Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Bill (Second sitting)
Matt Western Excerpts(3 years, 2 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chair
We are now sitting in public, and the proceedings are being broadcast. We will hear oral evidence from Professor Stephen Whittle, Professor of Equalities Law at Manchester Metropolitan University, who is joining us remotely via Zoom. We have until 2.45 pm for this session.
Professor Whittle, welcome. I am Judith Cummins, and I am chairing this session. Would you please introduce yourself for the record?
Professor Whittle: My name is Stephen Whittle, Professor of Equalities Law at Manchester Metropolitan University. I have worked at Manchester Metropolitan University since 1993, and I have taken an extensive interest in transgender equality issues all my academic career.
Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)
Q
“Trans academics have mostly tried really hard not to accuse, and certainly not to ‘no platform’ anybody. Yet these voices are making trans people look like the extremists. Sadly, it will have the effect of shutting down the debate.”
You have spoken about the challenges of living as an openly trans man. If the Bill gets passed into law, allowing anti-trans campaigners the right to speak on campus, what effect do you think that will have on anti-trans campaigners’ speech on campus?
Professor Whittle: It is important to state from the beginning that I am totally for people having the opportunity to speak and voice their opinions on campus— particularly academics, as long as they base their presentations on their research, work, experience and knowledge. I have absolutely no hesitation about acknowledging that right. My main concern about the legislation is not so much the lack of ability for people who do not believe in trans rights in the same way that I do to have the opportunity to speak. On the whole, people who present a valued and evaluated opinion have had many opportunities to speak on campuses, as well as in the media. The problem is that the way it is presented at the moment is that protesters, or people who disagree with their point of view, are putting what is often termed a chilling effect on academics and their freedom of speech.
I have been speaking about trans rights for a very long time—nearly 30 years—and, as an activist for nearly 50 years, I have spoken in many different forums, run many events and had many challenges to that right to speak and to express those opinions, not just in the UK but worldwide. I have run conferences that have been threatened by Christian activists and so on and so forth.
I have even been in my own lecture theatre and had students stand up and heckle me and accuse me of being the worst parent on earth who ought to have my children removed from me etc. To respond by saying that those people do not have a right to say that is not the correct way forward. We have to have the conversations. I absolutely believe in having the conversations. Being persistent and willing to have the conversations over the years has ultimately led to many legal changes that have been positive for the trans community.
What has happened has been a hypersensitivity. Politicians, academics and external speakers have always faced hecklers, barracking and external protesters. I think about Leon Brittan coming to Manchester University. He would never have spoken at a university ever again if he had felt that that was the only experience of academia. Those protests were a long time ago. He carried on speaking, and that is exactly what we do. I always take the view that you engage. If there have been serious threats to a conference or event that I have been organising, I have made it ticket only. I find that charging £5 to £10 focuses people’s minds on whether they really want to spend the money to get in and barrack at something.
I have organised protests outside events myself but that has never been to close down the conversation. It has been to express an alternative point of view—to say, “Here are many voices who disagree with the voice inside.” The very first time I ever took part in action was probably 1974 at Bradford University, invading a British Medical Association conference, where a doctor was going to speak who definitely thought trans people should not have treatment. He chose to leave the platform. What we asked for was to have a speaker who presented an alternative point of view.
My main concern about the Bill is that it will provide an additional chilling effect overall, not to speakers but to potential protesters. It will result in people who want to express an alternative viewpoint, who are not speakers and do not have that opportunity to participate in the event, to have a voice on the platform, having no way of expressing that without appearing to challenge somebody’s right to free speech. As I say, I absolutely believe in freedom of speech, in expressing opinions and having conversations, but the conversation has to be inclusive of everybody. If we exclude any one group by making them a potential wrongdoer, we are going to close down those conversations.
Matt Western
Q
Professor Whittle: Absolutely. I have never ever felt so unsafe that I was not able to speak. I have never felt that I could not run an event because it was so unsafe. I have never felt that my speakers are threatened. I recognise student protest for what it is—student protest. It is a right to express a viewpoint, and I have often provided capacity for that protest to take place so that we are not shutting it down but listening.
Matt Western
Q
Professor Whittle: Academic freedom is always problematic, because we are always in a situation where some opinions are considered so off the wall and out of the water that we really do not feel that this thing should be voiced within academia. We can think of far right movements and extreme left movements. They connect extremist Christian views and extremist Islamic views, and we have to sit and make a reasonable judgment about what is acceptable. Is it acceptable to have somebody who espouses views that I might consider extremely fascist or Nazi views within a university setting? I would say probably not, but we have to have the conversation and assess what that speaker is saying. If, for example, somebody who clearly denies the holocaust wishes to speak at a university, I would think that was not acceptable. There are certain historical facts that are sacrosanct and you cannot say that they do not exist, unless you have extremely good evidence to the alternative. It is always a balance—looking at what we consider as a society to be acceptable speech within the notion of freedom of speech and academic freedom.
Within academic freedom, I have a curriculum that I teach and that I speak to, but I have a certain freedom within that to reflect the research of myself and my peers through the classes that I give. However, if I sat in a classroom and was talking about black civil rights movements of the 1950s and then started giving parts of the speeches of anti-civil rights campaigners at that time, I would have to think very carefully about how I did that. For example, I remember reading from a speech by Enoch Powell many years ago and a student complained. Basically she had not been awake properly and listened to the fact that I said, “These are not views I agree with. These are the views of a politician at the time, and these were the views that were publicised in the paper and these were the views that caused X consequence.” Fortunately, somebody had tape-recorded the lecture and it was all there. I have to be able to decide when and when not to say those things.
I have never felt that I have to be so careful of student views. There are some issues, for example—sexual assault, rape, female genital mutilation—where I thought very, very carefully about what I would show, what I would say and what I would present, but I have always taught those subject areas because that is part of my academic freedom, and no amount of students saying, “I feel offended by that” or “I am upset by that” will stop that being taught. I have had colleagues say, “Do you think that is the right thing to teach?” and I have had to defend it and say, “Absolutely. My job is to educate the whole student body in this area of law and this is what I will do, but I will not be doing this and I will not be doing that. I will be doing the other.” So it is about judgment and what we feel. One of the sad things that I have really found upsetting about this debate is the number of academics who have felt personally unsafe where I think they probably do not need to, because what they have to say—if they have the evidence and they have done the work—will be listened to. It may not be agreed with—there may be students outside shouting at the door, disagreeing with them—but that is part of the process of academia.
Matt Western
Q
Professor Whittle: I have been in hospital for the last couple of days so I have been a bit out of it.
Matt Western
Well, thank you for joining us in those circumstances. Professor Stock from Sussex University said she felt that perhaps the university did not promote her enough in terms of her freedom of speech. Do you feel like you do get promoted by Manchester Metropolitan University? The second point she made was that there could be some improvements to current processes on campus; can you suggest any that would obviate the need for this Bill?
Professor Whittle: I have never personally felt that Manchester Metropolitan has not supported me in what I have done, what I have organised or the events that we have had, some of which have been potentially quite contentious. For example, we have had gender critical feminists and trans activists speaking at the same event. The university has always been supportive.
I do not think that universities do enough to promote what we do, to either our student body or to the external world. I often think it is a great shame that we do not get the message out about what our academics are talking about to a wider group than just my department, for example. There must be a better way than sending out a bland email to everybody saying X event is taking place—which most people will then delete. It is thinking about how we want to promote the events that take place; about how we could do that through calendars, through doing more public events, where we invite the public in to listen to what we do and the conversations that we have. That is really important because, the fact is that we have very serious discussions. We often have multidisciplinary and interdisciplinary groups having extremely important conversations about the way we consider the world that we want and how we might live in it. However, in order to do that we have to have the support of the university, in the sense that it believes that we are public-facing and student-facing—we are not little isolated islands within little isolated faculties. There is not a sense, for example, even within the university budget that there is money to promote anything. You have always got to dip into your own budgets. Things like that—the idea that universities really think about looking outwards—would be a really positive change.
Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)
Q
Professor Whittle: At that time there was clearly a media scare about the power of transgender activists and about the rights of transgender people. I read the research proposal of that particular piece and I looked at why it was not approved. I do not think that I would have approved it for my university, because it was not sufficiently sound. It was not sufficiently based on preliminary research. I think it had a political motivation, which I would not expect from any of my students; I would expect a certain level of objectivity from them.
I looked at that quite closely, thinking, “Have Bath made a big mistake here?” but I think what happened was that their decision to refuse to go ahead with that research at that time became a media story that they had refused because the transgender world would attack them for accepting it. Good research has been done on the question of young people and whether they would continue to transition or would detransition—a lot, in fact—and I have never known anyone else have their research stopped, but that was not sound. When you read it, it did not feel as if it was a good piece of research. Maybe had Bath addressed it properly, they could have done more to say, “This needs sorting and this does before we will consider it.”
Matt Western
Under the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, I declare that my wife works at a university. I am not sure if it is necessary to declare that, but I want to put it on the record for this session.
Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)
Chair, this morning it was said that hon. Members have to declare their interests every time they speak. My understanding, and that of the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes), was that as long as the interest is declared at the beginning of the session that should be enough. Have the rules changed or are the right hon. Member and I just being old fuddy-duddies?
Matt Western
Q
“introduction of the statutory tort will almost certainly involve universities in more legal action”.
Could you briefly expand on the consequences, both intended and unintended?
Smita Jamdar: As I understand it, the tort is designed to enable people who feel that their right to freedom of speech, as defined in the legislation, has been infringed to go to court and argue their cases. The reason why I fear that could have a number of consequences, not all of them intended, is that in order to issue a case before court you simply have to pay an issue fee, in most cases, write the particulars of claim and set it out, so you set out your case. It then locks both parties into a set of proceedings. Ultimately, you can cut those proceedings short, so you can apply to the court to have a case struck out, but that nevertheless involves a certain amount of time, expense and resource in dealing with the litigation.
In relation to the statutory tort, there is not any threshold level of harm that anyone has to show. Ultimately, for a remedy, any tort requires some form of damages, but that would not necessarily stop people from bringing claims simply to make the point. Especially where the threshold of harm is very small, it could be brought in the small claims court, where no costs are recoverable by either party. On one analysis, you would say that is at least a level playing field, but again it could mean that a few thousand pounds in every case could be spent getting rid of claims that are either very trivial or unmeritorious generally. That is the concern.
Mr Kevan Jones
Q
This morning, my right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) raised the issue of Chinese students. We all—or I do and at least one other person in Committee does—know about the United Front activities of the Communist party on campuses throughout the UK. Sometimes they are intimidating students, and they are pushing an agenda—for example, on the Uyghurs in China—that is pro the Chinese regime. Under the Bill, I fear that that could be opened up, as my right hon. Friend raised this morning.
A group of students could on the face of it just be students, but they might have financing behind them that we and other people do not know about so that they could pursue a freedom of speech claim to push an agenda that might, for example, be in the interests of the Chinese Government. That would not only involve a lot of cost, but would clearly be financed by some very deep pockets, so it could lead not only to that agenda being pushed but to a lot of expense for the universities. Do you agree with that?
Smita Jamdar: The legislation obviously covers freedom of speech within the law, so as long as what these people were purporting to want to speak about was within the law—or at least arguably within the law, because obviously one of the things that you might wish to have the court adjudicate on is whether the speech was within the law—I cannot see anything that would stop that kind of funded litigation. Ultimately, you can try to seek clarification about where money has come from to fund litigation, but there are always ways of passing money through so that it comes from the pockets of the claimants in the first instance. So, yes, we would not necessarily know who was funding the litigation, or to what end. Ultimately, the question for the court to decide would be: was it an infringement of freedom of speech within the law?
Matt Western
Q
Smita Jamdar: There is definitely a lot of complexity here about the different roles that these bodies will play and the different routes that somebody could go through to get compensation. The Charity Commission, for example, would not normally be involved in making decisions about compensation for individual complainants; it would be looking more at whether the body in question had complied with the charity law obligations. But the other three, under the model that we have seen in the Bill, could all be involved.
Without a great deal of clarity about the relative responsibilities or indeed the pecking order—there is a rule that you cannot go to the OIA, and I think under the Bill you could not use the OfS free speech complaints process without first exhausting the internal processes of the university to challenge the decision that you are unhappy about. However, there is no such restriction when you go to court. You are free to go to court when you feel that your rights have been infringed, rather than having to go through another internal process. That said, the courts tend to encourage people to utilise internal processes first, because it is a good way of managing court resources. Does that answer the question?
Emma Hardy
Q
“we do not want all cases going to court where they could otherwise be resolved by other means.”—[Official Report, 12 July 2021; Vol. 699, c. 50.]
However, as you have just outlined, there is no requirement in the Bill to go through the internal processes before going to the freedom of speech tsar—or whatever title they are given. Is that of concern to you?
Smita Jamdar: I think there is a restriction on going to the freedom of speech tsar; I think they are proposing that you have to go through the internal complaints procedure before you go through the OfS’s complaint process. However, I do not think there is any such restriction on going to court.
Michelle Donelan
Q
One last question. I was interested to know your views on the new duty to promote the importance of free speech and whether you feel that would shift culture on campus.
Smita Jamdar: That is probably the best part of the Bill as far as I am concerned. Ultimately, the way we will address the concerns around freedom of speech is very unlikely to be through litigation or regulatory intervention because it is a cultural point. Many universities that we have worked with are already keen to promote freedom of speech. If they have a statutory duty to do so, I am sure it will help to some extent. For me, the central question will be the definitional problem of what is the mischief that we are trying to address because it is very wide-ranging.
A duty to promote free speech would not necessarily in my view get over things like people feeling nervous about expressing views that they think are unpopular, because you are not necessarily worried there about somebody taking formal action against you; you are worried about how your peers might react to you. In reality, we cannot legislate out the fact that people will naturally react to views. It is part of how we all communicate with each other.
I think the duty is a good thing. It is the best part of the Bill as far as I am concerned because it is the one most likely to achieve what everybody wants to achieve. But we do have that definitional problem—some of this stuff is just human nature, and I am not sure that you can legislate or promote that out of existence.
Matt Western
Q
Smita Jamdar: I am not sure I follow in what way the statutory tort would circumvent employment law remedies. What I can see is that if you present any institution that has a duty to safeguard its resources, to manage them effectively, to deliver them in most cases for a charitable objective—education and research—with a risk that they could be sued at any time, they are going to look for ways of minimising that risk before it happens. It is too late once you are already in court. There are all sorts of challenges to getting yourself out of court very quickly.
The concern would be that governing bodies, who are rightly there to try to make sure that the assets are used for the proper purpose and not diverted to unnecessary litigation, take steps to introduce preventative measures. I hesitate to use this phrase because I know it has been used a lot already in this discussion, but it creates another sort of chilling effect, which is risk aversion on the part of institutions, who say, “Actually, I need to manage this risk and therefore I am going to take whatever steps I need upfront to reduce the likelihood of someone challenging me.”
I am talking on behalf of universities because they are my client base, but if you looked at student unions and particularly the fact that they may not have as many resources to start with, they too may start to feel that they need to find ways of reducing the opportunity for problems to arise, rather than doing what I think we would all prefer them to do—create an environment where lots of conversations are happening and lots of debate and discussion is taking place.
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)
Q
“This paragraph applies if the Secretary of State requests the OfS to—
(a) conduct a review of the scheme or its operation (or any aspect of either of those matters), and
(b) report the results of the review to the Secretary of State.”
We are not sure about what the contents of that review will be and we have not seen any guidance on that yet, but I would expect it to start looking at cases—potentially individual cases. We could get into a situation where individuals are named as a part of that review, because we are talking about the operation of the scheme.
Clause 7(13) states:
“For the purposes of the law of defamation, absolute privilege attaches to the publication of—
(a) any decision…and
(b) any report”.
I raise this point about this particular legislation because, although I can understand why privilege is awarded to Ministers, Secretaries of State and others in certain instances, we could be in a situation where individuals could be named, and in a way that could affect their whole careers and lives, without having any ability to take action with regard to anything defamatory that is said about them. It seems to narrow down the ability to secure redress and, for me, that cannot be right in any piece of legislation, particularly when we are talking about individual rights. What is your view on that?
Smita Jamdar: That raises a problem that permeates the Bill. We are often talking about essentially legal judgments, because we have to judge whether speech is within the law or outside the law. You can see a situation where somebody wants to say something that somebody else regards as defamatory, and therefore says, “You can’t say this about me.” It goes off to the Office for Students, who, on some basis—I have to say it is not clear to me—is supposed to form a view on whether or not the statement was or was not defamatory, and then it will publish a report on that.
The OfS is protected under this legislation, because it has that absolute privilege, and the Ministers are protected, but in some ways what you will have done is taken the original defamatory statement and published it more widely, as far as the individual is concerned.
To my mind, if you want to resolve these matters through a legal lens, you should go to court and court will decide. I am not sure how the OfS would have the expertise to do it and therefore there is a risk that what it then publishes does not necessarily protect the rights of the individuals who are either named or identifiable through the reporting.
The Chair
Q
Thomas Simpson: Thank you very much for having me at the Committee. It is a real pleasure to be here this afternoon. I am Tom Simpson, and I am associate professor of philosophy and public policy at the Blavatnik School of Government, University of Oxford, and a senior research fellow at Wadham College, Oxford. I was one of the co-authors of two Policy Exchange papers on this topic recently.
Matt Western
Q
Thomas Simpson: My disciplinary contribution here is as a philosopher—that is my academic discipline—and from working in the context of a school of government and public policy. I have spent quite a lot of time trying to think through what conceptual issues are at stake and what institutional means might try to address them.
Many of the reasons that media controversy around this issue arises is that there are these high-profile instances of dismissal or no-platforming. The really deep question is to what degree are they representative of a wider, underlying chilling effect across the sector. In my view, the real significance of this Bill is the long-term impact it will have over 10 years. One way to think about the Bill for those who are cautious about it is that it is really a form of anti-discrimination legislation. In the same way as the Equality Act 2010 has had, over a 10-year period, a really fundamental foundational shift in our public culture in the UK, my vision for this Bill is that, over a 10-year period, it will have a foundational, fundamental shift in culture within the university sector.
One of the complicated questions is really a sociological question. What seems at stake is that these high-profile controversies create a sociological order where a certain viewpoint is considered toxic, or is off the table or not up for discussion, which sends out a chilling message across the sector that you should not engage in that. The legal remedies that plug the gaps of previous legislation will start to stop that happening so that people will start to claim their free speech rights because they know that they are no longer subject to the risks they were previously subject to. As people claim their free speech rights, and as the courts uphold that, that should spread an opening effect across the sector.
Matt Western
Q
Thomas Simpson: I decided not to speak out. The first issue I spoke out on was Brexit in 2016. This was a really catalytic issue for me. I was a year away from what is called reappointment to retirement age at that stage. Once I went through that process, which I did successfully, it becomes very difficult to sack me within the University of Oxford’s governing statutes, but I would not have spoken on academic freedom as an issue before I went through the reappointment to retirement age process because the public discourse around academic freedom as an issue is sufficiently controversial, even within academia, to mean that I risked jeopardising these formal processes of appointment. That was a personal judgment that I made. Now, the question is: is that a rational judgment?
In the summer of 2019, as I was beginning to think more formally about this, a research paper came out looking at an international sample of philosophers. It asked people to identify their ideological affiliation. What you get in that is that approximately 75% of philosophers identified as left leaning, about 11% as moderate centrists and about 14% as conservative. It then asked people, “To what extent are you willing to discriminate in job appointments, refereeing of journal articles and grant applications, against people of a different ideological persuasion?”
Matt Western
Q
Thomas Simpson: It was a study of academics based internationally, so it bears on, but not directly, the UK situation. The finding there is that the willingness to discriminate is bipartisan, so people identifying as both left and right are willing to discriminate against those on the opposite side. In this particular study, it was 55% left against right and 45% right against left.
The consequence of that is that my expectation that, were I to express publicly that, as it happened, I voted leave in 2016 with half the country—half the country went the other way; there were reasonable people on both sides—the likelihood is, given that there is a right-left orientation to that now, that were I to sit on an appointments panel, approximately half of those who identified as on the left, the majority, would be willing to discriminate against me for that position. That is beginning to give evidence that there are rational grounds for that concern.
Matt Western
Q
Thomas Simpson: Our study really bore out figures that were consistent with the international picture.
Matt Western
Q
Thomas Simpson: What I agree with absolutely is that most institutions will have some kind of prevailing culture—it may have a political orientation or it may emerge in different respects, so on non-political issues. What is at stake then is whether those who have the majority viewpoint see themselves as entitled to take action against those who have the minority viewpoint, or differ from the culture in some important respect. And that tipping point is what I began to get the sense had changed. Clearly, the public sphere has been under real pressure—in turmoil—over the last five years, but there has been an emergence of a kind of animus associated with political viewpoint, which has made it very difficult to engage on these topics.
Part of the complexity of academic life is that so many of the really substantial decisions—for instance, on research grants, publications and appointments—take place in the privacy of your office. So you are reading documents; you just make a judgment. You are making a judgment of quality; that should be the primary consideration. But your judgment of quality is very difficult to disentangle, as we move into a more polarised environment, from a judgment of, “Is this the kind of person that I would like to have around? Is this the kind of person who is on my side?” And the moment we shift into that thinking, that is absolutely lethal for academia.
My view is that the great proportion of academics are committed to academic freedom, do their work with real integrity and do not fall into these traps. We saw that with the Cambridge University vote. But a relatively small proportion can then exert a chilling effect across a wider set of issues, which then make you, the individual, very reluctant to speak out publicly on that.
Matt Western
Q
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
“‘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—
Gareth Bacon
You have had your say, thank you very much.
Thomas Simpson: I am very cautious about the language I would use to describe that situation, but I want the rule of law rather than the rule of politics. That is the frank truth.
Matt Western
Q
Thomas Simpson: As I said earlier in the evidence, I would seriously support considering introducing the employment tribunal as the first court to consider cases of dismissal in that situation, in addition to the existing measures in here.
The Chair
There are no further questions from Members, so I thank Mr Simpson for his evidence, and we will move on to the next panel.
Examination of Witness
Dr Bryn Harris gave evidence.
The Chair
We will now hear oral evidence from Bryn Harris, who is the chief legal counsel at the Free Speech Union. May I ask you to move forward, Mr Harris? I remind Members that we have very limited time for these sessions, and we have until 5 o’clock for this one. Welcome, Mr Harris; please introduce yourself for the record.
Dr Harris: Thank you very much. I am Bryn Harris, and I am chief legal counsel at the Free Speech Union.
Matt Western
Q
Dr Harris: From our members and from donors. We are a member-based organisation, and people pay a subscription to be members of the FSU. That accounts for a large part of our funding.
Matt Western
Q
Dr Harris: The prices, do you mean?
Matt Western
Q
Dr Harris: In terms of the range of members, certainly we have a good number of students, and we have had a good number of higher education cases. The last time we did the figures, it was about 30%. There is then a large number of employment cases—when I say cases, I mean when someone comes to us with a dispute relating to freedom of speech—I think another 30%, although I can check the figures later if you would like. They obviously vary very much in their background and the disputes they bring to us.
One thing I would say is that the people who come to us in trouble are very often not at all privileged. They are people who are in trouble with an employer or a university that, we believe, is abusing its power and essentially punishing that employee or student for saying something that it finds distasteful.
Matt Western
Q
Dr Harris: That is correct, yes. We also have a discount fee for students and those on benefits.
Matt Western
Q
Dr Harris: You already have free speech—you are an MP. You are protected.
Matt Western
Q
Dr Harris: There are quite a few things there to pick up on. First, contrary to what you might believe, our ambition for this Bill is not to be racing to court every so often bringing cases. We want to see that universities are urged to comply with it and that they respond to avoid the new liabilities that it creates by protecting freedom of speech. I know the issue of vexatious litigants was an issue that concerned a lot of Members on Second Reading, but I see little chance that this will be particularly attractive for the vexatious litigant. There are a number of reasons for that. First, the new OfS complaints scheme has the power to filter out vexatious litigants. We do not know yet, but it is likely that anyone who wants subsequently to bring a claim in the courts will be required to go through the OfS first, as a form of alternative dispute resolution. That is one way in which I think we are likely to see the weeding out of vexatious litigants.
The other point to note is that any right potentially attracts vexatious litigants, including fundamental human rights such as freedom of speech. We have to be careful about backsliding on protecting fundamental rights on the basis that there is a potential risk of vexatious claims.
The other point I would make, which is very important, is that I think a lot of criticism of the Bill seems to portray the courts as supine—as passive. It completely misrepresents the fact that the courts have considerable case management powers—that they can strike out vexatious claims and that a claim with no real prospect of success can be disposed of at summary judgment. That is not to mention the practical difficulties of bringing a meritless claim. You are going to be open to adverse costs, because you are wasting the court’s time. All of those protections are in place and restrain the vexatious litigant, so there is no real reason to identify this particular new statutory duty and correlative right as enticing the vexatious.
Matt Western
Q
Dr Harris: I am not sure I said that, but it is still a good question. It is hard to see in that situation where the danger of being sued arises. My understanding is that this is likely to make it much easier to secure diversity of opinion in the higher education section, because it will be difficult to punish students who say things that are distasteful to some and it will be difficult to rescind invitations to speaking events, and there will also be this enhanced freedom—the academic freedom—for members of staff. That creates a framework, but no more than a framework. I am trying to answer your question; if I have not, I am sure you will tell me.
Nothing in the Bill will make people value freedom of speech. The law cannot make anyone ethically say that freedom of speech is a good idea. It will not, of itself, create a culture of free speech, which is what we really need, and it will not, of itself, make academics start disagreeing with one another, but it will create the conditions by which that can happen. It will allow those who seek to restrain such diversity—those who believe there should be a degree of uniformity—to now be restrained. It creates the conditions by which those changes can happen, but I very much believe that it is for the autonomous institutions themselves to change those cultures. All the law can do is set the ball rolling and create the framework.
Mr Jones
Q
Dr Harris: To a degree, I agree, but the director must enforce free speech within the law, and the director will have no power to say what the law is. If the director misdirects him or herself as to what the law says on free speech, it can be challenged in the courts—it would be an error of law.
On the question, I think that, ultimately, what will happen is that there will be definition and enforcement by the courts of those duties and rights created by the Bill. It is correct to say that there is a role for an administrative body, the OfS. That is a trade-off that it is often necessary to make. It is worth while to have a cheap, informal and quick form of adjudication. The idea that every dispute—especially for students—should be taken to court, is simply impractical. Even though there can be drawbacks with administrative adjudication, it is essentially a stopgap so not everything has to go to the courts. Ultimately, the free speech that we are talking about here is defined and enforced by the courts. It is free speech within the law. We should all be happy with the idea that free speech is a right enforced by the courts.
Matt Western
Q
Dr Harris: Every MP must decide for themselves how happy they are to turn a blind eye to infringement of a fundamental right and how happy you are to pay that political price.
Matt Western
indicated dissent.
Dr Harris: I see you shake your head, but I think that is an important question. At what point do we say we see here abuse of bureaucratic procedure, essentially to enforce a monoculture? We see abuse of disciplinary processes, and those who are affected are predominantly, as we see, our young and very often people who are in their first year at university—very young people—who do not know what to do. They feel bullied. We are talking about, in some cases, particularly with many gender critical female academics, lives and mental health ruined. We need to have a sense of what is our quantum here. How much of this are we prepared to tolerate before we decide that something needs to be done in order to change it?
The reason I think the Bill is necessary is that the mere existence of the legislation as it is on the statute book—there can be no doubt that it is there on the statute book, and you will find the Education (No. 2) Act 1986—is not enough. It needs to have practicable, reliable means of enforcement. That is why, in too many of these instances of people’s lives being ruined and of people being bullied, it has happened too much because it is too difficult for there to be a realistic threat of enforcement. That is because judicial review, which is the means of bringing a claim under section 43, is very expensive. You really have to lawyer up and it is not practical.
The Chair
In the interest of trying to get every Member in, can you keep your answers a bit more succinct? I recognise that they are very complicated and it is a complex issue.
Oral Answers to Questions
Matt Western Excerpts(3 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Gavin Williamson
I thought that if I gave my right hon. Friend two schools, it might shut him up, but he continues to ask for a third. I would love to make such a large promise for him at the Dispatch Box. I would be more than happy to sit down with him to discuss it and see what can be done. He is absolutely right about the value of technical education and how it delivers so much not only for youngsters themselves but for the economy.
Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)
Here we are in September and there is a certain sense of groundhog day, with campus chaos caused by the actions, or inaction, of the Government set to return. In November last year, the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies published a report that showed that covid outbreaks on campus could be reduced through the provision of air-ventilation filters. The Welsh Labour Government have committed funding for such machines but the UK Government have not. According to a poll by Manor Interiors, the greatest concern among students returning to their accommodation is air ventilation, so why have the UK Government not provided funding to make campuses safe?
Gavin Williamson
The hon. Gentleman seems to have missed quite a significant difference between this year and last year: we have rolled out one of the most successful vaccine programmes anywhere in Europe. We were one of the first countries to offer people not just one vaccine but two and to make sure that the adult population had that available. That is the big difference between this year and last year.
Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Bill
Matt Western ExcerptsMonday 12th July 2021
(3 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act 2023 View all Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act 2023 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)
I thank everyone who has participated in today’s debate. The Bill uses a sledgehammer to crack a nut—so said my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Rosie Duffield) and the hon. Member for St Albans (Daisy Cooper). As my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green) succinctly put it, the Bill will result in legal protection for hate speech.
With this Bill, the Government are seeking headlines. The Bill is mostly about headlines, but of course Labour supports free speech. Labour is the party that has done more than any other when it comes to free speech—just look at our record. In fact, Labour introduced two significant pieces of legislation in this regard: the European convention on human rights, and the Equality Act 2010. Without exception, every one of my colleagues has risen to extol their support for free speech.
The Government are fooling no one with their claims for the Bill, as was laid bare by the contributions from my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner) and my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield), who chairs the APPG for students and who talked about the numerous attempts by successive Conservative Governments to use the free-speech dead cat. Many will have listened intently to my hon. Friends the Members for Leeds North West (Alex Sobel) and for Warrington North (Charlotte Nichols), who made it absolutely clear that this legislation would facilitate the likes of David Irving, Nick Griffin and others to spew out their antisemitic, racist hate speech on our campuses. My hon. Friends asked what hate speech will be allowed. Both called the legislation dog-whistle politics, over which the Government will lose control. What we have before us would be more aptly titled the hate speech protection Bill—a piece of legislation that would protect antisemites, holocaust deniers and people whose only aim is to cause deep hurt and offence.
The Government claim to be advancing the people’s priorities, but this issue is certainly not one of them. One would have thought that the Government would prioritise an inquiry into the covid pandemic; the greater number of challenges that the higher education sector faces; the impact of the pandemic on education, as we have heard; the mental health crisis; or the fact that violence against women is endemic. On the last point, my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Jess Phillips) asked the Secretary of State about his failure to address violence against women. She pointedly asked where that Bill is, but the Secretary of State remains silent.
My hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood) asked why the Government have not prioritised support for students throughout the pandemic, which has exposed enormous inequality. My hon. Friend the Member for Luton North (Sarah Owen) spoke of the ongoing crisis in mental health on our campuses and asked why it is not a priority. Instead, the Government have manufactured a Bill to once again distract from their own failings. They claim that they have evidence and data, but as my right hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) said, the Government are in an evidence-free zone.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry North West (Taiwo Owatemi) said, the Bill is motivated by the cancellation on university campuses of just six scheduled events out of 10,000 last year. Four of those were cancelled due to incorrect paperwork, one was moved off campus, and the other was a pyramid scheme. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Catherine West) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) asked, why is the Secretary of State so attentive to a virtually non-existent problem? Why was the Secretary of State not fighting his corner for the £15 billion of catch-up funding that was proposed by Sir Kevan Collins, rather than meekly accepting the £1.4 billion pittance? He would rather focus on six, or truly two, cases where people were not heard on campus.
The Bill is a charter for hate speech. Many people, including my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry South (Zarah Sultana), reminded us that the Minister for Universities, the hon. Member for Chippenham (Michelle Donelan), was unable to deny that the Bill would create a legislative safeguard for holocaust denial. Why are we devoting our attention to a Bill that provides legislative backing to help holocaust deniers, racial supremacists and other preachers of hate gain special access to university campuses? The simple truth is that the existing legislation—section 43(1) of the Education Act 1986, the Human Rights Act 1998, the Equality Act 2010, the Counter-Terrorism and Security Act 2015, which includes Prevent duties, and the Higher Education and Research Act 2017—already covers the issues that the Bill seeks to address. The 2017 Act established the Office for Students and states that the governing body must take
“such steps as are reasonably practicable to ensure that freedom of speech within the law is secured within the provider.”
My hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Beth Winter) questioned why, despite those existing powers, this Bill seeks to create a range of new obligations on higher education providers and to give the OfS new powers to fine an institution.
My hon. Friends have questioned throughout the new tort enabling individuals to seek compensation through the courts, which will result in universities and student unions having to spend more significant time and money fighting legal battles against vexatious and frivolous claims. What is the unintended consequence? Institutions and student unions will naturally become risk averse and avoid inviting speakers for fear of financial repercussions if they are subsequently cancelled. Remember that many HE institutions and colleges are actually quite small—maybe 2,000 or 3,000 students—and will certainly not be able to cope administratively or financially with the additional burdens placed on them. The result will be fewer speakers, fewer debates and an overall reduction in free speech.
Then there is the threat to academic freedom with the inclusion of a new qualifying concept of
“within their field of expertise”.
Perhaps the Minister would elaborate on how academic freedom will be limited in practice and on who would decide. Increasingly, and I have to agree with the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis), this begins to sound like the McCarthyism that started in the US in 1950s, but it is McCarthyism against our university sector. As we have heard repeatedly from Labour Members, this is a Bill that claims to safeguard, yet perversely will have the reverse effect in numerous unintended consequences. The idea that this Bill could actually facilitate holocaust deniers to speak on campus should itself send a chill through the public consciousness. Likewise, it would enable other anti-science brigades to hold court on campus. Perhaps I could paraphrase the late Donald Rumsfeld, and suggest that there may be intended unintended consequences. That is to say that the Government may not have fully thought through the forms and scale of damage to the higher education sector, but it seems they would not be dissatisfied with the turmoil of litigation and the financial impact they have unleashed, because this is the precursor to their attack on the sector.
Finally, let me turn to the Office for Students and its central role. If we needed to understand what was going on here, we could do no better than start with the appointment of the new chair to the supposedly independent OfS. I know the Prime Minister is a recent convert to the love of dogs, but appointing his poodle? Of course, one of Lord Wharton’s first acts was to make an £8,000 donation to the Conservative party, which is two months’ pay from his two-day-a-week job. Now we have what many are describing as an “Office for Stooges” overseeing higher education, and that is how free and independent speech will be in future. It is a body whose purpose now is to do the Government’s bidding, particularly when central to this legislation is the appointment of a tsar for free speech and academic freedom. That is chilling—one person with all those powers.
I will be voting for our reasoned amendment. Given that there is no serious evidence to suggest there is a problem with freedom of speech on our campuses, instead of addressing the urgent problems faced by students and higher education institutions, the Bill is yet another case of the wrong priorities from a Government who seek to divide rather than unite. I invite the Minister to explain why the public should trust this Government when it comes to free speech. After all, this is a Government who shut down Parliament illegally—this place, illegally—as well as a Government who interfere with the independent selection of members of parliamentary bodies and the selection of museum trustees. They are even a Government who tell the National Trust not to explain the history of certain of its properties that were funded on the proceeds of slavery. That is sinister.
The Government should drop this Bill and get on with addressing the urgent needs of the country, where people are more concerned about how they are going to pay their bills this week and this month, and where inflation is ripping through people’s hard-earned income, with an economy that has become so distorted and so riven by inequality in the past 11 years that we the people were more vulnerable to the pandemic even before the Government managed to mismanage the crisis. The public simply want good government and a Government who understand that politics is all about priorities, and that is why I urge all Members to vote for our reasoned amendment.
Oral Answers to Questions
Matt Western Excerpts(3 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Michelle Donelan
Despite the hon. Member’s claims, the strategic priorities grant accounts for approximately only 0.05% of higher education providers’ total income. The House should be under no illusion that this Government 100% support the arts, which is why we asked the OFS to invest an additional £10 million in our world-leading specialist providers, many of which specialise in arts provision, and why we have spent £2 billion through the cultural recovery programme, plus furlough and plus VAT and other reliefs—more than any other country.
Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)
Research by the British Academy has shown that of the 10 fastest growing sectors in the UK economy, eight employ more graduates from the arts, humanities and social sciences than the other disciplines, and MillionPlus states that
“there is an economic imperative to invest in creative arts education…job creation is double the rate of the rest of the economy.”
Just take media studies, which the Government state is not a strategic priority, despite our making some of the best films, TV, theatre and advertising in the world. Last year the UK saw inward investment in co-production spend in film and TV account for 83% of the entire production spend, underlining our global reputation. The Government seem to be unaware that this country is a globally renowned creative powerhouse. Can I just urge the Government to get into SHAPE—social sciences, humanities and the arts for people and the economy? Will the Minister accept that the benefit that this nation derives from university education cannot be measured solely in terms of its immediate economic impact?
Oral Answers to Questions
Matt Western Excerpts(3 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Gavin Williamson
We have already seen a really high level of interest from both institutions and, most importantly, students in the new Turing scheme. They recognise that they want to seize the opportunities on a global scale as against being constrained by the European Union. That is why I have every confidence that we will have such an enormous success with the Turing scheme and it will be truly transformative to young people’s lives.
Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab) [V]
This is a Government of illusion. The Prime Minister said that there was no risk to Erasmus, then it was gone, replaced with the Turing scheme, which Ministers said would improve opportunities. But a quick look at the scheme shows that for cost of living, Turing offers just £490 of support—£140 less than Erasmus—while for travel costs, only a fraction of students are now eligible whereas under Erasmus+ all students were eligible for up to £1,300. In tuition fees, there is no support, whereas it was guaranteed under Erasmus for free. Could the Secretary of State just be straight with students and confirm that Turing equals Erasmus minus?
Gavin Williamson
I am afraid the hon. Gentleman obviously is not very familiar with the scheme. Actually, there are a number of slight inaccuracies in what he stated. I would be happy to send him the details so that he can undertake some homework and understand it a little bit better in future.
University Students: Compensation for Lost Teaching and Rent
Matt Western Excerpts(3 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Michelle Donelan
I agree with my right hon. Friend; I am appalled by the decision of some universities to drop literacy standards in assessments—that is misguided and it is dumbing down standards. That will never help disadvantaged students. Instead, the answer is to lift up standards and provide high-quality education. I assure him that we will act on this, in line with our manifesto commitments on quality.
Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)
Last week, there was an exam-room silence from the Government on when universities would return, with students, their families and university staff learning from newspapers what was only announced to this House days later: that many students would not return to campus until 17 May. Why has this announcement come so late, and why was it briefed to the newspapers instead of being announced to those affected? Does the Minister not see that this is deeply disrespectful to the students and staff alike? For weeks, we have had students studying technical and creative subjects safely, thanks to the incredible work of universities and staff, and for many weeks students have been back in further education settings, so will the Minister explain why further and higher education settings have been treated so differently? Her written statement ignored the work of universities and the existing situation in colleges, and offered no evidence to support this approach. So will she tell us what the scientific basis was for this decision, and will she commit to publishing this advice today, so that she is at least forthcoming with students and the sector?
The Minister announced a further £15 million this year for hardship funding. Further support is clearly needed, but, once again, the Government are simply not working to the scale of the challenge. The funding offered to students in England is far smaller than that offered by the Labour Government in Wales. Will the Minister tell us why her Government believe that students in England need so much less than those elsewhere? At every stage of this pandemic, children, young people and students have been an afterthought for this Government, let down time and again. Will the Minister finally admit that these young people have been failed and tell the House what she will do to address it?
Michelle Donelan
I agree with the hon. Gentleman that it has been an extremely challenging and disruptive year for students, and I assure him that students have never been and will never be an afterthought for this Government. In fact, this week we made a statement regarding the details of the plan for the remainder of students returning. We conducted a review over the Easter holidays, as we had publicly announced we would do, and we wanted to maximise the amount of time we had to review the data. The announcement made on 5 April was regarding the things that would open up in step 2.
On further education and schools, the difference is that these youngsters do not go and form new households, nor do they travel across the country. On the data we have reviewed, we have considered the latest epidemiology data, alongside public health, economic, educational and other implications of the return. A wealth of data, papers and evidence is and will continue to be published.
STEM Subjects: Science and Discovery Centres
Matt Western Excerpts(3 years, 8 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Miller. I congratulate the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Dr Spencer) on securing this important and timely debate. I agree with his comments on the differential impact on young people of the pandemic, particularly in education. I agree, without exception, with the contributions from around this virtual Chamber on the challenge and opportunities that the pandemic brings, and the impact on these centres.
We heard about the impact on the Catalyst Science and Discovery Centre from my hon. Friend the Member for Halton (Derek Twigg); on the National Railway Museum from my hon. Friend the Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell); on the Xplore! Centre from the hon. Member for Wrexham (Sarah Atherton); on the Winchester Science Centre; on the Eureka! Centre in Halifax, and on the Bristol Exploratory Centre, which the right hon. Member for Kingswood (Chris Skidmore) discussed. I was not aware of its being known as “the Exploratory”, but I did once visit it when it was known as At-Bristol.
All those centres, as we have heard, provide the spark that encourages young people to think about the world around them. I quote a particular individual who said, “Be curious”. Those are the words of the late Stephen Hawking in that powerful moment of opening the Paralympic games in 2012, when the world’s gaze fell on our country. His message was somehow amplified by the sight of his crumpled frame, because he did not just encourage us, he urged us. To quote him fully,
“look up at the stars and not down at your feet. Try to make sense of what you see and wonder about what makes the universe exist. Be curious.”
It was a rare public appearance for someone so famous in the scientific community, but less well known beyond. His global message sought to inspire the world through hope and optimism. That invitation—that urgency—was to create a brave, new and better world for everyone by challenging perceptions and stereotypes that limit the potential of the human body, mind and spirit. It was a special moment.
If we needed telling—and perhaps we did—science is all around us. It is only a matter of opening our eyes, of what we are able to see, what we are trained to see, or what we have the innate talent to see. For some, such as Stephen Hawking, that talent was able to flourish. It may have developed in the classroom, but it was his observation of the universe that made him wonder. So much great scientific thinking has come from observing the world around us and asking why or how. Those reflections can spur deep thought as we ponder the natural world and have spurred, through the centuries, the work of Archimedes, Galileo, Leonardo da Vinci, and, closer to home, that of Newton, Mary Anning, Charles Darwin, and countless others—all by asking the simple question of why.
The UK has a proud history of science and innovation, though many scientific discoveries, including penicillin by the Scot Alexander Fleming and the structure of DNA by Franklin, Crick and Watson. UK inventions include Stephenson’s steam engine, as we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for York Central; the television, by another great Scot, John Logie Baird; the jet engine by Coventrian Frank Whittle; the World Wide Web by Sir Tim Berners-Lee; the modern bicycle; the flying wing that led to the development of Concorde and ultimately the stealth fighter; the jump jet; the lithium-ion battery; graphene—all British or co-developed with other nations. I could go on.
Through time, these discoveries have helped to improve our understanding of the natural world and the science that forms it. So much of that has originated from the observations of curious minds: Newton observing how apples fell perpendicularly to the ground; Boyle observing in a laboratory as those early scientists sought to explain the relationship between pressure, volume and temperature that would ultimately lead to the development of power and engines; Baird, who built what was to become the world’s first working television set, using items including an old hatbox, a pair of scissors, some darning needles, a few bicycle light lenses, a used tea chest, and sealing wax and glue that he had purchased; and Sir Frank Whittle, who became fascinated by the gas engine and the work of pistons in his dad’s small workshop in Leamington—those observations ignited his interest in propulsion and ultimately led to his work in developing the jet engine. Few of us have those workshops or garages, or the courage, in the case of Baird, to conduct experiments in the kitchen or lounge. In fact, Baird’s landlord threw him out of his rented property when he discovered what he was doing.
For all these reasons, having places to observe and appreciate the physical and scientific world is so important, and that is why the value of centres of science and discovery cannot be overestimated. Some 15 years ago, I visited the discovery centre—that was how it was known —in Bristol. It was a triumph, appealing to young and old minds and demonstrating the fascination of physics and the workings of the natural world. In total, the UK boasts a network of almost 60 science and discovery centres, including science museums, science centres, discovery centres and natural history and environment centres. Rather impressively, some 19% of the UK population said that they had visited a science and discovery centre once or more in 2019, with 33% claiming that they had visited a science museum.
These centres do a terrific job in stimulating young minds, as so many hon. Members have commented. That is important, particularly in encouraging the uptake of related subjects in our schools. I will just look at the statistics for England, if I may. The proportion of A-level students entering for any maths or science subject has increased from 35% in 2015-16 to 46% in 2019-20. That increase in interest is important if we are to build on our established reputation, renowned around the world—a reputation that underpins a science sector that is worth £63.5 billion and provides jobs in research institutes and universities and in businesses of all sizes across the country.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Catherine West) said, we have only to look at the leadership of Dr Sarah Gilbert and her team at Oxford University and its tie-up with AstraZeneca to understand how important this is and how vital it is that we attract more women, and indeed black and minority ethnic students, into the sector.
The centres themselves are threatened, as so many Members have said in the debate. According to a survey conducted by the UK Association for Science and Discovery Centres last June on the impacts of the pandemic, some 96% of science centres felt that they would not be able to cover costs at 30% capacity. Revenues are down by 50%, as my hon. Friend the Member for Halton mentioned. There are staff cuts across the board. In the case of the Eureka! centre, as my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Holly Lynch) said, the staff are down by one third.
The financial uncertainty was underlined by the Government’s announcement that these centres would be largely excluded from the arts, heritage and culture rescue package of £1.6 billion. In October 2020, the UKASDC, chaired by the brilliant Professor Alice Roberts, wrote to the Government and called for £25 million of emergency financial support for the sector. The letter, signed by 160 professionals working in STEM, said that the sector was at imminent risk; 62% of the facilities have said that they could cease to be a going concern in the next 18 months.
Let me turn briefly to the wider issue of this country’s recent record on science, where unfortunately the Government’s warm words have often not been matched by deeds, and where their industrial strategy seems to have been mothballed. Indeed, the Chancellor of the Exchequer did not even mention such a strategy in either of his Budget statements. That failure has seen the UK lose during the past decade a significant amount of its world-leading pharmaceutical manufacturing capabilities—capabilities vital for drug and medicine development. And the failure has resulted in the north receiving less than half the life science investment per head in the south of England, despite having great teaching hospitals and significant health inequalities. In the midlands, the investment is as low as £16 per person.
This is not simply a question of geographic inequality; there is also inequity by gender and ethnicity. Presently, 65% of the STEM workforce are white males, and more directly the STEM workforce has a lower share of female workers than the rest of the workforce—27% versus 52%. It is therefore striking when we hear of those women who have broken through and excelled in their field, such as Professor Sarah Gilbert. Just the other day, we heard of the latest young woman engineer of the year, Ella Podmore, who spends her days pushing the boundaries working in material composites at McLaren. But they are sadly rare in the science sector, with women representing only 9% of people in non-medical STEM careers. Elsewhere, BAME men are less likely to work in STEM than white men, yet we face a shortfall of 173,000 STEM workers, costing the sector £1.5 billion a year.
This gap was highlighted last year by the all-party parliamentary group on diversity and inclusion in science, technology, engineering and maths, which published a report following a 15-month inquiry on whether the education system and schools provide equal opportunities for students of all ages to learn STEM subjects in England. Its recommendations included the need for a Minister responsible for adjusting inequity in the education system; STEM education that is more relevant to the lives of all young people; and greater action to address teacher shortages in STEM subjects. We can therefore understand why the centres that we have discussed today are so important.
We must invest in a science future and not rely on this Government’s science fiction, where promised research investment has been cut. We need to ensure that young people have the opportunities to be curious to discover in the classroom. This is why Labour is more ambitious than this Government. We would build on the UK’s science successes and ensure that we continue to be an innovation nation by spending 3% of our GDP on research and development, because it is a no-brainer for our economy.
The Campaign for Science and Engineering has shown that, for every £1 invested by the Government in research and development, we get back 20p to 30p each and every year. Likewise, research by King’s College London and Brunel University London has shown that for every £1 invested in medical research, we get back 25p to the economy each and every year. The Labour party would also seek to champion our universities as engines of regional progress, strengthening regional economies by rebalancing R&D investment. We would address the shortfall of STEM workers by helping to encourage women and those from BAME backgrounds into STEM, starting at school level, to ensure there is the pipeline of talent we need for the future. Widening access is not just the right thing to do for individuals; by tapping this talent, we will strengthen the sector by diversifying decision making and we will encourage continuous lifelong learning and reskilling.
Labour has a long and proud history of supporting science—judge us on our record. In the first 10 years in government, we more than doubled the science budget. If we are to meet the challenges of the future, it is vital that we excite our young people in science and encourage them to be inventive in every sense. While STEM is important, I would add words of caution: we cannot all be coders or scientists and we must also value our arts, which are so important to us culturally and economically. As Stephen Hawking said: “Be curious.” To that I would add: “Be inquisitive.”
Oral Answers to Questions
Matt Western Excerpts(3 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Feryal Clark (Enfield North) (Lab)
Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)
Vicky Ford
The earliest years are the most crucial point of a child’s development, and we know that caring for our youngest children cannot be done remotely. The current evidence continues to show that pre-school children under the age of five are less susceptible to covid and unlikely to have a driving role in transmission. All the data that we base decisions on is public, and further scientific evidence was shared just last week.
Matt Western [V]
Ten days ago, there were five covid cases in different nursery settings in Warwick and Leamington—the worst for many months. If the Government want to keep early years open, how does the Minister think nurseries can remain viable without mass testing, FFP3-grade PPE or, indeed, the financial support that was available in the first lockdown?
Vicky Ford
This Government are committed to supporting the early years, and we will be spending about £3.6 billion on early years funding this year, but to provide extra safety, we are rolling out home test kits for all those in nurseries and pre-schools—the staff in nurseries and pre-schools—from 22 March.
Nick Gibb
We have said clearly that we strongly recommend that students in secondary schools wear face masks or face coverings in classrooms where it is not possible to keep a social distance between pupils. We have also said, for quite a number of months, that in communal areas of a secondary school, where it is not possible to maintain a social distance, staff, adults and students should also wear face masks. Face coverings are largely intended to protect others against the spread of infection, because they cover the nose and mouth, which are the main confirmed sources of transmission of the virus.
Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab) [V]
School Closures: Support for Pupils
Matt Western Excerpts(3 years, 10 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered support for pupils’ education during school closures.
May I congratulate you, Dame Angela, on your new status, which is well deserved? Thank you for chairing the debate this morning. Yesterday, it looked as though it might not proceed because of the uncertainty over Westminster Hall debates, so I thank the House authorities and all the staff for being present here today to enable this sitting to happen. I hope that good sense will prevail later today over future arrangements.
I start by paying tribute to the extraordinary professionalism and commitment of the teaching staff and senior leadership teams in all our local schools and colleges. Like our health professionals, they are very much frontline workers and have worked relentlessly during the past 10 months. In today’s debate, it is essential that we recognise the importance of schools in addressing the inequality gap.
It is estimated that in the first lockdown some 575 million learning days were lost; the average loss was 65 days per pupil. All of us, having been through the education system, can think back to those days and recall a particular piece of information being imparted by a teacher and how that registered with us. We can also think of the days that we missed when others attended school and what we subsequently learned from them. We felt a sense of loss that we were not there to participate, so the fact that children and young people could have lost 65 days is of course quite significant for their future development.
The Children’s Commissioner for England, Anne Longfield, concluded in her report in December that just five days had been lost on average across schools in the autumn term, but in some places it may have been up to 10 days. Certainly in Warwickshire, primary schools on average saw 92% attendance, state secondary schools averaged 82% and special schools averaged 80%. But just looking at the autumn term, we see indications quite early on that the trends were concerning. By the week ending 16 October, some 400,000 children were off school, with 50,000 estimated to have covid and the remainder self-isolating, and by the last week of November, 1 million children were out of school. At one secondary school in my constituency, just 63% were physically present.
Of course that has a disproportionate impact, as the Children’s Commissioner said. It has considerable consequences for children, especially those from disadvantaged backgrounds, and that is particularly concerning when the UK has one of the worst levels of inequality in the developed world, as highlighted by the United Nations interlocutor in his report back in 2019. We have 4.2 million children living in poverty, 600,000 more than in 2010, according to the Child Poverty Action Group, so even before the pandemic, UK schools faced considerable challenges.
With the introduction of the third lockdown, we are seeing more children being sent to school than attended during the first lockdown. The figures that we have show attendance of between a quarter and a third of pupils in school; that compares with 10% to 15% in the first lockdown. A main driver has been the change to the definition of what constitutes a critical worker, or what is necessary attendance, putting schools in the difficult position of having to assess this on a case-by-case basis. Parents are also having to make decisions based on financial demands rather than the guidance. A headteacher in my constituency believes it is an absolute scandal. They quoted the Department for Education, which states that
“we are reducing overall social contact across…the country rather than individually by each institution”,
which is leading to the overloading of our schools and their acting almost as care workers for younger people to support that.
The much higher attendance rates have resulted in staff being in school when they should be teaching from home. If teachers are delivering face-to-face learning to a blended age group of pupils and are expected to provide digital content, they are effectively doubling their workload. In turn, schools are having staffing issues due to illness and the need to self-isolate, and often the staff themselves face childcare issues. The other principal driver of the increased numbers in school is that those without laptops or space to study are now eligible to attend school. That has led to unions such as the National Association of Head Teachers highlighting how the high numbers will simply undermine the purpose and effectiveness of the shutdown itself. That is why online learning and the tools to enable it are so crucial.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
May I also add my congratulations to you, Dame Angela, on becoming a dame? I did not know until just now. I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving me a chance to intervene. Does he not agree that in rural constituencies such as mine in Strangford, where broadband connection is a massive issue, steps need to be taken to ensure that every child has access to stable connections to be able to learn remotely, and, if not, there must be a place for them in schools with functioning broadband? If we have to have an alternative, we need a system in place that enables that to happen.
Matt Western
I thank the hon. Gentleman, who always makes such valid points. I will cover that issue in a moment, but he is absolutely right. Access to broadband internet is an essential provision and should be a part of our critical infrastructure so that every household has it. Whether someone is working or studying from home, it is as important as getting gas, electricity or water to the household.
It has been clear from the outset that with the majority of children removed from school and college settings, there is a huge challenge in delivering educational learning in terms of both channel and approach, both from the delivery and the receiving end. According to Ofcom, up to 1.78 million children in the UK—about 9%—do not have access to a laptop, desktop or tablet at home. Almost 900,000 of those live in a household with just a mobile internet connection.
According to the education charity Teach First, four in five schools with the poorest pupils are hit the hardest and do not have enough devices and internet access to ensure that those self-isolating can continue to learn. However, recent Government announcements have been more positive, including that on 560,000 laptops and tablets, and a further 300,000 were announced yesterday. That is welcome. Perhaps the Minister will confirm the Department’s total cumulative number since March and April against the objective of 1.78 million.
The move by Three UK, followed by British Telecom, Vodafone and many others, to provide free data and unlimited broadband in support of the hardware is also very welcome and should be applauded. But why did it take the Government so long? Why did they dither and delay when the need was there from March last year? The initial announcement in April, when the Government stated that they would seek to ensure that disadvantaged pupils would benefit from free laptops or tablets, was immediately challenged by the Good Law Project, a legal campaign group, which said that the numbers announced were a “drop in the ocean”. The group went on to say that it found the lack of details about the scheme troubling as only a small subset of pupils would benefit.
Back in June I raised the issue with the Minister’s Department in a written question and I followed it up in the Chamber. In reply to my written question I was told that 200,000 laptops and tablets had been ordered on 19 April. However, a Government document entitled “Devices and 4G wireless routers data: Ad-hoc Notice: Laptops, tablets and 4G wireless routers for disadvantaged and vulnerable children: progress data”—Members may not have seen that report—stated:
“The first devices were ordered on 15th May, and the first devices were dispatched on 18th May.”
It is still not clear to me what happened, and which was true. Was it 19 April or 15 May? It certainly seems that the Government were slow to react to the challenge and to recognise the ongoing need.
At the same time, in Warwickshire, I was told that 1,463 laptops had been requested, but that by early July only 45 had been received. By 1 June the Government had certainly missed their target of delivering 230,000 laptops and tablets. On 21 October the Secretary of State said that he would deliver 500,000 laptops, noting that 200,000 had already been delivered, but by early November the Government had announced that they had slashed the allocation of Government-promised laptops for the poorest and most vulnerable children across the country by a staggering 80%. My question to the Minister is why the number was reduced. Why was that announcement made?
As I say, more recent announcements have been more positive, but for schools in my constituency there is clearly a long way to go. In Warwick and Leamington, on average, 17% of pupils do not have access to digital equipment or broadband for home working. In the absence of Government support, 83% of schools, according to my own survey, have provided laptops out of their own funds. Those are hard-pressed funds in schools. One primary school that will remain nameless confided that it has almost 50 children without devices, and has received just four in total.
Of course it is all too easy to think of the issue as about purely the supply of laptops, but even when a household has a device and internet access that does not mean that the pupil can make use of them, because of such factors as low parental computer literacy, parents who work from home needing to use the device, school- age siblings also needing to use it, or simply access to broadband capacity. Perhaps there may also be a lack of access to printers or other hardware in the household. That is all understandable. For many there is simply the problem of broadband or mobile internet access, as the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) said. In particular, there are certain buildings in remote rural areas where mobile signals are limited.
Finally there is the question of content support. It is worth highlighting this week’s positive move by the BBC to deliver an education offer to children, teachers and parents through CBBC and “BBC Bitesize Daily”, while BBC2 will provide programming aimed at supporting the GCSE curriculum. That is all immensely welcome and will complement greatly the online teaching that is being facilitated through Oak National Academy and other providers such as the website Hungry Little Minds. Naturally, there is also a need to deliver online teaching, which in turn leads to demand in relation to training needs for the delivery of the new channel for learning.
Many schools are also reporting significant financial pressures. In the survey that I conducted across Warwick and Leamington during the autumn term it was apparent that there were immediate and significant costs—operational costs, but also a need for capital support. As for operating costs, a couple of primary schools faced additional costs of £20,000, but the average figure across the board was something like £13,000, or £1,400 per month—the additional cost of sanitising, cleaning, and ensuring that the physical environment is safe and usable for pupils and teaching staff alike. However, all schools reported a significant unmet staffing need because of budget limitations, and 83% stated that they had faced staffing shortages.
Schools also said that there was a greater need for them with respect to their responsibility for protecting children and ensuring their general wellbeing, and while mental health is of course a particular and obvious concern, there is also the issue of the increased risk of harm to children. According to a report for the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, in the first lockdowns there was a 22% increase in the number of counselling sessions relating to physical abuse, and a threefold increase in the number of Childline counselling sessions per week about child sexual abuse within the family. Those are all areas where we need to provide greater support for pupils, young people and teaching staff.
There have been pressures on school leadership teams, who faced the responsibility of undertaking flow testing of pupils and additional tasks alongside the ongoing pressures they already have. I highlight the need for more support for special schools, which face huge pressures having to teach face-to-face in intense environments, and where there is a real need for more financial support, for additional staffing and, I would advocate, for the vaccination of teaching staff and pupils.
On the point about nurseries, the transmission data, from October 2020, is outdated. According to the Office for National Statistics, transmission among zero to five-year-olds is now the same as among five to nine-year-olds. Funding is needed to support our nurseries.
I will move on to the situation with free school meal vouchers. One of the implications of pupils not being in school is for their health and welfare while they are at home, possibly alone, where many will go without a decent hot meal that would have ordinarily been provided by the school. That is why the provision of free school meals has been so important, in particular via the vouchers during the first wave. It is surprising that the Government and, dare I say, their Back Benchers voted not to continue with that provision in subsequent holidays and into the future, until there was the Marcus Rashford-inspired U-turn.
With so many pupils out of school again, the need to provide the equivalent of free school meals is significant and many schools are urging that cash payments be made. The Child Poverty Action Group and Children North East echo that call for cash payments as a replacement for free school meals, as they know what children need and that allows choice, accessibility, discretion and safety, all of which are valued by families.
Jim Shannon
The news stories this morning were full of the value of the voucher scheme and of the food that has been delivered to children, saying that it does not have the necessary vitamins and nutrients. Does the hon. Gentleman feel that that should be looked at to ensure that the vouchers and the food stuffs that are going out satisfy the child and give them the nourishment that they need?
Matt Western
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. I am about to come on to that point. The figures quoted in the media in the last 24 hours, about the profiteering that is taking place by some of the companies that have moved into the sector, are obscene. The claim is that the food has a value of £30, when in fact people could pick it up for £5 to £10.
The Child Poverty Action Group and Children North East echoed the call for cash payments. In research conducted by the charities, 81% said that direct payments worked better than grab bags or vouchers. When it comes to grab bags, or “hampers”, as they are now euphemistically known, there has been yet another shocking revelation about the company Chartwells, which has been providing food bags for £30, when the content would barely register a fiver or a tenner at the till, and the association of some people with that business and BlackRock.
Speaking to local schools, families are desperate and the schools are angry that the Government have not acted faster. As one headteacher put it to me:
“The Government communications have been poor. They knew schools were shutting, so why have plans not been made for free school meals?”
He was on a call with 20 other headteachers across the region and they were all of the same view. Certainly, some believe that the Edenred scheme worked fairly satisfactorily by comparison.
I would love to spend more time on the exam situation, but the position in which colleges and schools found themselves at the beginning of this term, particularly in regard to vocational subjects and BTEC exams, challenged them. They felt let down by the Department for Education. There are real concerns among students, as well as schools and teaching staff across the board, about the plans for the summer exams and how they will be measured against their learning performance.
Finally, I want to look at protection for teaching staff. We talk about support for pupils, but we need support and protection for teaching staff. There is a need for vaccination and all staff in schools, including support staff, must be a much higher priority. I raised that on 3 December, and again on 30 December, with the Secretary of State.
In September, an GMB union internal survey of over 600 teaching assistants showed that 55% of them said they did not feel safe at work. Elsewhere, Unison has highlighted that the hardest hit are likely to be school support staff, as they are often agency workers, older, disproportionately black, Asian or of mixed ethnicity and come from more disadvantaged backgrounds. If there is the political will for schools to remain open—of course, we all want them to reopen as early as possible—school staff must be placed at a higher priority than they are presently.
The past year has been far from academic, Dame Angela. The support needed for pupils’ education is considerable and complex, but it is not mission impossible. I am afraid that the Government’s work through the course of the pandemic has, on occasion, been of little merit. Perhaps it could be described, in its own right, like coursework: late submission, no shows, confusion and, in the eyes of school staff and governors, a tragic failure of leadership from the Secretary of State. This generation of children must not lose out any longer. These are some of the most important days of their lives, which are precious to their development and the realisation of their potential. The Government must dig deep, and not short-change their long-term future.
Kate Osborne (Jarrow) (Lab)
It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Dame Angela, and I congratulate you on your damehood. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Matt Western) for securing this important debate.
I pay tribute to all the schools in my constituency and to the two local authorities, South Tyneside and Gateshead Councils, which reacted quickly to ensure that children and families are as supported as possible during the latest schools closure. I of course pay tribute to all the parents and carers, including my wife, who are home schooling their children at this very difficult time.
However, schools and families still face huge challenges in ensuring that every student has individual access to reliable and high-quality digital devices and the internet. This is, of course, not a new issue. The digital divide existed prior to the pandemic and left many children struggling to complete homework. The pandemic has highlighted the digital divide and other inequalities on a national scale, and effective action must now be taken to address that wide-reaching educational inequality.
Although this debate about digital exclusion among young people, alongside other things, is vital, let us not be in any doubt that it alone will deal with the deep-seated inequalities that having no face-to-face teaching creates. Online is no substitute for many, which is why it is vital that the Government ensure that pupils have guaranteed face-to-face contact time with their teachers online. Research conducted by the Child Poverty Action Group and Children North East in May 2020 showed that school closures further exposed and exacerbated the gaps in education caused by low income, and left children unable to access or engage in learning because they did not have adequate resources or an appropriate set-up at home.
It seems a long time ago now that a demand for everyone in the UK to have a right to access the internet, irrespective of income, was considered by some to be “broadband communism”. Fast forward a year and many children across the country are not able to gain access to laptops and the internet when it is so desperately needed. That is no surprise when Ofcom estimates that between 1.14 million and 1.78 million children in the UK—around 9%—do not have home access to a laptop, desktop or tablet, and more than 880,000 children live in a household with only a mobile internet connection.
Matt Western
My hon. Friend is making a very powerful point. Does she agree that, with the closure of so many libraries in our communities, we easily forget just how important access to information and knowledge is, and how so many in our communities are being isolated from that access? That is why the provision my hon. Friend is describing is so crucial.
Kate Osborne
My hon. Friend makes a very good point. Libraries are so important to our communities.
In June 2020, the National Education Union, the Labour party and others called on the Government to urgently address the digital divide and provide laptops for all pupils who needed one. Seven months on, that has not been properly addressed. How long does it take to order and distribute laptops?
Delivering devices alone does not fully address the issue of connectivity, with 880,000 children and young people living in a home with only a mobile internet connection. Schools have reported that take-up of additional SIM cards has been low among families in certain areas. Even with mobile companies expanding data plans, this still means that children’s learning is dependent on phone reception, which can often be unreliable or slow. That is preventing children and pupils from fully participating in lessons.
The Government’s decision to cut school laptop allocations in October last year—a decision that was fortunately eventually reversed—combined with schools previously being able to request laptops only for isolating pupils, left many schools and pupils unprepared and without the right resources to move quickly into an extended period of remote learning. Echoing much of the Government’s handling of the pandemic, this has been a story of dither, delay and indecision, and it is our children who are now paying the price. I agree with the Child Poverty Action Group and Children North East that the Government must commit to rapidly increasing the distribution timetable for the 440,000 purchased devices that are currently available to schools and ensure that every child across the country has access to a device for learning and other essential items.
The CPAG and CNE have outlined some very basic ways in which the Government could achieve that goal. First, the number of devices schools can apply for should be increased, enabling them to meet the needs of their school communities. Cash grants could be provided to parents to allow them to purchase the ICT equipment that is needed—not just laptops, but wi-fi, printers, printer ink, paper and so on—so that pupils can learn from home. Child benefit could be increased by at least £10 a week to ensure that families have enough money to meet the additional financial pressures placed on them as a result of children learning at home. Will the Minister commit to those reasonable requests, to ensure that no child is further disadvantaged by forces that are completely out of their control? Nearly one year on since the start of the crisis, the Government’s failure to deliver the digital resources for school children’s learning must not continue at this critical point in their lives.
Finally, I will turn to free school meals. I echo the concerns so eloquently outlined by my hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington, and add that, surely, the easiest way to ensure that children, through their parents, receive the full level of their allowance for free school meals is to use vouchers. That will allow parents to make sure that the food given to their children is nutritious and balanced and that it is food their children will eat. It will also mean that unscrupulous companies no longer benefit at the expense of our children—literally taking food from their mouths.
Matt Western
I thank everyone who has participated in today’s debate, in incredibly difficult circumstances. It is clearly an important debate, and the fact that we have been able to hold it is testament to the need for it. I guess we all share some frustration when the Chambers are not available to us, and about not holding the Government to account. The Minister is a decent person, and will understand that the concerns of the right hon. Member for Tatton (Esther McVey), for example, are constructive. They may be critical, but we want the best for our children and communities. That is why it so important to have such debates.
I want to give particular recognition to my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh), who has done such sterling leadership work on child poverty and in the education sector. I thank her, having listened to her speak in the Chamber many times. She leads the way on many fronts and is worthy of special recognition.
I shall not go through the individual contributions, but I reiterate my thanks for Members’ participation and for so many important points. I will perhaps summarise just two areas. On free school meals, I understand the Minister’s point about Chartwells and the meeting that took place yesterday, but when businesses apologise, those apologies can be cheap. There are serious amounts of money involved, and profiteering is going on to the detriment of the children and families involved. I urge that the National Audit Office and Public Accounts Committee should look at the issue. It is a scandal, and a blemish on the work that the Minister is doing—as the Department. I hold the Minister in good regard, but it is right that the matter should be looked at most carefully.
I want to focus on the issue of laptops and digital access. There is poverty in many parts of our modern lives, but in this day and age the idea that the sixth wealthiest nation should have digital poverty and exclusion seems quite wrong. I think back, and perhaps I can put the matter simply by framing it in this way: for a child not to have an exercise book provided by the school, or access to a textbook in class, would be wrong. The school would not allow it. We have to think differently and recognise that digital access through the internet and broadband is crucial—laptops and digital access. Therefore, it should be mandatory for the Government to provide them to every child in our schools.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered support for pupils’ education during school closures.
Dame Angela Eagle (in the Chair)
Will Members please leave promptly by the exit door on the left, while observing social distancing?
Education: Return in January
Matt Western Excerpts(3 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Gavin Williamson
My hon. Friend makes an important point. This is not just about helping schools, or just about helping pupils and that workforce within the schools, but about helping the families with school-age children. It is helping the whole community push back the tide of this virus, because we will be testing more people than ever before. We will be testing literally millions of children every single week. Yes, we recognise that schools need that extra support. That is why we created the £78 million fund in order to be able to support them. The other week, we shared with schools information on how much money they will be eligible to get, but we do understand that there will be some schools that have unique problems or challenges in rolling out this mass testing. I am incredibly grateful to both Her Majesty’s armed forces for making themselves available and to Ofsted for supporting schools that are facing challenges in rolling out the mass testing programme to ensure that it is implemented in all secondary schools and all colleges, because this will benefit everyone in school, everyone in college and everyone in the community.
Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab) [V]
Like so many frontline workers, teaching staff are deeply committed to their profession, but they have also been among the most vulnerable, particularly given that 12 to 17-year-olds have been a major vector for transmission. I spoke with head teachers just before Christmas and they were left angered by the Government’s late announcement to introduce testing without any support and little direction. Today we hear that there will be a delay to schools reopening. May I ask the Secretary of State just two points? As I asked him back in November, will he prioritise frontline line teaching staff for vaccinations given the political will to keep schools and colleges open as much as possible? Secondly, given that so many students will be taking BTECs and other technical and vocational exams in the next few weeks, what support will the Government be providing to those students and the staff assisting them?
Gavin Williamson
The hon. Gentleman is right to highlight the issue of those children taking BTEC qualifications, and we have made the decision about the importance of those youngsters being able to continue to take those qualifications over the coming weeks. On vaccination, he has picked up on a thread raised by previous questioners. Obviously, as Education Secretary, it is not within my remit to determine who will be receiving vaccinations. However, when we have worked through the groups that are most vulnerable to covid, I certainly hope that those working in our education settings are looked at in the most positive way to ensure that they are high up on the list of those receiving vaccinations.