, and noted that 60% of local authority EHCP assessments are not being completed within the 20-week timeframe as required.

Alternative provision has been mentioned. The Ofsted report last November identified that more children are being referred to alternative provision, but often because of the lack of access to specialist services in mainstream schools. Let us look at the stats on the increased numbers of education, health and care plans being issued. During 2021, 93,000 initial requests were made for assessment for EHCP—up from 76,000 in 2020. It is the highest number since data was first collected in 2016. His Majesty’s chief inspector of education reported that 1.5 million pupils were identified with SEND in 2022—an increase of 71% on the previous year; I found that staggering. The number of EHCPs has also grown by 51% since 2014-15. I think we are all experiencing that in our constituencies, as we receive representations from parents struggling to gain access to the planning processes.

Also interesting—I wonder whether others have experienced this—is the significant increase in the number of SEND tribunals, which becomes incredibly expensive for the local authorities. This is worrying. It is interesting that Professor Hill has identified this from the various statistics that have been brought out, and it was raised in a debate in the main Chamber a couple of months ago about the unmet mental health needs of children and young people. A record number of children and young people are being referred to NHS services for mental health difficulties. In the previous debate on this issue, MP after MP reported the issues and demand on CAMHS that are overwhelming it; that is increasingly worrying.

An increased number of children and young people are being permanently suspended or excluded from school. Some Members might have listened to the reports this morning about the number of “ghost” children, who are no longer in school. The figure of 20% was absolutely staggering. Covid has obviously had an impact, and there is a continuing impact on mental health, but local authorities struggle to maintain levels of support services for families in particular.

I also found interesting the evidence that local authorities struggle to recruit educational psychologists. The recent local government ombudsman report shows that 70% of local authorities are now struggling to recruit EPs. The Government have recognised that; it is one issue that is being addressed in the future of our workforce plan for skilled workers and the recruitment of staff. It has also been recognised that the recruitment of staff from overseas can assist us during this period while we struggle to recruit.

Many local authorities are now relying on locum cover from private providers but, as hon. Members will appreciate, that can be extremely expensive compared with direct investment. Educational psychologists have raised with the Government the issue of adequate funding of the services overall, which my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea West mentioned. Specifically for EPs, the Government responded in December with £21 million in additional funding, which was welcome. That will be for intakes from 2024, but the problem is that the core funding is inadequate—it has not been increased since 2020.

Let us look at the figures put out by the British Psychological Society, of which the Division of Educational and Child Psychology is a part. The announcement of £21 million for 400 additional educational psychologists is definitely a step in the right direction, but the BPS says that it really does not go far enough to close the workforce gap. The figure that I find shocking is that we are now at the stage where in 2017 there were about 3,000 educational psychologists working in England; on average, that is the equivalent of one educational psychologist for every 3,500 children and young people between the ages of five and 19. Again, there was one for every 5,000 for those between the ages of nought and 25 —the plan period. Therefore, the demand is for a greater increase of investment in educational psychologists to increase the numbers because of the increasing demands.

I will raise one issue that is specific to my own patch, but which may be reflected in other constituencies. I have 2,400 refugees—asylum seekers—in hotels in my constituency, including many children, who go into local schools. I have toured the hotels and done advice surgeries in them, and what has been reported back from the schools and from the discussions I am having with families is that a number of those children, who are largely from war zones, are suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder. That is placing an increased burden on individual schools. The teachers welcome rising to that challenge, but they need additional resources.

I would welcome a discussion with the Government—maybe all MPs have this situation in their constituencies—about what additional resources could be targeted at particular areas so that they can overcome this period, which I am sure will be temporary, but requires resources at the moment. The message is clear from the DECP and others: additional resources need to be specifically targeted at the recruitment and training of educational psychologists to meet this growing demand and, exactly as the hon. Member for Hastings and Rye (Sally-Ann Hart) said, to give children the life chances that they desperately need.

[Mr Virendra Sharma (in the Chair)]

Looking at the time and the Front Bench, I would appreciate it if Members would stick to four minutes.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Claire Coutinho)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Sharma. First, I congratulate the hon. Member for Swansea West (Geraint Davies) on securing a debate on this incredibly important subject. It is wonderful to see so many people in agreement about what is needed, and to have seen the expertise on show today. I hope people can see from our SEND and alternative provision improvement plan the seriousness of the Government in trying to respond to the needs of children with special educational needs and disabilities across the country.

The hon. Member rightly talked about the importance of early language, which we know feeds into children’s overall learning and literacy. He talked about the importance of education and health working together, and I am pleased to say that we jointly published that report, and that the Department of Health is very much working hand in glove with us on the plans. He also spoke about the importance of all-teacher training, which is crucial, early identification and getting a diagnosis, and recruitment and retention. I confirm that I would be delighted to meet with him, and we will talk about dates. I shall touch on some of those subjects in my speech.

I have had the privilege to meet some of the galaxy of professionals, as the hon. Gentleman said, who support children and young people with SEND. Whether they are in early years, schools, colleges, health and care settings, or specialist and alternative provision, those are some of the best visits that I do; it is a joy to meet a group of people who are so dedicated, skilled and passionate about meeting the needs of their children and young people. Hon. Members mentioned investment in the specialist workforce a number of times, and I am keen to engage with all the charities and organisations that have expertise in this issue as we take our plans forward to the next stage.

The SEND and alternative provision improvement plan is meant to support the entitlement set out in 2014 through a much clearer local and national focus on the strategy for how we can plan to meet those needs, whether that is through best practice guides for teachers or local inclusion plans, which mean that each area will have to assess and work out how to meet those needs. The funding has increased by more than 50% over the last few years. The idea is that all those parts of the system will be looked at and will hopefully work better together to meet rising need, improve access and build confidence in the system. A number of Members talked about the fact that there is not enough alternative provision, that there is not enough early years support or that there is something specific in their area such that needs are not being met. I hope that the whole system change that we have set out will go a long way to addressing those issues.

Through our consultation process, we heard too many stories from families who are frustrated by the system and battling to access specialist support. We also heard that reform is not possible without a strong, capable workforce with a specialist skillset. I want to assure everyone that we have taken those comments on board and are working hard to make the reforms a reality.

I want first to talk about the specialists who work so hard to provide extra support. They will be key to ensuring that we can do what we need to do for these young people. The right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) rightly mentioned the importance of educational psychologists and children getting through the EHCP process. He mentioned that educational psychologists can provide professional advice to children and young people and drive better life outcomes. I completely agree with his emphasis on them. He is also right that I used to be a Treasury PPS; I had fewer opportunities to agree with him then, so it is nice to be able to do so today. We have announced an additional £21 million to train more educational psychologists. We increased the number of people coming through the system in 2020 and, because of the training time, some of those people are coming through now. He is right that this issue will be crucial in ensuring that we can meet needs.

It is also important—I will touch on this later—to improve broader teacher confidence. In the case of something such as speech and language support, if we had better confidence and evidence-based interventions in mainstream settings, we would have a reduced need for educational psychologists and EHCPs.

[John McDonnell]

All of us will assist the Minister through representations to the Treasury about the required early investment that eventually saves money further downstream. I am happy to engage in any lobbying of Treasury Ministers to get that message across, as some of them have not yet fully grasped it.

[Claire Coutinho]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman, but I would slightly disagree with him. When I was in the Treasury in 2019, I worked on the increase, which we are starting to see, in the high needs funding block, which has gone up by 50%. There is also the £2.6 billion that we are spending on specialist places and the £20 million, which I have mentioned, that we have set out for educational psychologists. We have backed a lot of reforms with funding over the past few years, but I will gladly work with him on anything in this area.

We have also committed to working with the Department of Health on a joint approach. The hon. Member for Swansea West talked about engaging with the specialist sector in health, and we are definitely planning to do that. We do not want to reinvent the wheel; we want to work with people who have expertise in this area.

Access to speech and language therapy has rightly been mentioned. I know the hon. Member for Swansea West has a deep expertise in that, and I am particularly passionate about it. In the improvement plan, we announced that we will partner with NHS England to include early language and support for every child pathfinders within our £70 million change programme. My hon. Friend the Member for North West Norfolk (James Wild) mentioned meeting to discuss that, and I would be delighted to do so. The plan for those pathfinders is that they will trial new ways of working to better identify and support children with speech and language communication needs. We are also looking at family hubs. We have support for Nuffield early language intervention in primary schools, and we are putting support in place with home learning environments. In 2020, there were 620 acceptances to speech and language therapy programmes in England. That was an increase of 28% from 2019. We are working with the NHS on a long-term plan, which will look at therapists, and we are also working on the steering group that we will set up this year.

On the mainstream workforce, my hon. Friend the Member for Wantage (David Johnston), whom I am meeting later today to discuss this issue, rightly said that inclusive schools make for an inclusive society. We will be looking at the initial teacher training framework and early career framework, but, importantly, we are setting out best practice guides, starting with autism, mental health and wellbeing and early language, to ensure that the wider workforce all have that specialist ability as well. It is really important to understand different conditions and what can be done.

Members have mentioned that we are introducing the new SENDCO NPQ, which will replace the existing qualification That will be Ofsted and Education Endowment Foundation assured. Members, including the hon. Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell), have mentioned teaching assistants. The Chair of the Education Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr Walker), mentioned his sister. Teaching assistants are vital. We are starting a research project to develop our evidence base on current school approaches, demand and best practice.

--- Later in debate ---

[Geraint Davies]

I have a surprising amount of time, but I will not take all of it. First, I would like to thank everybody who took part in the debate, with consensus about this massively important issue, which affects 1.5 million people across Britain. We welcome the Minister’s sentiments. The point has been made that we need to speed up and deliver for the people who are seeing their children’s life chances ebbing away in many cases, as we speak.

[John McDonnell]

Since my hon. Friend has a couple of minutes, one issue raised by the Minister was the role of the voluntary sector. I know he was speaking on behalf of a coalition of groups, but one issue we have not examined is the funding of those individual organisations. Many of us have concerns about the drying-up of funding from local government to the voluntary sector. We might now need to put that back on the agenda in discussions with the Minister.

Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Bill

John McDonnell Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 13th June 2022 Commons Chamber

[Jess Phillips]

I will absolutely come on to naming some of those institutions. As I said, this was found by Elle magazine, which is collecting this data, unlike the Government at the moment. The article said the student claimed this arrangement felt

“worse than the assault—Dealing with this abuse of power was far more traumatic. It was emotionally exhausting and humiliating.”

Earlier this year, the Express took a day off from talking about Princess Diana and its investigation revealed that more than 3,500 cases of assault were reported in 78 institutions in the UK in the last five years. The figure consists of confirmed cases of sexual violence and disclosures made by both staff and students pending investigation. The 135 freedom of information requests sent to every university in the UK also revealed that many do not record figures of sexual assaults, so the overall number is likely to be much higher. So it is, “Just don’t record it and then it doesn’t happen.”

In 2020, a BBC investigation found that over 300 NDAs were used by universities in student complaints between 2016 and 2020, and that almost a third of all universities in England had used such deals in these circumstances. The probe discovered that universities had paid out £1.3 million on these deals, although the true scale is thought to be much larger. The campaign Can’t Buy My Silence was started by the brilliant and formidable Zelda Perkins, once an assistant to Harvey Weinstein and someone who had an NDA imposed on her related to his crimes, and Professor Julie Macfarlane. Their campaign has survivors’ testimony reporting that NDAs had gagged them from speaking of their experiences with family or loved ones, or even their therapists. I pay tribute to them and the work they are doing alongside the Minister, whom I know speaks to them. However, like me, they agree that legislation is necessary to tackle this.

So far, 66 universities have signed the Government’s pledge. I made this speech on Second Reading and since then the Government added “looking at non-disclosure agreements” into the violence against women and girls strategy, which was published late at the end of last year. I stand here in complete respect for the Minister. She has sought to do what she can to improve the situation. She has worked with the campaigns that I have talked about to get universities signing pledges. She is working with the Office for Students to look at regulation and at what needs to happen if these things are breached. Every Member of Parliament will have had to try to get a regulator to do something about their bad cases, and we are here with universities signing “pledges”. I do not know how we are going to know whether they are breaking their pledge if people have been gagged.

So far, 66 universities have signed the Government’s pledge. That is great, but why haven’t the others? I encourage every university to do this. There are over 130 universities in the UK. What about those students? What about their right to speak out? As the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Alicia Kearns) pointed out, she would want to hear about this. I am not going to list all the universities that have not signed it, but here are some: the University of Cambridge, King’s College London, the London School of Economics, the University of Wolverhampton and the University of Sunderland. That is just to name a few. Perhaps it is taking time and perhaps they are getting around to it. I very much encourage them to do it.

Just to show the House what I am talking about, I have an example here of one of these NDAs. This is the kind of thing that students are asked to do. It is not necessarily called a non-disclosure agreement, and that is a way out of this; the right hon. Member for Basingstoke (Dame Maria Miller) and I often challenge organisations when they say they do not have NDAs, because we have them in our inboxes and they call them something else. They will call them a “confidentiality agreement”. In lots of cases in universities we have seen the growth of “no contact arrangements”.

I will read this agreement out—this is from the university. It says, “We recognise the sensitive nature of the allegation involved. In consideration of our duty of care to both parties, we have therefore concluded that in the interest of both parties a non-contact arrangement is required.” This young woman who had been raped was told, exactly as the person accused of raping her was told, that she had to stay out of certain places; she could not go to certain things at certain times. She was told that she, “Is not to enter the building”, that her, “Fob access will be disabled” and that she is, “Not to enter the building unless for tutorials and classes notified in advance.” She is told, “Fob access will be disabled unless we have had advance notification”—this is a rape victim being told that she has to report to a guard so that she can go to her classes. She is also told, “You are asked not to make any information about these allegations, the police investigation or the safeguarding arrangements that we have made available on any form of public media”—so she should not talk about this document. Finally, she is told, “Evidence of repeated breaches of this arrangement and/or a serious breach of conditions—entering an embargoed building or publishing material in the press—will result in your expulsion.” That is from one of the finest universities in the world.

This is about people’s silence, but not just their silence; it is about their movement, their freedom and every element of their freedom of expression being stopped. Yet there is nothing in the Bill about freedom of speech, freedom of expression or freedom to study. There is nothing that the Government are proposing to do or to put in legislation. I simply do not understand why they would not have taken this opportunity to do something.

I met the Minister last week and, as I said, I do not doubt her total and utter commitment. Incidentally, she said earlier that “legislation of this nature can spur culture change.” Yet she told me last week that legislation is not always the answer—[Interruption.] I will take the intervention, by all means. No? Okay. She also explained to me that the Office for Students is looking at regulation to, for example, take away the status of a university if it is guilty of a breach. I responded—and I say again—that the idea that a rape victim who has signed a non-disclosure agreement will take down Cambridge University is the stuff of cinematic hopeful glory. I will believe that when I see it, which everybody in this building knows will be never. Why would we want to push universities and victims into that position? Why would we not legislate to stop the use of non-disclosure agreements?

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

I do not want to spoil the flow of my hon. Friend’s incredibly eloquent speech, but non-disclosure agreements not only apply to students but are used extensively with staff. When we have discussed this issue before, the argument has been that there is sufficient employment law to deal with these matters. There clearly is not, because it does not reflect the balance of forces between employer and employee and the delays that take place. Surely we must legislate to scrap NDAs altogether, and the first step could be the inclusion of my hon. Friend’s amendment in the Bill.

[Jess Phillips]

I absolutely agree, and the amendment clearly covers staff being able to talk about their experiences. The Minister cited a member of staff who felt compelled to leave their employment because of what the Minister rightly pointed out was bullying. Had that member of staff signed a non-disclosure agreement, the Minister would never have been able to talk about them, and nor would that particular employee of that particular university. We would not even know what had happened. Had a non-disclosure agreement been signed in that case, which was, I believe, at the University of Sussex, the Minister would not have had her helpful example.

I took part in a debate on the television the other day about freedom of speech. A Government Member of Parliament, who I like and respect, turned to me and said, “The thing is, Jess, that no one can be forced to sign a non-disclosure agreement”—I just said my own name. Is that allowed? I don’t have to refer to myself as the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley?

--- Later in debate ---

[Michelle Donelan]

My right hon. Friend is correct. As I said, some universities have misinterpreted the Equality Act, which is why comprehensive guidance will be produced by the new director that will be the main source that they should refer to, rather than external agencies.

[John McDonnell]

On the point about advice, we are dealing with what has obviously become a contentious issue that often relies on subjective judgments. The advice that universities will take will come from the director for freedom of speech and academic freedom. Does it not behove the House to ensure that that person has the absolute confidence of those universities? New clause 4 simply says that that person will not be associated with a political party and will be appointed by an independent panel, and that a Select Committee will have a role in confirming that appointment. That will hopefully take the director who provides such sensitive advice out of the political melee and give universities more confidence in them.

[Michelle Donelan]

If the right hon. Gentleman will allow me, I will get to that point later; he may intervene again if he is not satisfied with the response.

Amendment 18 would require the Office for Students, when considering a complaint, to be mindful of the right of students to feel safe on campus, and of other legal duties such as those under the Equality Act 2010 and the Prevent duty. But the duty in the Bill to take “reasonably practicable” steps to secure freedom of speech and academic freedom will allow for relevant considerations to be taken into account. In particular, it will allow for other legal duties, such as those under the Equality Act and the Prevent duty, to be considered.

“Reasonably practicable” is a commonly understood term used across the statute book. It means that the relevant body can take into account all the other legal duties on a case by case basis. If another legal duty requires or gives rise to certain action, it would not be reasonably practicable to override that. As for the Office for Students, it will be required to take into account all the relevant facts. It would not be appropriate to try to set out all the considerations that it should take into account, so the Government do not support the amendment.

New clause 4 concerns the appointment of the director for freedom of speech and academic freedom to the board of the Office for Students. It relates to the appointee giving a donation to a political party, and it would require the appointment to be made by an independent advisory panel. We have in this country a robust public appointments process that, rightly, does not bar people who are members of political parties from serving in such roles.

The Commissioner for Public Appointments sets out that every year numerous public appointments are made of individuals who declare political activity, and in many years more appointees have declared an affiliation to the Labour party than to the Conservative party. This rule is such that, if applied generally, it would have prevented individuals such as Alan Milburn, Baroness Falkner and John Cope from serving.

On who will appoint the director, this will be carried out in the same way that the other members of the Office for Students board are appointed under the Higher Education and Research Act 2017—by the Secretary of State—and this will of course be done in accordance with the public appointments process. It would not be consistent to treat the director under this Bill differently. The Government therefore do not support this amendment.

[John McDonnell]

As this now goes to the other place, could I just ask the Minister to think again on that particular issue? This is an incredibly contentious area, and it requires someone who is above any form of suspicion of party political linkages. More importantly, it requires someone who has the confidence of an independent panel, but also, I believe, of one of our Select Committees. I urge her to think again, at least about the appointments process and the engagement of a confirmatory vote by a Select Committee on this critically important post, which I think is so important that the legislation will stand or fall on this appointment.

[Michelle Donelan]

I am a little taken aback by the comments of the right hon. Member, who refers to the relationship between political parties as suspicious—quite something given that we are all related to political parties. The Government will not be thinking again on that one.

New clause 5 would introduce a sunset clause, meaning that unless a report is made to Parliament and regulations are made, the legislation would expire three years after the date of enactment, and it would give Ministers the power to discontinue provisions in the Bill after one year. The fact that the Opposition have tabled this amendment demonstrates very clearly that, whatever they say, Labour Members do not support free speech. They have consistently opposed the need for this Bill despite the very clear evidence, and they now are seeking to dismantle it before it has even started. The Government wholeheartedly oppose this amendment, and we will never falter in our determination to safeguard free speech.

With the assurances I have given, I hope Members will not press their amendments to a vote, and I commend this Bill to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

New clause 2 accordingly read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 4

Appointment of the Director for Freedom of Speech and Academic Freedom

“(1) A person may not be appointed as the Director for Freedom of Speech and Academic Freedom (‘Director’) if the person has at any time within the last three years made a donation to a political party registered under the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000.

(2) The person appointed as the Director may not whilst in office make any donation to a political party registered under the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000.

(3) The appointment for the Director shall be made by an independent advisory panel to be established by regulations made by the Secretary of State.

(4) The appointment of the Director for Freedom of Speech and Academic Freedom shall be subject to a confirmatory resolution of the relevant Select Committee of the House of Commons.

(5) A statutory instrument containing regulations under subsection (3) may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before and approved by resolution of each House of Parliament.”—(Matt Western.)

This new clause would ensure that the Director of Freedom of Speech and Academic Freedom has not and cannot whilst in office donate to a political party and ensure they are only appointed subject to confirmation of an independent advisory panel, the Select Committee of the House of Commons and a resolution of each House of Parliament.

Brought up, and read the First time.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.

Foster Carers

John McDonnell Excerpts

Thursday 21st April 2022 Westminster Hall

[Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)]

Mr Robertson, as Chair, you have a very privileged position, because you hear in Westminster Hall debates some truly remarkable stories. We have heard some today. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow (Kate Osborne) for the work that she has done on this issue and for securing the debate, but that is trite—there is no merit in securing a debate. The merit lies in what she said and in the experience that she brought to it. Similarly, I was hugely moved by the words of the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Neale Hanvey). That is what is remarkable: sometimes, we learn so much more about our colleagues in this Chamber than we ever expected to. We also heard from the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Jonathan Gullis), who spoke of his own experience in secondary school.

We have heard today about the power of love and how it can transform lives. It can change a child’s life and set it on a new path. I pay tribute to all those from the Fostering Network who are here in the Public Gallery for the work that they do. I salute them. That service often is not in the vanguard of the public’s imagination, but clearly, what we have heard today means that it should be. It is extraordinary work and it takes extraordinary strength, resilience and compassion to do it. That is what this debate has brought out.

Let me turn to the debate itself and look at the annual fostering statistics. Ofsted has told us that the number of children in care is at its highest ever level in England. I know what the Minister will say. He will no doubt tell us that the number of carers is also at an all-time high, but he knows that the number of children in need of care is at an all-time high. The question that he must answer is not a technical one of provision and so on; it is this: why are so many children in need of fostering care? What is breaking down in our society that means that we have an all-time high and we need even more places than we have? What stress are families are experiencing and what pain—social and economic—are they going through that means we need so many more fostering places because families cannot cope on their own?

I contacted my own local authority and asked for its experience. It told me about the ageing profile of the foster care workforce. In Brent, we are finding it difficult to recruit newer and younger foster carers. Of course, in a city context, that is a function of the demand for housing. If someone wants to be a foster carer, they need a room for the child. The cost of living pressures in London, where both adults in a household need to work simply to maintain a property, are reducing the availability of people who would otherwise desperately wish to become foster parents, as we have heard. For our more vulnerable and needy children in care, having a carer at home for most of the time makes a huge difference to the stability of the placement. That is very difficult if both potential parents have to go out to work simply to maintain their rent or mortgage commitments. In Brent, we are actually turning away people who want to foster and have good skills because they simply do not have the physical space in their homes to accommodate a child.

The Competition and Markets Authority carried out a study of children in social care. I have to say that I found it difficult to read about the final report of its study of the “children’s social care market”. “Market” is not a word I want to use about children or the care of children—“service”, yes, but not “market”. However, on recruitment, the CMA said:

“The difficulty…is greatest for carers needed to look after children with more challenging needs… The degree of challenge also varies geographically.”

The study considered not only areas such as my own in London, but rural areas and the challenges faced by parents there. It is clear that not everyone who wants to be a foster carer has the resources—whether that is a spare room, the spare time or the financial stability—to be able to do so.

The Social Market Foundation has said that, in the next five years, we need 63,000 new families to make their homes available to children, yet it predicts that at current rates there will be 40,000—23,000 short of what is required. I hope that the Minister will say how the Government are preparing to meet the problems of recruitment and retention. How is he ensuring that his Department will assist local authorities with the pressures that they face, and how will it assist potential foster families with the pressures that they face in taking on that responsibility?

I hope that the Minister will also turn his attention and that of his Department to why this is happening—why there is an ever-increasing need. There has been, I think, an 11% increase over the past seven years in the number of children needing foster care. We are seeing an economic crisis and a cost of living crisis, and that will put increasing pressure on families. Over the next 18 months, I think the projected need for 63,000 families will be blown out of the water, because so many families will be in crisis and will not be able to cope, and the result will be increasing pressure on fostering services.

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

My hon. Friend asks why the numbers coming into care are so great. For four years running, Barnardo’s and the other children’s charities came together and argued the case for additional resources for local authorities for early intervention to support families. They say that the withdrawal of that intervention has resulted in record numbers of children coming into care.

I have another point to make. Like me, my hon. Friend is a London MP. The CMA report states that 20% of children in foster care—the percentage is higher for residential care—are in placements more than 20 miles away from where they live. That is exacerbated in London by the housing crisis, with many local authorities in London having to go as far as Kent and elsewhere to find foster placements. That problem is identified as part of the housing crisis in which local people are prevented from having a spare room available to assist in fostering.

[Barry Gardiner]

I am so glad that my right hon. Friend makes that point. I wrote on a piece of paper comments about geographic dislocation, but I have been unable to find it. It is important because this debate is about connectivity with the child’s environment—with his or her roots—and making sure that there is stability and continuity, which are undermined in exactly the way he describes.

The funding of local authorities is absolutely central to this question. My local authority has lost £180 million in Government support over the past 10 years. That is the scale of the crisis local authorities are facing. I am not saying this to make a plea for my local authority; I am saying it because we have an increasing crisis in caring for our children. The Government have to have a co-ordinated response that covers more than recruitment and retention, because that is just patching up the problem afterward; they must have a proper response to why so many children and so many families need this support.

Arthur Labinjo-Hughes

John McDonnell Excerpts

Monday 6th December 2021 Commons Chamber

[Nadhim Zahawi]

I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s important question. She is absolutely right about how social workers identify support networks for children—I have seen them do that brilliantly. Of course, if there is a scintilla of doubt in terms of any harm being caused to a child, they absolutely should be taken away. She also makes an important point about learning from previous cases and the additional work that will now be placed on the social work frontline. We are cognisant of that, and I know that the Minister for children and families is looking at how we can continue to support the frontline.

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

Unfortunately, we are too good at setting up reviews and blaming others. This House needs to take some responsibility. In March 2018, my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Gwynne) published a report with me, based on consultation with children’s charities, local government and social work professionals. It said that, after £2 billion-worth of cuts, children were at risk and could not be protected. We put forward proposals for the Budget that year, in the following year and in the following year.

We have seen a 40% cut in early interventions on children. We all get emotional about this—I was on childcare for 15 years and dealt with children who had been abused, and I never, ever want to see it again. I do not doubt the Secretary of State’s sincerity—we have worked with him and in most cases he has done a good job where he has been—so this is a message through him to the Chancellor: we need an emergency funding package for children’s services now. We cannot wait months for another review. Social workers are overworked and, actually, underpaid and disrespected. We need them to be properly funded and supported.

[Nadhim Zahawi]

I would respectfully say that I do not think anybody in this House would ever disrespect the social work workforce or any social worker. I also think that evidence-based strategy is important, and that is why the MacAlister review is so important. It is worth remembering that local government’s core spending is increasing by an average of 3% in real terms each year for the spending review period. So more money is going into local government, but, depending on what the MacAlister review delivers, I would certainly be the first to make the argument for properly resourcing children’s social care.

School-based Counselling Services

John McDonnell Excerpts

Tuesday 9th November 2021 Commons Chamber

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

I welcome this debate. I worked in childcare many years ago, when it was difficult to get people to comprehend the scale of mental illness among children and young people. We have moved on from there, and I am really grateful to my right hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne East (Mr Brown) and the right hon. Member for Harlow (Mr Halfon) for securing this debate. I chaired the all-party parliamentary group for parental participation in education last week, and we heard that the charity Parentkind had produced a survey revealing parents’ concerns. It found that 41% of parents now see the need for additional resources to be spent on mental health services for children, and that this was their second highest priority after the need for additional learning resources.

We also received a briefing from the division of educational and child psychology of the British Psychological Society. I declare an interest, in that my wife is an educational psychologist, but as she reminds me, she is also a constituent so she has the right to lobby me, even if it is at the breakfast table. That report confirmed what my right hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne East (Mr Brown) said about incidence. The NHS’s own survey showed that in 2020, one in six children—that is 16%—aged between five and 16 were identified as having a probable mental disorder, increasing from one in nine in 2017. What I found startling was that the same study showed that only six in 10 children aged between five and 16 with a probable mental disorder had regular support from their school or college.

I fully welcome the additional funds that the Government have given, but most stakeholders believe that it is inadequate to meet the scale of the problem. My right hon. Friend pointed out that even by 2023, only 3 million of the 9.5 million children will receive the support that they need. What we have been arguing for is a comprehensive, fully functioning and fully funded pathway to support children with mental health problems, and that starts in school. That pathway usually starts as a result of a parent or teacher’s action, but some children now are self-reporting their mental health issues.

A crucial point was made by my hon. Friend the Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) about a workforce strategy to provide support for teachers and special educational needs co-ordinators, but in this debate we are emphasising the fact that there have to be comprehensive counselling services embedded within those schools as well. Let me now give a plug for educational psychologists. They have the expertise to provide early help and targeted mental health interventions. They work with the counselling services, where they exist, and also with families. They are often the access points to child and adult mental health services and other health provision that is available, often through local health services and now through local authorities as well.

While we welcome the additional resources, I think we are arguing for the Government to stand back and look for that comprehensive approach, based on a work- force strategy and on the investment overall.

I refer back to educational psychologists. There are 3,000 of them in this country at the moment. That means one educational psychologist for every 3,500 five to 19-year-olds—or, because they now deal with those aged nought to 25, one for every 5,000. One early investment could be the expansion of educational psychology training places on the three-year doctoral programme, which could be readily invested in and could turn around relatively quickly to meet the increase in demand if we are to construct the comprehensive pathway service for which we have all been campaigning for so long. I will leave it at that point, because I know that other hon. Members want to speak.

Budget Resolutions

John McDonnell Excerpts

Tuesday 2nd November 2021 Commons Chamber

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

I would like to comment on some of the points made in the debate so far.

We all support levelling up—in fact, it was a Labour party policy announced in 2016—but let us talk about levelling back, because £100 billion of central Government funding has been taken from local government since 2010. With this Budget telling local councils that they can have spending power but not the resources to back it up, we know what will happen. Local councillors of all political hues will be blamed for either the cuts forced on them, or the council tax increases. It is predicted now that council taxes will increase by at least £400 by 2026.

What we need now is what we have been promised for a decade: reform of local government finance that provides an independent, adequate resource for local authorities. That includes the reform of business rates. On capital investment, it is now estimated that it would take £30 billion of investment a year to level up the regions to the investment levels of London and the south-east. In this Budget, there is nowhere near the amount needed to tackle that issue.

I say this to anyone entering government: whatever the quantum, the system of distribution must be seen to be fair. To have a Chancellor stand up and list the towns and areas that will be showered with his or her beneficence is not good enough. What we need is a system that is open, fair and transparent. In the distribution of resources across the UK to Scotland and Wales and so on, there is a Barnett formula. We should introduce a Barnett formula for this that is open and transparent, otherwise, there will be accusations of pork-barrel politics that will stain all our politics, not just this current Government’s.

On pay, let me be clear: for most of my constituents, pay has been frozen for 10 years. The Government are telling people that the freeze is now ended, but not allocating the resources. Do not insult people’s intelligence —they know that is a con. In the Government’s pay remit to Departments, we must make it clear to those Departments that all pay rises must at least match inflation, that there should be an element of catch-up because of the freeze and the pay cuts over the past 10 years, and that those Departments will be given the resources to enable that to happen.

On the minimum wage, can we just stop the Orwellian language? This is not a living wage. That is a con. If we are to have at least some semblance of a living wage, why do we not just allocate its distribution to those who assess the real living wage? We also need a transition to better wage levels in this country. Two thirds of children living in poverty—my hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield (Yvonne Fovargue) spoke about this—are in families where someone is in work. What does that say about wages?

We promised to introduce a £10 an hour minimum wage two years ago. Because that has not happened, people have lost out on £2,500 each. That is a lot of money that could have lifted people out of poverty. I want to see the living wage now at £10 an hour, and I want to see it progress towards £15 an hour by the next general election at least.

On universal credit, let us be clear that the taper, which my hon. Friend spoke about, still means a tax rate of 55p in the pound. That is more than the Prime Minister pays, and 70% do not benefit now from the improvement to the taper. Yes, we need to restore the £20, but why do we not think about what Barbara Castle put forward: ensuring that benefits are linked to earnings so that we all share in the growth of the economy?

We all agree that we are at one minute to midnight on climate change, but in this Budget I was hoping we would see a radical response to that—just the basics. No: I think at the last estimate, the Chancellor was introducing at least £54 billion of tax reliefs. Why do we not at least ensure that none of those tax reliefs go to companies promoting the use of fossil fuel, or that none of those tax reductions are linked to operations that increase emissions? In this instance, of course, I refer to the shocking announcement about the support that domestic flights will now get.

It was mooted at one point that we would see some radical changes in this Budget with regard to pensions tax relief. I hoped, and it is not too late, that when it came to the Finance Bill there would be a link between pension tax reliefs and ensuring that pension funds provide us with their strategies for removing their investments from fossil fuel—over a two-year prospect would be realisable.

Finally, let me say something on taxation. I was hoping we would see something at beyond just words about fair taxation. Fair taxation means not cutting tax on the bankers who caused the crisis of 2008, and it means fairer taxation of wealth—that is capital gains—and of the wealthiest. It is time that the City started pulling its weight. That is why the financial transaction tax, newly designed over the last month by the Robin Hood campaigners, could be a realistic way for the City to make a better contribution to our economy overall. I also expected significantly more in this Budget, after the Pandora papers, about tackling tax avoidance in British overseas territories funnelled through the City of London, along with the money laundering that is taking place on a criminal scale.

The Chancellor said that this was a Budget for an era of optimism. I warn him that it will create crushing disappointment, which will tarnish our whole politics. That crushing disappointment will come out elsewhere—on picket lines and in demonstrations and occupations—as people’s anger is fed by the disillusionment caused by this Budget.

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

John McDonnell Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd September 2021 Public Bill Committees

[Emma Hardy]

The University of Cambridge submitted:

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

Professor Kathleen Stock said:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I apologise, Sir Christopher, for not being here at the outset. I always take the opportunity to declare my interests in the Register of Members’ Financial Interested. I am interested particularly in the University of Bolton.

Mediation would be an option available to the director. When the director receives a complaint or identifies a problem, I have no doubt that he will have at his disposal a range of mechanisms for dealing with it. This is not an either/or; it will depend on the severity of the problem, and sanctions will occur only where the matter is not dealt with satisfactorily. I do not think it is an either/or.

[John McDonnell]

It would be helpful if we got on the record from the Minister the process that the Government envisage the director undertaking. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that it is not an either/or, but let us make that explicit on the face of the Bill. If we can get a statement from the Minister to that effect, I will be happy.

I use the example of a parking ticket, but even with a speeding fine—I admit nothing—there is the offer of going on a course to address speeding behaviour. We are not even building that into the Bill. I would welcome the Minister making a statement that she expects the director to undertake that process of engagement, mediation and warning before arriving at a sanction, which could be counterproductive to that process of engagement.

[Michelle Donelan]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Matt Western]

So much of what is being promised will be guidance or provided in due course by the OfS, but it is far from concrete in the way the witnesses asked for. I am surprised and disappointed that the Minister has still not made one reference in the entire time this Committee has been sitting to the Charity Commission and the role it will have in this system. It is far from clear how the OIA and the OfS will work. I appreciate that it has been said there will be some guidance on that, but as we have said throughout, there is a duplication here that will be extremely hard for people to navigate way through.

[John McDonnell]

I think it is fairly easy. A person can pursue an HEP against the NUS via the OIA or the OfS, or an ET, overseen by the DFSAF, and of course the DFE. What is the problem?

[Matt Western]

My right hon. Friend expresses the nature of the problem: it is as clear as mud. It will be impossible for most students to navigate their way through this, and that may be a major part of the problem.

I have taken on board some of the Minister’s comments on our amendments. However, I really think the appeals process should be written into the legislation at this stage, and therefore we wish to press amendment 42 and new clause 8 to a vote. This part of the Bill is clearly important, but there is so little clarity about how it will work in practice. It must therefore be a real concern to all of us. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendments made: 15, in clause 7, page 10, line 29, after “provider” insert

“, a constituent institution of such a provider”.

See explanatory statement to Amendment 8.

Amendment 16, in clause 7, page 10, line 32, after “provider” insert

“, a constituent institution”.—(Michelle Donelan.)

See explanatory statement to Amendment 8.

Amendment proposed: 42, in clause 7, page 10, line 21, at end insert—

“(8A) The scheme must provide an appeals process for governing bodies and students’ unions that have had free speech complaints upheld against them.”—(Matt Western.)

This amendment would require the free speech complaints scheme to have an appeals process for higher education providers and students’ unions.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

--- Later in debate ---

New clause 7 outlines that that board could comprise Universities UK, the University and College Union and the National Union of Students. Any advice that the independent advisory board comes up with should be made public, because there should be the utmost transparency in the operation of the board and the delivery of its advice. That should be agreed between the director and the board.

[John McDonnell]

In my view, this issue will evolve over time. Some of the issues that are contentious today may not be in the future, and some issues that we cannot foresee at the moment may well become contentious. On that basis, the director is going to be in a difficult position unless there is a strong network of advice provided to him or her. Amendment 78 would establish in the Bill the independence of that advice and the inclusiveness of the range of bodies from which the director will receive advice. As I have said, this is a bad Bill, but if it is going to go through, this provision would give confidence to those who implement or respond to the legislation.

In some ways, I feel for the director, because their position is vulnerable and they could be the butt of a lot of contentious debates. Having an advisory body provides a buffer—protection for that individual against being targeted in relation to key decisions. It is much better for the director to arrive at a decision having consulted a range of independent bodies. I am convinced that there will be an element of consensus about the implementation of most of the legislation, but when it comes to this issue, one needs advice from those at the coalface who are dealing with this on a day-to-day basis. Amendment 78 would make that possible.

I am sure that, as the Minister has said, the director will want to engage in those discussions. However, including in the Bill this provision for a more formal body, the independence of which is guaranteed in legislation, would strengthen the advice and therefore give the director much more authority. The amendment is designed to enable the whole system to evolve over time in response to the challenges that emerge. Some issues relating to freedom of speech that we would not even have discussed 10, 15 or 20 years ago have evolved into contentious matters. The only people who can advise us on that are those who deliver the legislation.

Most of the witnesses did not want their role to be simply that of a one-off witness to the Committee; they had an ongoing interest, and they wanted to continue to engage through their professional bodies or institutions. Amendment would 78 give them the opportunity to do so with guaranteed independence and an element of authority, working alongside the director. I see the amendment as constructive, and I hope the Government will take it on board.

[Michelle Donelan]

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

I mentioned the appointment of Ewan Fergusson, the friend of the Prime Minister. One hundred and fifty people were candidates for that position. The fact of a close friendship between Ewan Fergusson and the Prime Minister is a good reason for that person not to be appointed. Certainly, were I in that position, I would not be appointing friends, for the very reason that perception is everything—for credibility, perception is vital. I urge the Minister to consider the inclusion of our proposal in the appointments process for the director and to look further into how to protect the appointment from political persuasion. That was my final point.

[John McDonnell]

The simple point is that this is possibly one of the most contentious appointments in government, because it deals with contentious issues. Without some element of robust non-partisan protection in the appointment process, the whole operation of the Bill might be undermined. That is why extra safeguards are needed to ensure a buffer between the individual and party political activity. That is what one of the amendments seeks to address.

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle]

Historically, universities were set up by royal charter, specifically to ensure that Governments of the day were not meddling in appointments at university and that free speech was thus preserved. That was the ancient, as well as the more modern right of universities. Surely there is a requirement for those principles to be extended to the body that will now interfere in the operation of universities. Otherwise, we undermine the whole principle of independence, autonomy and therefore free speech in our higher education sector.

[John McDonnell]

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

[Emma Hardy]

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

[John McDonnell]

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

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

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

[Mr Jones]

As I have already stated, I have deep concerns about the Bill. It comes back to what we define as freedom of speech. In the evidence sessions, we found different views and different incidents, in terms of no-platforming and organisations being stopped from using buildings. The hon. Member for Congleton raised Christian Concern. I have read its website. It holds some quite extreme views, and I could understand why it would cause offence to certain students. In my opinion, it is down to the institution whether they allow such an organisation’s event to take place. For example, a gay student would be concerned that the organisation in question was questioning things such as the ban on gay conversion therapy. I understand why people might think that is what their institution should be about—disagreements.

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

John McDonnell Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd September 2021 Public Bill Committees

[Matt Western]

The purpose behind new clause 3 is straightforward: it is to ensure that the effectiveness of the legislation is formally reviewed, certainly within a year of it’s being passed. Professor Jonathan Grant said in his evidence:

“What I wait to see—I cannot answer this; I am speculating––is whether the legislation will have an impact on that 25% of people who feel that they cannot say what they want to and whether it will change the behaviours of lecturers in the classroom to get more balanced reading lists. I hope that is the case, but we do not know at this stage. If this legislation leads to that, then it has been successful.”––[Official Report, Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Public Bill Committee, 13 September 2021; c. 122, Q264.]

There are pretty substantial markers of success. Barring Dr Harris’s absurd belief that

“all this Bill needs to do to be successful is to cause a momentary pause. It needs to cause a degree of reflection.”––[Official Report, Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Public Bill Committee, 7 September 2021; c. 82, Q175.],

which I would suggest is a marker of success so low that, on this basis, the legislation ought to be passed continually to allow moments of self-reflection, we need to monitor the progression of the , how it is going to work and how it may work once it is, we assume, passed.

If the Government are, as the Committee is saying they are, so keen on the promotion of free speech, surely they would be inclined to allow annual monitoring and to tweak the Bill as necessary—for example, if there is vexatious litigation or confusion among students about which body they should complain to. New clause 3 simply seeks a review by the Education Committee looking into the effectiveness of the Bill’s provisions.

New clause 6, which stands in my name and that of my right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington, is a straightforward sunset clause of the type that much legislation includes. It states that this legislation should expire after three years beginning on the day it is passed, in view of our belief that it will not work. We are doing our best to be constructive about how it could work better and to mitigate its worst impacts, but we believe it is important to include this sunset clause. It would also give the Minister the power to remove provisions that were acting against the interest of free speech. I am reminded of how my right hon. Friend the Member for North Durham described the chilling effect as a blancmange. If that is so, why not embed the equivalent amount of flexibility in the Bill?

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

I put my name to the new clause as a point of principle, because I believe that we accumulate legislation—it builds up—but we never really review it properly to see whether it is effective enough and whether it needs proper amendment. This is basically a pragmatic administrative clause that, as my hon. Friend said, appears in many pieces of legislation.

I do not believe the Bill is necessary in this form—I think other actions should be taken—but if we are to pass legislation such as this, an awful lot of the issues will be addressed by regulation and guidance. The new clause gives the opportunity for a review within three years to see whether the legislation as a whole is working effectively, which parts of if are working effectively, and which parts are not and need to be dropped or amended. It is a straightforward administrative mechanism that I believe should be contained in most legislation, to prevent the pile-up of unnecessary burdens.

[Michelle Donelan]

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

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

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

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

John McDonnell Excerpts

Monday 20th September 2021 Public Bill Committees

[David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)]

I am an honorary fellow at Birkbeck College, University of London.

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

The same.

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Michelle Donelan]

There will be a variety of options available. Going to the director will be the free option and the first instance, but we cannot mandate that they have to have gone through the internal processes of an institution, because those will not be available to everybody that the Bill seeks to represent.

For example, this clause will provide a means of redress for individuals who do not have employment protections, such as visiting fellows—the point I was making earlier. Let us bear in mind that the purpose of the tort is to bolster the enforcement of the new freedom of speech duties on higher education providers and student unions, so that there are clear consequences for those who breach those duties.

The clause will ensure a clear route to individual redress for all who have suffered loss where freedom of speech duties have been breached, and will give those duties real teeth. This is therefore a vital part of the Bill, as part of a suite of measures to strengthen free speech in higher education.

[John McDonnell]

Will the Minister give way?

[Michelle Donelan]

I am afraid I am going to end there, and give the right hon. Gentleman an opportunity after that.

[Matt Western]

I was not expecting to speak so soon; I thought the Minister might speak at greater length on this.

[John McDonnell]

May I ask my hon. Friend the same question, then, and maybe the Minister can intervene on him?

[Matt Western]

I would love to hear from my right hon. Friend.

[John McDonnell]

I want to know who has standing in this matter. In my hon. Friend’s interpretation, is it the same person or people who have standing in the complaints process, or is it anybody? I might have got this wrong, but I cannot identify the breadth or narrowness of who has standing in these cases.

[Matt Western]

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Matt Western]

I absolutely take on board the hon. Lady’s point. I can answer her question honestly, and say that I have been involved in litigation at least once. I agree that young people would not enter into it lightly, and nor would academics of older years. It can be utterly corrosive to the individual and quite self-destructive; it is the sort of thing that people would want to avoid. My point is that some people will, through organisations, seek to engineer circumstances that play into their machinations on campus. We have to be extremely careful of that, because those people can be incredibly well-funded, as was made clear in the point I mentioned earlier.

[John McDonnell]

I am sympathetic to what the hon. Member for Congleton has said. However, we have been there in the past, with organisations and rich individuals funding cases. I can remember cases being funded by the late Sir James Goldsmith—I was involved in one—in which action was taken against a range of individuals and organisations, to step up to the plate on a number of issues of his concern which, at the end of the day, I do not believe had any merit. His son is a definite improvement on that, if nothing else.

[Matt Western]

Yes, that is a good example of what can happen where individuals or organisations are so well funded. It can be really overwhelming and frightening to an individual or organisation when they are faced with that. Universities will be extremely concerned about this. Local government is shying away from taking on developers or other organisations because it does not have the funds. It cannot justify to the public defending whatever position it has had to take for good, democratic reason. However, it then finds itself up against it because the developers have much deeper pockets.

--- Later in debate ---

I am deeply against the clause. I beg the Minister to consider the amendments, just to make sure there are safeguards so that this cannot go mad—I should not say “mad”—or blow up in our faces. If she is determined about the tort, there are safeguards she can put in, but I genuinely think there are significant things under the current regulations. If she wants, she could include the ability for the Office for Students and the adjudicator for free speech to have greater fining powers when institutions go via that route, so there could be a financial penalty, but the penalties would be seen in a one-track process without ambulance-chasing lawyers after them.

[John McDonnell]

The arguments have been cogently made by my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown. I have one simple question. Clause 3 states:

“A person may bring civil proceedings against”,

but who is that person? Who has standing in this? The schedule, which sets out the complaints scheme, it is very specific about who has standing in paragraphs 1, 2 and 3, and in paragraph 4 to a certain extent. It designates that an eligible person means,

“a person who is or was…a member or member of staff of the students’ union, or…a student, member or member of staff of the provider, or…a person who was, or was at any time invited to be, a visiting speaker.”

That is not set out in clause 3. I might have misread it; perhaps it is written down somewhere, but I cannot find it in the legislation at all.

If there was a link between the appeals process as a process that was exhausted and then an individual went on to the tort, they would probably be able to rely on the definitions set out in the schedule, but at the moment there is no definition at all. That is why I ask the question. I am not being obstreperous. I simply cannot find it in the Bill.

I will give an example. If I buy a ticket to attend a lecture or speech that is then cancelled, am I a person who is eligible to bring civil proceedings as a result of the damage—no matter how slight—caused to me by not hearing that person? Do I have standing? Can I sue the provider, the student union, or whatever? I just want clarity on that. Whenever we introduce a tort, it is a bit like that American baseball film—“If you build it, they will come.” If we create a tort, the lawyers will come, as will other organisations that wish to make money, or in some way frustrate the process of trying to secure freedom of speech, The clause as it stands could be counterproductive.

I want to make a simple point. People volunteer to be elected to student unions, and the president, vice-president and those on the executive committee are the ones who usually have the political fight to get on there. It is largely around the nature of the students and what activities they want to pursue. However, there are some people who altruistically become the trustees. It is completely altruistic and goes beyond making a political point by standing for president or to be on the executive committee.

What worries me is that, as soon as we get into litigation like this, the student body does not have the resources to settle the claim. One way around that is expensive insurance, but even that might be beyond some of these bodies. I am fearful of it then falling onto the shoulders of those trustees, who could incur quite significant financial costs. Even the fear of that may well prevent people coming forward as trustees. By inserting this into the legislation, we are building a dark hole for people to fall into, and I think it could cause considerable problems.

I do not understand why we cannot rely upon the complaints procedure set out in new schedule 6A of the Higher Education and Research Act 2017. If that does not, as the Minister says, cover visiting speakers and such, I do not understand why can we not amend the schedule to make it all-encompassing?This is abysmal legislation, and here we are—the Opposition—virtually rewriting it for the Government. I suppose we are trying to mitigate the damage that will be done if it passes the whole House unamended. If we are going to legislate in this way, let us at least not undermine the ability of young people to participate in the structures that actually do develop their concept of what democracy is all about.

That is what we are doing here, I think. We are putting large numbers of people at risk, and if they are not at risk, we are putting them off participating in bodies that perform a service, not just for students but wider society.

Question proposed, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.