Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Bill

Lord Collins of Highbury Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 14th November 2022 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)]

My Lords, we on these Benches share the view that we do not need the Bill, as held by the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, and, I believe, the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington—I apologise if I have taken his name in vain.

In order not to engage in Second Reading again, I will start with the point from the noble Lord, Lord Cormack: with any piece of legislation, ask yourself whether it is necessary. There seems to be a strong sense that there are serious questions about Clause 4 among all speakers across your Lordships’ House, from noble and learned Lords to academics to retired politicians—or rather retired MPs: people in your Lordships’ House may or may not think of themselves as politicians; on the Cross Benches they probably do not, but on some other Benches “retired MPs” may be the appropriate phrase. But there is almost unanimity across your Lordships’ House in opposition to Clause 4, or at least in doubt about it. The only Member who seemed keen to try to support Clause 4 was the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, but she did not seem to have been quite persuaded by it. Could the Minister be persuaded to think again? As noble Lords, particularly the noble Lord, Lord Grabiner, have eloquently pointed out, this clause is not fit for purpose or desirable.

It is not clear that the clause will even work in its own terms. The noble Lord, Lord Triesman, sought to point out that academics are particularly mischievous and that they can debate until the cows come home. However, whether you hang a portrait or how you design your gardens in an Oxbridge college are not things that we would normally take to litigation. That might be the sort of activity that engages academics, but this debate is much more profound. Here I declare my interest as a Cambridge academic; I declared it at the start of Committee stage, but I reiterate it on the record as we are currently in the main Chamber. What we are talking about here is not the sort of debate that people might have over dinner, or in the Oxford Union or the Cambridge Union; these debates are about very serious issues of freedom of speech. Yet it is not clear how Clause 4 will, in any way, strengthen freedom of speech, because, as we have heard from several noble Lords—in particular, the noble Lord, Lord Willetts—there is a danger of a chilling effect. The Government have not adequately thought this through, including the law of unintended consequences. Already, with something like the Prevent requirements, academics or students considering whether they will invite people to speak will think, “Is it worth the effort? Is it worth going through all these procedures to invite a controversial speaker?” Very often, the answer will be no. Bringing in the civil tort will only make that danger even more severe.

Yes, we need a way of ensuring that free speech can be guaranteed, but as the noble Lord, Lord Johnson of Marylebone, suggested, surely that is the job for the regulator. Trying to bring in lawyers is a recipe for even more hours of debate than an economics faculty or the synagogue of the noble Lord, Lord Triesman, might engage in. It will be costly, but will it benefit anybody apart from the pockets of the lawyers? It is not clear that it will.

This clause seems to be deeply unwelcome, and it is unclear that it is necessary. Can the Government think again and consider removing it by Report stage?

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

My Lords, I start by saying that this has been an excellent debate. One of the excellent things about this House is that the debate has not been partisan at all—and certainly my contribution this afternoon will not be partisan.

I will share some thoughts about lawyers and courts. As a lifelong trade unionist, I have of course tried to resist courts intervening in industrial relations. This is for good reason, because when Governments have tried to use courts in industrial relations, it often ends in failure. The biggest change over the years—certainly in my experience—has come from the adoption of best practice, codes of practice and the introduction of a regulator. That has resulted in far more progressive and better change than when the courts were used as a weapon. I think that this clause is exactly about that.

The noble Lord, Lord Johnson, is quite right. Whatever we think about whether this provision will resolve some of those vitally important issues, the fact is that we have a well-established regulator, and this Bill proposes to strengthen that regulator. As I was listening to the debate, I thought about the one that we had on the Trade Union Bill. The Government at that time, when highlighting the problems in industrial relations, decided that the main focus—although I opposed that Bill at the time—should be on how we strengthened the regulator. Certainly, in terms of the certification officer, those powers were strengthened.

It is a fundamental question. If the Bill has a purpose, it is about change, and its main focus has been on how we make the regulator more effective. What the debate has clearly established is that this clause will have the opposite effect: it undermines the regulator and the changes that we are trying to make. The words that kept coming to my mind in Committee and at Second Reading are those of the Minister, who said that the provisions of Clause 4 were a backstop. I fear that it will be the first step and will result in very well-funded litigation, not to put right a wrong, change a practice or improve the situation, but simply to have a go and make a point. We call it “vexatious”, but that is the climate that we are in danger of empowering, if we are not careful.

--- Later in debate ---

[Earl Howe (Con)]

I am grateful to the noble Lord. I shall reflect on that point and write to him, if he will allow me to clarify the Government’s position in that way.

I have already set out how we envisage the tort will operate, so I will not repeat that. Suffice to say that, in the view of the Government, the statutory tort will provide an important legal backstop by giving individuals a specific right to bring a claim before the courts. This could include a number of people in different situations. For example, and purely by way of example, it could include students expelled from their course because of their views; organisers of an event that is cancelled, having incurred costs in the process; and a visiting speaker disinvited at the last minute, with the accompanying media furore and perhaps damage to feelings and reputation. There are other instances I could give. Noble Lords who wish to remove this clause need to be comfortable about removing a backstop provision that could offer a remedial route to certain individuals, such as those I have mentioned.

I hope I have been able to set out why we believe that this clause fulfils a duty that we surely owe to those who believe that their legal rights in this area have been infringed.

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

A number of noble Lords referred to the chilling effect and the Minister did not really cover that point. He keeps talking about this being a backstop, but if its effect is to prevent the invitations and stop the debate, what does he think about that chilling effect? It has completely the opposite effect to what he has been speaking about.

[Earl Howe (Con)]

The point the noble Lord, Lord Collins, makes goes hand in hand with the point that I would like to reflect upon. The issue raised by a number of noble Lords was the sequence of events: whether the Bill should make clearer that the complaints process should have first been exhausted before a recourse to the courts is made. So if I may I will consider the noble Lords “chilling effect” point in that context, as well as in the context of the overall clause, and write to noble Lords accordingly.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Johnson, for raising this issue, because it is an important thing we should debate. Fundamentally, it is about balance and being proportionate—and, as we have heard, there is also the business case about overreliance on a single source of income. Certainly, if foreign students are coming from one country, as the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, said, clearly there is a risk factor in that.

I will start by saying, as I think the noble Lord, Lord Johnson, was saying too, that foreign students are an important element of our soft power. We should not underestimate how making our universities open to overseas students is an important part of the three Ds of our integrated policy of defence, diplomacy and development. Okay, I hear what the noble Lord, Lord Grabiner, said: often, the people whom we are attracting are a growing part of the wealthy side of society and instead we should be focusing on other areas, particularly in Africa, where we should be encouraging more students. However, when I was a student, I found that many of the overseas students that I became friends with subsequently became leaders of countries and influencers of countries, and we should not underestimate that. So I start by saying that I am very much in favour of supporting overseas students and that universities should continue to encourage them—especially from China. I do not think we should be debating that Chinese students are a bad thing. The Chinese Communist Party is a bad thing, but not Chinese students—we should absolutely be committed to that.

As I said at Second Reading and in other debates, the key to addressing the influence of income on free speech is transparency. I am sympathetic to the idea that there should be a requirement to say just what proportion of income is coming from which areas—that is absolutely right—but I also support the view of the noble Lord, Lord Willetts, that in introducing that element of transparency we should not place burdens on institutions that could inhibit academic research and the commitment to follow through those income streams. When we look at other countries, certainly when it comes to reporting requirements, we are talking about a much higher level than those currently envisaged by the Government.

So it is very important that we address these issues, but I share the concern of the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, that this Bill is not necessarily the appropriate place to do it.

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

My Lords, I would like to address the group of amendments relating to overseas funding.

Amendments 63 and 64, tabled by my noble friend Lord Johnson of Marylebone, seek to amend the transparency measures concerning overseas income received by higher education providers. They would add tuition fees to the categories of overseas funding in scope and require the OfS to consider whether a provider or college was “overly reliant” on funding from a single country of origin.

Increasing awareness of foreign interference risks in higher education is of course vital. That is why we have already added measures to the Bill that will require the OfS to monitor the overseas funding of registered higher education providers and their constituent institutions so that it can assess the risk that the funding may pose to freedom of speech and academic freedom in the provision of higher education within a given institution. However, we have ensured that the scope of these measures is proportionate to the risk, in order to ensure that our universities remain a place where freedom of speech can thrive.

The Government consider that these further amendments are unnecessary and potentially overly bureaucratic. Providers are already required to submit data to the OfS on course fees by broad domicile, broken down by UK, other EU and non-EU. In addition, international student numbers are reported to the Higher Education Statistics Agency and published online, broken down by country of domicile and by provider. This means that information about international tuition fees is already available to the OfS. If the OfS considered that a provider was overly reliant on student tuition fees—the noble Lord, Lord Collins, talked about the business case for overseas students—it could take steps if it thought that this would threaten the financial sustainability of the provider. That is included in the registration conditions that providers must already comply with. The OfS can issue sanctions for breach of these conditions.

Amendment 65, in the name of my noble friend Lord Willetts, seeks to increase the financial threshold for reporting required by higher education providers under Clause 9. This would require that no less than 1% of the total income of a higher education provider would fall to be reported, thereby reducing the burden of reporting on providers.

For many large providers, 1% of their total income could represent tens of millions of pounds, but I am sure noble Lords will agree that, for example, £1 million would be a very significant amount of money if an individual member of the academic staff received it as a research grant. Amendment 65 would mean that such instances might not fall to be reported.

The aim of Clause 9 is to increase the transparency of overseas funding. The OfS will require providers to supply information to them on relevant overseas funding. Relevant funding is defined as certain specified types of funding received by the provider, a constituent institution or a member or members of staff from a relevant overseas person, where that exceeds a threshold—to be set out in legislation—within a period of 12 months. The current intention is to set this at £75,000 in a 12-month period for providers and colleges.

We recognise that the risk of undue influence arising from smaller amounts of overseas income is likely to be lower. We have therefore ensured that the scope of these measures is proportionate to the possible risk to freedom of speech. We believe that the intended threshold of £75,000 for providers and colleges is appropriate, as it will strike the right balance by increasing the transparency of significant transactions without creating undue bureaucracy by requiring the reporting of smaller transactions that are less likely to pose a risk. The information required is further narrowed in scope, as “relevant overseas person” is a limited category and there will also be countries that are excluded from this provision that will be set out in regulations.

We take the impact on the higher education sector seriously, which is why the Bill includes the measures that I have just described to reduce the level of reporting required. We are therefore ensuring the proper targeting of the measure to the risk to freedom of speech, and that the burden on providers will not be too great.

I now turn to Amendment 66 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, and spoken to by the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Newnham, which seeks to clarify why students’ unions have been included within the scope of the overseas income measure in Clause 9. The overseas funding measures in the Bill seek to increase the transparency of overseas donations and other income received by higher education providers, their constituent institutions and students’ unions to better enable the OfS as a regulator to understand the possible extent of financial leverage from a foreign source, which may influence behaviour to pose a threat to freedom of speech and academic freedom. The information reported will enable the OfS to monitor and report on any sector trends and patterns.

In order for these measures to have the maximum intended effect on countering the threat of foreign interference in higher education and to increase public confidence in the sector, we considered it vital that the overseas funding duties extend to students’ unions, as other measures in the Bill do. Students’ unions across England are in receipt of a variety of overseas income every year and there is diversity across students’ unions in the ways in which they are funded. Information published by the Charity Commission demonstrates that a large number of students’ unions are very reliant on the annual donations and legacies that they receive. Therefore, it would be remiss not to include students’ unions in Clause 9.

The scope of the measure—noting in particular the threshold amount, which we anticipate will be set at an appropriate level for students’ unions—means that the burden on those unions will not be too great and will ensure the proper targeting of the measure to the risk to freedom of speech. I trust I have given reassurance that Clause 9 as drafted offers sufficient and proportionate protection against undue foreign influence on freedom of speech and academic freedom within higher education.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Collins of Highbury]

70: After Clause 11, insert the following new Clause—
“Expiry
(1) This Act expires at the end of the period of three years beginning with the day on which it is passed, subject to subsection (4).(2) A Minister of the Crown may by regulations made by statutory instrument repeal any of the provisions of this Act after one year from the day on which it is passed if the Minister is not satisfied that the provision is working as intended.(3) Before the end of the period of three years beginning with the day on which this Act is passed a Minister of the Crown must lay before Parliament a written report on the effectiveness of the provisions of the Act.(4) A Minister of the Crown may by regulations made by statutory instrument—(a) provide that this Act does not expire in accordance with subsection (1), in full or in part, subject to approval by resolution of both Houses of Parliament, or(b) make transitional, transitory or saving provision in connection with the expiry of any provision of this Act.(5) A statutory instrument containing regulations under this section may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.”

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

My Lords, it is appropriate that the last amendment of the day should be considered as a sunset clause. Amendment 70 would introduce a sunset clause, ensuring that it expired after three years and providing for clauses to be removed if they are not working. I stress that the purpose of this amendment is not to deny the importance of freedom of speech, academic freedom or even whether the Bill is necessary; it is to give the Government the opportunity to gather more evidence on whether the Bill is necessary and whether its provisions are fit for purpose.

Unfortunately, in the debates we have heard—not only today, but throughout Committee—a number of noble Lords expressing opinions about whether the Bill is really necessary. The Bill is there and the Government will pursue it, but I want to give all those noble Lords who have some concerns about it—and particularly about the evidence on which it is based—the opportunity to support this amendment so that, with the support of the academic institutions themselves, we can review the practical elements of the legislation and see how well it is working. This will give the Government the opportunity to have second thoughts, even after the Bill passes all its stages.

I hope that the Minister will give it some consideration; I suspect that she will not. The noble Earl, Lord Howe, said at the beginning that he has been in listening mode. The important thing is that we are at one on the importance of academic freedom and freedom of speech. We are concerned about some of the unintended consequences of the Bill and how they may actually have the reverse impact. This is why something like a sunset clause may be necessary, so that we do not bake into statute something that will end up denying freedom of speech rather than supporting it. I hope that noble Lords will give due consideration to this. I beg to move.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

I will speak briefly to Amendment 70 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Collins of Highbury, who has just introduced it very clearly, and to which I attached my name. In doing so, I am prompted to declare an interest. The noble Baroness, Lady Smith, made a declaration of interest that made me wonder whether I should do the same, so I will take this last possible opportunity to declare that I receive support from King’s College London in the form of an intern—I now have a second excellent intern. I am not sure why that should be declared, but it is now on the record.

The noble Lord, Lord Collins, set out the case for the amendment very clearly. Like many speakers today, I remain convinced that it would be better not to have this Bill at all. But given that we have it, to add a sunset clause—a checkpoint written in the Bill to see what is happening—is unarguably a good idea. To stress the point that this is not a party-political matter but purely a practical, sensible and helpful suggestion to the Government, I will quote the noble Lord, Lord Grabiner, from earlier in this debate:

“Often, the legal process, especially a new-fangled one, confuses and undermines well-intentioned purposes. It is also often the case that the introduction of lawyers and the courts merely fuels increased tension.”


There have been huge concerns expressed around this point about the Bill. This amendment is just a simple and practical measure to say, “Let’s have a checkpoint. Let’s not have another version of the Dangerous Dogs Act; let’s make sure we’re not making things worse by adding this simple provision, Amendment 70.”

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

My Lords, the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Collins, also in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, would make the Bill subject to a sunset clause, with the Act to 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 allow Ministers to remove provisions of the Bill one year after enactment if they were not working as intended.

My noble friend Lord Deben shared his concerns about the speed of the appointment process. Sadly, I do not possess a magic wand in relation to Defra appointments, but I shall share his concerns with my noble friends in that department. I also take his serious point that, as someone once said, sometimes when it is slow it is because it is being carefully considered, and sometimes it is just slow. We shall leave it to your Lordships to judge.

We do not think it would be right or appropriate to include a sunset clause in the Bill. Equally, it would not be right to allow Ministers to remove provisions by way of regulations after only one year, when Parliament has only recently approved the Act and there will not have been enough time for the Act to bed in. I should note in this context that it will take time to implement the new statutory regime, with a need to make a number of sets of regulations; to appoint the new director for freedom of speech and academic freedom, as the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, reminded us; to draft guidance; to draft and consult on changes to the regulatory framework; and to set up the new complaints scheme. One year would certainly be insufficient to see the effect of the Bill on the ground. A sunset clause for a whole Act would be very unusual, and we see no reason why this Bill should be treated differently from other pieces of primary legislation.

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for her response. I am glad that my amendment has at least given the noble Lord, Lord Deben, the opportunity to be supportive of the Government on this occasion.

Just to pick up on some of the points that have been made, from what the Minister said, it sounds as though, if the appointments process for the director for freedom of speech is anything to go by, it will be at least three years before we see this legislation actually being implemented—and who knows what will have happened in three years’ time?

The important thing that I wanted to stress in moving this amendment is how important evidence-based legislation is. Certainly, a lot of concern has been expressed throughout Committee about the lack of evidence on some of these points. However, I hear what the Minister says, and I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Deben, has been able to make that contribution at long last. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 70 withdrawn.