Conversion Practices (Prohibition) Bill

Debate between Lloyd Russell-Moyle and Matt Western

2nd reading
Friday 1st March 2024 Commons Chamber

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

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

When my former partner disclosed to me that he had twice gone through conversion practices, first facilitated through his family in church and secondly through his work in the church, I was shocked that such practices still take place in the 21st century. The trauma he still carries around with him is immense. No number of laws can rewrite history, but we can pledge, as all the main parties did in 2019, to ensure that no one goes through the trauma that he and many others still have in the future.

In recent years, we have had two petitions debates, four debates in Parliament, four written statements and sets of Government research, consultations and briefings, but in six years, we have failed to do what other countries have done in six months, which is to produce a ban that stops people falsely claiming that they can convert people’s sexual orientation or transgender identity. That false hope—false advertising, as it were—is not innocuous, and it causes great harm, but it is not currently captured in our laws. Despite all the main parties agreeing that this is an area we must act on, the issue has been put in the “too hard” box. The Government have consulted on it and years have passed, caught in a culture war where survivors are forgotten. The Government’s Bill, with its bells and whistles, seeks perfection, but delays have allowed the practice to go unimpeded, and that is of no use to man or beast.

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

I congratulate my hon. Friend on bringing the Bill forward. To pick up on that point, it is striking how long this has taken compared with other nations. The stalling coming from Government, when surely we are simply seeking to protect vulnerable people, seems a little obvious. Does he agree that any ban needs to be inclusive of all LGBT+ people?

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle]

I totally agree. Everyone in the House will know that I am not immune to getting stuck into this debate. We have had sparring partners across the Chamber on these issues, but that has led us nowhere. It has led to the delay itself and given a green light to many who think this practice might now be acceptable, rather than the abhorrence we all think it to be.

Lifelong Learning (Higher Education Fee Limits) Bill (First sitting)

Debate between Lloyd Russell-Moyle and Matt Western

Committee stage
Tuesday 21st March 2023 Public Bill Committees

[Matt Western]

Q Finally, can I just ask you about the future of the apprenticeship levy? It is currently not written into, or not within, this legislation. How do you see that sitting alongside the lifelong loan entitlement and the role for employers?

Professor Peck: Yes; I do think many employers will make use of the modular learning that the lifelong loan entitlement will promote. I think many employers will pay for their staff to do some of this upskilling and reskilling as part of investment in their training more broadly, which takes place outside the levy. I think there are some challenges at the moment about the levy and its size, aren’t there? We might be getting to a point where much of the levy is now being committed around apprenticeships, which is a real success. The question is: how do we keep apprenticeships growing over the next five to 10 years? That is for a very different group of staff. Apprenticeships often are for new starters or people completely changing their career with an employer, whereas the LLE is about modules enabling people to upskill and reskill when they are already in the workforce and established in the workforce.

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle]

Q At the moment, students come and study part-time or via the workplace. Predominantly, who pays for those courses?

Professor Peck: It is a really mixed picture. Some are paid for by employers and some will be paid for by individuals who have the means to do so. Those are the two major sources that we currently accept.

Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Bill

Debate between Lloyd Russell-Moyle and Matt Western

Consideration of Lords amendments
Tuesday 7th February 2023 Commons Chamber

[Matt Western]

I talk to members of all university communities of course, as the right hon. Member would expect: I talk to the senior leadership teams, UCU members, Unison members, those who are non-affiliated, and also students. I listen to all points of view across the piece. I am sure that occasionally the right hon. Member did not say what he would have liked to have said in a Cabinet meeting when in power, but that is the nature of how society works and there should be no difference between what happens on campuses and in wider society.

Anyone would think that the Minister’s colleagues have come to the fair conclusion that the Bill is more about political posturing than delivering on students’ priorities. Let me be clear for the record: this Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Bill and its passage through both Houses is a product of a Government who are out of touch, out of ideas and out of steam. It has been a masterclass in how not to pass legislation.

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle]

Members opposite say the banning of the Christian union was a disgrace, but is there not a real danger with this Bill that all societies will be banned from campus because the university will not then have to worry about regulating them, so it will exacerbate the problem, not help it?

[Matt Western]

I thank my hon. Friend for his important intervention. He is absolutely right, and he and many others on our side made that point repeatedly in Committee about the unintended consequences of the Bill, which would have a chilling effect. Those are the thoughts of Lord Willetts and many others in the House of Lords as well, who made it clear that that would be the result, particularly among smaller institutions, that may be less familiar to certain Members across the House, which do not have the resource or capacity to be able to administer these measures.

Ministers are choosing to ignore the widespread condemnation of the tort from Members in this place, Lords, sector representative bodies, students, trade unions and academics. They are seemingly prepared to carry on regardless. As recognised by so many, the tort is a clause primarily in search of a problem, but perhaps that is the point for Ministers. It is otiose; that is to say it serves no practical purpose or result.

Put simply, the objections to the tort raised in the other place are damning. I am well aware that this Government do not value expertise or experts, but, my God, they should. Their predisposition towards certain right-wing think-tanks has cost this country dear, and in terms of legal matters, or indeed the tertiary education landscape, the intellectual heavyweights in the other place, comprised of former vice-chancellors, current chancellors, former Supreme Court justices, ex-Masters of the Rolls and many former Education Secretaries and universities Ministers, have a brain quotient that is certainly higher than two. Their collective experience dwarfs that of the current Education team, and for that matter my own experience. It is for that reason that I take very seriously the warnings and advice given by peers in the other place, and, importantly, not just from one party but from across the House. There is perhaps no other clause in the Bill that provokes such widespread condemnation as clause 4, allowing individuals and groups to sue universities for losses resulting from a university or student union failure to secure their free speech duties.

Speaking of brains, Lord Willetts, a former Minister for higher education, believes that the risk of legal challenges would be terrible for freedom of speech in our universities, as people are likely to keep their heads down, not invite speakers, lie low and stay out of trouble. In other words, the prospect of vexatious litigation will have unintended consequences.

Lord Grabiner, an eminent jurist, went further and feared that the clause could be used by

“well-heeled trouble-makers for whom the costs issue would be of no concern at all.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 14 November 2022; Vol. 825, c. 709.]

That may all be well and good for well-funded free speech litigators, perhaps with the unlimited support of the Free Speech Union, but for small institutions and higher education providers in particular, it will be crippling. He poses the question we all want the answer to:

“Why would the Government think it appropriate to subject our universities and student unions to any of this legalism?”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 7 December 2022; Vol. 826, c. 210.]

Perhaps the Minister can give us a satisfactory answer today.

Even if we agree with the principle of the statutory tort, it is totally unworkable in its current form. The ex-Master of the Rolls, Lord Etherton, identified two glaring deficiencies in the tort as it stands. First, it is not clear what level of loss or damage is required for a successful claim. Secondly, it is also not clear what category of persons is entitled to make a claim. Lord Etherton concluded that

“it is extremely difficult to see what kind of order a court could make in practice that would deal with the situation that has arisen in relation to the non-securing of freedom of speech.” —[Official Report, House of Lords, 14 November 2022; Vol. 825, c. 706.]

That leaves the tort as both undesirable and unworkable.

As well as being undesirable and unworkable, the tort has the potential to be actively harmful to the promotion of free speech on campus and hence totally counter- productive, as I was saying a moment ago. The Russell Group has reiterated its warning that:

“Managing the potential for litigation would…likely create significant administrative and resource burdens without adding to the enhanced protections for free speech introduced by the new OfS complaints process.”

In other words, we could have the worst of both worlds: no liberalising effect on free speech on campus, but with all the associated costs of legal action.

One student union I heard from recently informed me that there is currently no budget allocated for paying for legal action. Legal advice would need to be paid for out of its reserves. To make matters worse, it claimed that it would also be impossible or difficult to obtain insurance for such legal action. In a sense, therefore, student unions will be doubly bound, being required to build up large enough reserves in preparation for fighting such lawsuits, while also having to engage in expensive legal battles. Using that money will inevitably detract from student welfare budgets, SU facilities and the much-valued nature of campus culture. I return, once again, to the ever-prescient question posed by Lord Grabiner in Committee in the Lords:

“Why would the Government think it appropriate to subject our universities and student unions to any of this legalism?”

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

Debate between Lloyd Russell-Moyle and Matt Western

Wednesday 22nd September 2021 Public Bill Committees

[Matt Western]

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

This important provision is all about having sufficient resources. As we have debated at some length, student unions will bear a considerable burden of cost and resource to make the duties work on campuses. It is an administrative burden that hitherto they have managed to cope with, but this greatly exceeds what they would have done in the past.

We have to remind ourselves that we are talking about the full plethora of institutions from larger universities to smaller higher education institutions and further education colleges. The Department for Education’s impact assessment quotes a cost to student unions of £800,000 a year to implement and update the code of practice. The impact assessment also makes it clear that student unions will face the heaviest burden because of their unfamiliarity with the new administrative requirements; most universities already have in place good codes of practice on freedom of speech.

The Bill disproportionately affects a variety of SUs, such as those at FE colleges. The Association of Colleges points out in its briefing that 165 FE colleges are registered higher education providers on the Office for Students’ list. The recent submission by Durham University, which I am sure is of particular interest to two Committee members, makes it clear that clause 6 could represent a significant additional administrative burden on organisations. Jim Dickinson of Wonkhe highlighted in his submission that

“the funding and resultant capacity and capability of an SU to undertake these duties is usually wholly dependent on a negotiation between the SU and the provider. Without a duty on the provider to resource the SU appropriately to carry out the duty there is a material risk that they will be unable to. Vexatious complaints surrounding, for example, SU elections may not succeed but would cause an SU committee to need to seek costly legal advice which it may not be funded to obtain.”

Given that the Government have voted down all our attempts to amend the Bill in a satisfactory manner, the new clause is a form of backstop to ensure that the legislation will not challenge the viability of SUs up and down the country through the need to withstand these costs and the potential for vexatious litigants. The new clause is yet another constructive amendment that we want included in the Bill to recognise the immense financial burden and responsibility faced by student unions in the wide mix of institutions and colleges that the measures will affect. We think it important that the Government recognise that student unions will face that burden, which could seriously affect their viability.

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle]

In local government, the health service, education and other areas, there is a doctrine known as the new burden doctrine. It is a sensible doctrine whereby if a new burden is put upon a body—particularly in local government and in educational bodies under local government—the Government shall make provision to pay for that new burden, or they will provide for that body to be able to raise revenue to cover the new burden.

Higher education institutions have income-raising capacity, although I am sure they would say that the cap should be lifted or the funding formula should be changed. They can make that an argument to the Chancellor at the spending review, and I know that many of them have. I desperately hope that the burden is not put on poorer students, as we are reading in the papers. Personally, I would move to a proper graduate tax, or even free education. A new graduate tax could be introduced for the young, and an old-age social care tax for those who are older, so we could have one joint intergenerational tax that allows a bit of intergenerational solidarity—but I digress.

Despite my desire for free education or a proper graduate tax that does not put people in debt, universities can go and make their case to the Chancellor. They have powers to raise revenue, either by seeking research funding or through student fees. They can get more students in, in fact—they could squeeze two or three more students into lecture halls. Student unions have none of those abilities. They do not, on the whole, raise revenue. Some, which are now the exception, still run some commercial businesses, but that is a rarity in higher education—even in campus universities. Most campus university student unions do not even run their own bars now.

Government Members who think that student unions can raise the money need to look again at student union finances, the vast majority of which come from the good will of the institution. The problem is that if the institution deprives the student union of money, the financial penalty for that student union and its duty do not transfer back to the institution; the liability is not reduced. I suspect that the liability will be covered by the student union’s paying basic insurance, but if it is deprived of money it will have no ability to pay for that, while still having the liability.

The new clause does not specify an amount; all it says is that the institution, in appointing the student union—because it appoints the body that is the student union; its job is to say, “This is our registered student union”—has to make sure that the student union has sufficient resources. If the student union has bars and commercial services, the institution can say, “We’ve ensured that you have the right resources because we can see that you have an income. No problem.” If the student union has none of those resources, all the new clause requires is that the institution takes steps to ensure that it has. Perhaps it will give a bar over to the student union to run, so that it generates the resources, or perhaps it will give over an amount of money. The new clause requires that to happen. The guidelines will explain how that happens, of course, but without this provision I am deeply worried that we will be imposing a new burden.

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

Debate between Lloyd Russell-Moyle and Matt Western

Monday 20th September 2021 Public Bill Committees

[Matt Western]

We have tabled amendments proposing how universities and student unions should find their way through that, and we will come to some of them later.

To finish, I want to raise the much-cited case of David Irving, who was uninvited from speaking to the Oxford union as long ago as 2001 because of pressure from academics and members of the student union, who were furious that he was being given a platform for his views on the holocaust. A High Court judge had previously described him as “racist” and “antisemitic” during a libel trial. During the evidence sessions, one of the witnesses hypothesised:

“If I am disinvited because I am David Irving—I have published a book and then I was disinvited because people read the High Court judgment—what is the material loss to David Irving? I suspect that it is quite small, but we do not know. That is the level of detail that the legislation does not take us to.”––[Official Report, Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Public Bill Committee, 13 September 2021; c. 102, Q211.]

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle]

The contradiction in using that example is that the Bill would not make any difference, because it excludes the Oxford Union. The very thing that Government Members are worried about will not be dealt with, because the Bill excludes the bodies that have done this in the past and includes bodies that have never done it, such as further education college student unions. It is a blunt implement pointing in the wrong direction.

[Matt Western]

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle]

The difficulty with the inclusion of FE colleges is that, broadly, they are regulated by Ofsted; they have a completely different framework; and they have no relationship with the Office for Students, except in relation to some of the courses that they may run, although they usually do that via other affiliated institutions. Including FE colleges therefore brings into their sphere a whole new regulator that they have never dealt with before, creating even more bureaucracy and confusion.

[Matt Western]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right: there is yet another body to stir into the mix. We have not heard from the Government about how that will play. It further underlines the extraordinary complexity that the legislation will bring to our campuses, colleges, student unions and HE providers across the UK.

I repeat that all bodies mentioned the need for an exhaustive process, so that every sinew is strained to ensure that any complaint goes through the university, the Office of the Independent Adjudicator and perhaps the Charity Commission before it is escalated. There is an absolute desire—it has been demanded—that the tort should be a backstop to the existing grievance process. Otherwise, people will rush to lawyers’ doors, or the lawyers will rush to them, to seek damages at great expense to individuals, and to SUs and institutions in particular. On Second Reading, the previous Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Gavin Williamson), claimed that the tort would be a backstop, but the Bill, as drafted, does not make that clear.

We believe that the clause is unnecessary. We fear that it will encourage vexatious claims and create additional bureaucracy, and we have talked about the £48 million that it will be incumbent on universities and SUs to fund. We believe that the clause will cause confusion to claimants about their various routes to redress through Ofsted, the Charity Commission, the OIA, the OFS and the universities themselves. The clause will also undermine existing disciplinary procedures. For those reasons, we oppose it and wish it to be removed in its entirety.

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle]

We have heard why the clause is dangerous, and I will talk briefly about two reasons why it should be opposed.

First, I will touch on the real chilling effect that I believe the measure will have on institutions. It is a lawfare charter, or an ambulance-chasing lawyer’s charter. Lawyers will go around knocking at institutions’ doors, and they will say to those three students who did not fill in the paperwork correctly to register their student club, “Do you think you’ve been slighted?” because the clause gives them the right to seek damages if the club is not registered. Those people, not the students or staff, will push the boundaries in all different directions.

There are people out there who look to make a quick buck when law is bad. In the past, we have had to rewrite law in this place and remove such opportunities because we had allowed massive loopholes. The easiest and cleanest way to stop that from happening is by following the evidence that we have heard, according to which the tort should be a backstop, not a front foot. At the moment, the Bill allows it to be a front foot.

The Amber Rudds of this world may not go running to the lawyers, but lawyers may come knocking on the door of a poor student or someone on a casual contract who is struggling to pay their rent. Large numbers of university academics struggle to pay their rent day in and day out, because their occupation is a very poorly paid one with low job security, except at the very top. We all have experienced something similar after car crashes, and it drives people crazy. It drove me crazy when I had a little prang at Bradford airport, which did not even cause a dent on either car, because for months afterwards I had lawyers ringing me and saying, “Do you want to claim compensation for whiplash?” The crash caused no damage to me whatsoever, but if I had been struggling to pay my rent or make ends meet, that would have been a temptation. I am afraid this clause opens up that possibility.

The first way to stop that happening is by requiring people to pursue the complaints procedures internally. I do not understand the Minister’s point about an external speaker being unable to complain using an internal process. In fact, we heard how an hon. Member in this room had managed to complain, although it was difficult. Perhaps external people should be able to complain internally. I think most people would like there to be a clear complaints process for external speakers as well.

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

Debate between Lloyd Russell-Moyle and Matt Western

Monday 20th September 2021 Public Bill Committees

[Matt Western]

I stand corrected. The hon. Member obviously misspent more of his time than I did watching that. Whatever part of the anatomy it was, it was coming down rather heavily on the small person. That is what the Government are seeking to do. It is quite clear that the intention in No. 10 and its policy unit is to drive out student unions in this case and change the representation on how bodies may be affiliated on our campuses.

Too much of the clause is down to guidance and none of it has been done in collaboration with student unions. Student unions are not professionally organised with huge resources behind them to counter this and take the Government on. I would have thought the Government would be much more willing to work with student unions and with the National Union of Students and say, “We want to collaborate with you. We do understand there is this issue, and you perhaps appreciate there is a bit of an issue in certain places. How is it that we go about best addressing this issue across certain campuses?”, realising that it is not the case across 98.9% of events. We cannot support this. The obligations and duties on student unions are far too onerous, and we will be voting against the clause.

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle]

As we have heard, this is one of the most worrying parts of the Bill because it seeks to regulate private associations even further. It is a very dangerous step because it starts to undermine freedom of association and the ability of people to do what they wish. Student unions, of course, came under the regulation of their institutions through the Education Act 1994. That Act also allowed students to opt out, which was widely touted to be an attempt to bring in an Australian-style opt-in for student unions, in the hope that it would destroy them, as happened in Australia. That failed, and more than 25 years later this is the next attempt to try to undermine and obliterate student unions and to obliterate the poorest or most fragile parts of our HE sector.

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

Debate between Lloyd Russell-Moyle and Matt Western

Thursday 16th September 2021 Public Bill Committees

[Matt Western]

The lack of corporate knowledge or rock of collective experience that legislation should be based on is really surprising. I would have thought that such errors would be corrected and noted, and always and forever be related to anything in the higher education realm. I would have also thought that there were many in this place—there may be more of them on the Government Benches—who have been to the likes of Oxbridge or Durham and who would be more familiar with them. I do not mean that lightly; I think it is factually true. Personally, I did not attend them, so I am not so familiar with how those institutions work in terms of their governance. It is a simple point, but the error should not have been repeated.

On Second Reading, the shadow Secretary of State for Education, my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green), forcefully made the point that numerous collegiate institutions affiliated to a central university would be outside the scope of the legislation in its current form. It is easy to think about existing Oxbridge-type institutions, but what about future-proofing the higher education sector and the changes that may affect affiliate and collegiate associations between higher education providers? That important point was picked up by Members on both sides of the House, and rightly so. It is good to see the Minister taking the feedback on board, and I hope that we will see some further evidence of that arising from yesterday’s sittings.

I have a small point to raise in relation to amendment 3 and an apparent exemption. The Minister spoke about the MCRs and JCRs at the likes of Oxford, but I do not know why they should be exempt. Any groups associated with a university or a higher education provider, whatever its size or shape, should be covered. If the legislation is honest in its intent, why should any be excluded from it? What justification could there be for preventing a student body at an Oxbridge college from being covered by the Bill?

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

Is it not in fact troubling? The JCR system is operational at only a few universities, so a few universities will end up being exempt, or have student bodies that are exempt, while the vast majority will not. There is clear inequity there. Will it not prompt other bodies to be unnecessarily created, or reconfirm the unfair and often undeserved privileged status that some so-called elite universities have in this country?

[Matt Western]

I thank my hon. Friend for his well made point. It could indeed reinforce those existing privileges, or lead to a complete breakdown of the SU structures and change to institutional structures too, with disaffiliations and so on. We must be careful about the message that that sends out.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matt Western]

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

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

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle]

The reason the new clause is important is that it would include all bodies that students might interact with in their role as students, to ensure that the promotion of freedom of speech happens. I will come on to rebut some points that I think the Minister incorrectly made about JCRs, but I first want to talk about the chilling effect. We have heard a lot about it, but if we are to believe what we hear about the chilling effect, it is because a culture has set in—particularly in the student body—in which it is allowed to run rife.

As we know, large parts of student activity are not necessarily in the classroom or lecture theatre; in fact, many students complain that they do not have enough lecture and seminar time. That is a regular complaint of students nowadays because fees are so high. We could have an interesting argument around what the purpose of university is—whether it is instruction, or to enable students to have a wider experience of intellectual endeavour—but I will put that to one side.

However, if the effect is to exclude a swathe of student life and to allow that chilling effect to continue to circulate, the whole point of the student part of the Bill is defeated. The education part or university part? Okay, that is fine. But with the student part, what will still happen, of course, is that students will still be afraid to speak up in lecture theatres, because in the non-regulated part of their student experience they will still not have the culture of free speech and they will be shunned if they do speak up. They will not speak up and feel like they can have their own views, because in one part of their life the chilling effect is not because of formal institutions, but partly because of informal cultures. And if we are not tackling those cultures in all aspects, then we will not deal with this issue. That is why, for example, this measure should extend to JCRs and MCRs.

Earlier, the Minister said that JCRs do not run their own booking systems. That is not correct for all JCRs. St Mary’s College at Durham University runs its own booking system for its JCR. When a student wants to make a booking, they go on to the JCR website and fill in a JCR form, and the JCR allocates a booking. With some of the Oxford colleges, students have to go into the Oxford system, for the whole university, and I have just found that out after 10 minutes of Google research into how the booking systems work. I am sure that a fuller analysis would show that the picture is more complicated, which is why we need to include JCRs and similar facilities explicitly in this measure, so that it is clear.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matt Western]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for illustrating and articulating the point that I was alluding to, but was not being specific about. I am sure the Minister will have listened to the important point he makes.

I understand the Minister’s point about these groups being covered on campuses, on premises that the university may control, but how would that apply to, for instance, the private properties in Leamington that are used by Warwick University?

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle]

The Minister said in her useful intervention that if it is a university property, it will be regulated, but we are talking about private property that the university does not run but just directs students to. The university has a big signpost saying, “This is our accommodation,” but as soon as students step over the threshold, the university has no regulatory role, no delivery role—no anything role. What is provided in that property is student space, meeting rooms and accommodation. That is the nub of what we are trying to get to.

[Matt Western]

It is exactly that. I will not spin the wheels and repeat exactly what my hon. Friend has said, but perhaps the Minister would like to respond.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matt Western]

I understand the hon. Gentleman’s point. My colleague wants to make a short related point, and I will respond to both together.

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle]

This is the nub of the contradiction. That is why some of us suggested that the Minister could, to be consistent, remove student societies from the regulation. If students come together and organise a club that just happens to affiliate to the student union—even if they are totally autonomous and there is no role for the institution—the Bill regulates them. If they decide not to affiliate to the institution, but do everything else the same, the Bill does not regulate them. All I am saying is that it needs either to regulate them or to say that it regulates the student union but does not go down further to regulate the constituent parts—for example, a speech at the student Conservative club should not require monitoring by the office of diktats.

[Matt Western]

It is about affiliation, or the decision of groups to disaffiliate from the student union, as well as how private property will come into play. We have simply said that it should be all or none. We cannot have a two-tier system for this regulation.

The new clause is very simple and straightforward. It is pragmatic and would bring about sensible changes and protections, which is what I thought the Government were trying to do. At the end of the day, without such changes the whole legislation is exposed for what it is and will not deliver the protections that the Government believe they are going to introduce.

Clause 2, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Michael Tomlinson.)

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

Debate between Lloyd Russell-Moyle and Matt Western

Wednesday 15th September 2021 Public Bill Committees

[Matt Western]

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

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle]

Most pre-1984 universities have a reference in their charter to academic freedom as opposed to freedom of speech, and most post-’84 universities have it within their other governing documents. Is it not therefore important that the wording in the Bill reflects those governing documents, or at least ensures a clear dovetail, rather than leaving it ambiguous, which might cause greater problems, particularly if, as we know, the charter is used quite often in employment law and tribunals? These provisions, according to evidence that we heard, need to dovetail better into that process.

[Matt Western]

My hon. Friend is right. His knowledge and experience in these matters greatly exceed mine, so I thank him for bringing that to the table.

The Minister said that she would expect the guidance to include academic freedom. Again, I cannot accept that “generally” or “expect” is good enough when it is so fundamental, vital and central to the work and role of our higher education institutions and academics. As my hon. Friend said in his intervention, the words “academic freedom” are written into the governance of universities and higher education institutions.

We are here to be constructive. I cannot stress that point enough. We accept that there is a huge majority on the Government side. They can do as they wish, but we are here for the coming four days to be constructive and to try to make the best of what we think is very poor legislation. I wish to press the matter to a vote.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

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

Debate between Lloyd Russell-Moyle and Matt Western

Wednesday 15th September 2021 Public Bill Committees

[Matt Western]

Yes, learning—going through that development. That is why students are attracted to going into higher education. It is to understand about the process of that academic rigour and methodology.

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle]

Some of the evidence that we heard from a number of the Government and Opposition witnesses was that, actually, part of the problem is the commercialisation in higher education, whereby students see themselves as customers and consumers and then demand more and demand their rights. There are some advantages to that, but there are clearly some disadvantages to it. There is a danger, is there not, that if this were used in the consumeristic mind of certain students, it could prevent the instruction of certain basics that students must accept to progress? Students could claim, “You’re not letting me progress even though I reject the way light moves through a lens.” It is perfectly legitimate for an academic to do that at a higher level, but if someone is teaching optometry, they require the student to accept certain basic principles to be able to progress and to look into people’s eyes. There is a danger that, with a consumeristic mind and with a more litigious mind, some students might end up shutting down academics and actually stopping them doing their instructive part rather than their research part.

[Matt Western]

I thank my hon. Friend for his, as ever, valuable contribution—and specialism of optometry. I always try to look through a rose-tinted lens. More seriously, the point he makes is made very well—[Interruption.] I missed that point. To be serious for a moment, my hon. Friend’s point is well made. It is about consumerism. I guess one of the things that motivated me to get into politics was that, as a kid of the 1960s and ’70s, I enjoyed education and access to all sorts of things without the privilege of money. We need to row back on how consumerism is becoming so corrosive of relationships between all sorts of authorities—I am not talking only about universities. How people view public service, in whatever manifestation, seems somehow to be about getting one’s money’s worth, whether on council tax or, in this case, educational fees.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matt Western]

My hon. Friend is quite right. We have not proposed anything that necessarily refines that. At this stage, I think, it is important to remove the words, and minds greater than mine—perhaps in the House of Lords—may come up with an alternative. It is a really important area that needs to be defined.

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle]

My hon. Friend has already developed the phraseology and wording in his comments about research and academic interest. Were a matter within an academic’s research and interest areas, that would be their definition. It would be broad enough; it would also go to amendment 80 and the right to teach in areas of their academic interest and research, and resolve my concerns about that amendment. It would be good if the Government were to reflect on that phraseology.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle]

I have a professional connection with the University of Sussex and the University and College Union, and I am a trustee of the University of Bradford union.

[Matt Western]

I wish to register that my wife works at a particular higher education provider.

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

Debate between Lloyd Russell-Moyle and Matt Western

Monday 13th September 2021 Public Bill Committees

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle]

[Matt Western]

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

Debate between Lloyd Russell-Moyle and Matt Western

Monday 13th September 2021 Public Bill Committees

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle]

As I mentioned in the previous sitting, I am a trustee at the University of Bradford union, I receive money from the University of Sussex to provide educational opportunities to its students, and I have received support from the University and College Union.

[Matt Western]

My wife works at a higher education provider.

Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Michael Tomlinson.)

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

Debate between Lloyd Russell-Moyle and Matt Western

Tuesday 7th September 2021 Public Bill Committees

[Matt Western]

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle]

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

Debate between Lloyd Russell-Moyle and Matt Western

Tuesday 7th September 2021 Public Bill Committees

[Matt Western]

Q But I sense that you are quite hung up about the figure that 75% of staff or academics in our universities are left-leaning and that somehow this is really a distortion, when clearly it is not, as you said, across the international academic landscape. I mentioned the alternative example of officers within our military. It is just that people of a certain persuasion gravitate to that line of work because that is what motivates and interests them. Surely that is simply the case at our universities.

Thomas Simpson: The question is whether those who do not conform to the majority viewpoint feel a freedom and a permission to speak publicly, and whether they are welcomed in doing that, and my experience has been that that cannot be freely assumed in all the situations that it should be.

Just moving on to the work of the Bill, one of the lines that felt like it was becoming taking for granted in the last session, and that I might want to push back on, was the idea that the OfS would have the last word and that this director of academic freedom would be, in some sense, judge and jury. What the Bill really sets out is a series of persuasive measures by which that director can influence the culture within the sector. Indeed, any particular judgments that they make are not judgments on a particular individual case; they are recommendations, which both parties are free to ignore.

I think that is a very powerful scheme, because what it sets out is that it is a persuasive recommendation; whether or not a particular university would feel subject to it would depend on how well argued it is. The university will be free to take its own legal advice and say, “We think this is not persuasive and would not hold up in a court of law. We will therefore ignore the recommendation.” That would then set off a series of events, where the other party felt like the recommendation had not been enacted. It would be up to them to make the decision: “Am I sufficiently confident about the OfS’s recommendation and my view on this case that I want to take it to court?” So it would remain the case that the courts would be able to adjudicate on recommendations by the OfS.

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle]

Q Can I come in on this effect whereby you are saying that right-leaning academics are more likely to feel that they need to self-censor, which is kind of what you are suggesting, in an institution? Your report says of academics that are

“‘fairly right’ or ‘right’, 32%... have refrained from airing views”

in front of colleagues. However, the report of general academics showed that 35% had refrained from sharing their views in front of colleagues. Now, that may be too high on all sides, but actually it shows that more left-wing academics than right-wing academics feel that they cannot share their views in front of colleagues. Surely this is not a right or left thing. I just wanted to move it away from this right or left thing. This is about making sure that colleagues feel safe to talk in the workplace, and surely a workplace-based or employment-based law would be better than a law that seems to address some other kind of issues.

Thomas Simpson: I am very grateful for that intervention. I should really be clear again that I start off by saying I am a philosopher. My co-author, Eric Kaufmann, who I believe may be coming tomorrow, is far better placed to answer these questions. So questions of how the study relates to others are absolutely for him.

I think one of the real tragedies of the current situation is that this is seen in the general media discussion of academic freedom as a right-left thing. The history of the issue is a very different situation. So this has been a concern for the political left at very important points—the 1950s in America, most obviously, and the early 1900s in America—