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

Lloyd Russell-Moyle Excerpts

Thursday 16th September 2021 Public Bill Committees

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

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

[Emma Hardy]

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

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

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

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle]

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

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

[John McDonnell]

The point of including in amendment 74 a consultation process on amendments is that things change over time. There are bound to be amendments to the code over time, so is not it better to ensure that a consultation process is built into the drafting? We talked in previous sittings about how attitudes to LGBT issues have changed. That sort of thing has to be reflected in any codes in future. That is just a pragmatic approach to how we develop.

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle]

Amendment 75 allows for consultation on the uses of premises, and would ensure the issue was covered by the code. As he mentions, amendment 74 is about future amendments to the code.

The Education Act 1994, introduced by a Conservative Government, regulated how student unions affiliate and who can affiliate with them, and created a democratic element to that. The Act requires a certain threshold of student turnout, and regular student polling to ensure that student unions do not affiliate with organisations that the student body might no longer feel it appropriate to affiliate with. That is why, up and down the country, student unions must have regular ballots on whether they should continue to affiliate with the National Union of Students. Some student unions—very few—choose not to affiliate with it. Southampton was one in my day, although it might have affiliated since; I cannot keep up with these things. Those requirements are quite right.

The procedures introduced by the Bill, particularly about a code of conduct that will regulate who can speak on campus and how, need to have that democratic aim. I would be more than happy if the Minister said, “This isn’t quite the wording. We want to incorporate some of the wording from the 1994 Act, as there are some parallels.” That would be great. However, there needs to be an appreciation of how students and staff will be balloted on both the use of premises and, more broadly, on the creation of the code of conduct and any amendment of it. Otherwise, there is real danger that the code will be written for a university’s public relations purposes, rather than to ensure a university’s academic rigour.

[Fiona Bruce]

I have listened to the debate, and I am troubled by amendments 75 and 76. I believe I heard the the right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington say that the best form of consultation is ballot. I would normally construe that to mean a secret ballot. I am happy to be corrected if I misinterpreted his words. The whole aim of the Bill is to promote and secure freedom of speech—to open up dialogue at universities. We could end up with the almost bizarre situation in which people could vote in a secret ballot for what witnesses described as the monoculture, or even vote a certain way because of prejudice against a particular speaker, without having to give any reason why. I strongly believe that if the decision is made not to allow a speaker, or not allow the use of premises, those making that decision should publicly justify it; that goes to the heart of the Bill.