University Tuition Fees

Michelle Donelan Excerpts

Monday 25th October 2021 Westminster Hall

[The Minister for Further and Higher Education (Michelle Donelan)]

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Tom Hunt) for opening the debate, which I am very pleased to participate in. The petition, as we have heard, considers a wide range of topics, from tuition fee levels, representation of students in Parliament and accommodation costs to the impact of covid-19 on the prospects of future graduate careers.

My hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich passionately spoke about the importance of the Government’s skills agenda and investment in alternative and vocational options, as well as higher education, which I will come back to. It has been a privilege to work so closely with the higher education sector; it has enabled me to see at first hand the extraordinary way in which students have dealt with the challenges they have faced over the last 20 months. Many Members spoke about those challenges, from the restrictions placed on face-to-face teaching to being in lockdown away from family. All that is on top of students’ fears and concerns for their own health and that of their family and friends, which will be familiar to us all.

I want to put on the record that the resilience that students displayed has been nothing short of extraordinary. Being their voice in Government during this difficult time has been a privilege. I want to sincerely thank staff across the higher education sector, who have faced unprecedented challenges and have shown that they are resilient, resourceful and innovative while maintaining the delivery of teaching and learning at the quality expected by the Government and the Office for Students. I have visited numerous universities and have spoken with many staff over the past 20 months, and I have heard incredible stories of how staff worked to move content online and adapt their teaching almost overnight. To staff and students, I say a heartfelt thank you.

However, I am not here just to thank the sector. Members will be aware that I pledged at the very start of the pandemic to prioritise getting students the support that they need, and students and staff have been given unprecedented financial support as a result. I thank all Members who supported those important interventions. We made an additional £85 million of student hardship funding available for higher education providers to distribute to students in the academic year 2020-21, in addition to the sizeable £256 million of student premium funding already available for providers to draw on to support students experiencing hardship, or to provide mental health support. We also worked with the Office for Students to create a new mental health support platform with £3 million of funding.

Last week, I announced that the maximum under-graduate loans for living costs will be increased by a forecasted inflation of 2.3% for loans issued in the 2022-23 academic year. The same increase will apply to the maximum disabled students’ allowance, to the grants for students with child and adult dependants who are also attending full-time undergraduate courses, and to the non-means-tested loans that the Government provide for students undertaking masters and doctoral degree courses. Such statistics are easy to overlook when they are fired off in debates, but those with students in their constituencies, as we all have, will know the very human and personal stories that make those financial interventions so important.

The first point raised in the petition is the important and complex issue that we have heard about regarding the rate of tuition fees. The petition asks for the maximum cap to be reduced drastically from £9,250 to £3,000. I understand the importance of, and the motivation behind, that view. Like those supporting the petition, the Government want a fair system that offers value for money; is sustainable; and provides enough funding to support high-quality teaching that leads to good outcomes, meets the skills needs of our country and maintains the world-class reputation of our higher education providers. Tuition fee levels play an important part in all those goals, but when we boil it down we cannot get around the fact that tuition fees must be at a sufficient level to achieve those aims. That leads me to the most obvious point: the funding implications of reducing tuition fees by so much.

Higher education providers in England gain, on average, approximately half their income from student fees. Therefore, reducing fees by more than two thirds to £3,000 for domestic students would create an estimated funding loss of a staggering £6.5 billion per year. Total funding for university courses would cover less than 40% of their cost of delivery in that scenario. Positive motivations aside, the consequences would therefore be disastrous for the higher education sector. We would force many providers out of the market overnight, and remaining courses would not have the funds required to deliver the high-quality tuition and experience that students deserve.

The only other option would be to force the taxpayer to pay the difference. To me, that prospect seems incredibly unfair, given that graduates will go on to earn, on average, £100,000 to £130,000 extra during their working lives than non-graduates—a point that my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich made. That brings me to my next concern: many of those who would benefit would be the higher earners, and it is likely to make university harder to access and to excel at for the lowest earners. Rarely do I agree with the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington (Matt Western), but I do on that point.

Our student loans system, on which the vast majority of students rely, is rightly based on the principle that those who gain the most will make the greatest contribution. That is why the size of an individual graduate’s loan repayments depends on their earnings—if they earn a lot, they pay more; if they earn less, they pay less. In many cases, people do not finish paying off the debt. A reduction in the amount that graduates need to pay back through a tuition fee cut would therefore benefit higher earners by thousands of pounds, while lower earners would see little to no change on their repayments. In fact, the very lowest earners would see no financial benefit from this at all.

Worse still, those thousands of pounds, now in the pockets of already high earners, would have come at the expense of universities, who would no longer be able to give such generous financial support and bursaries to students. People who know me well will know that I fought tooth and nail for better access and support for disadvantaged students, so the idea that we would do anything that would take away from their ability to go to university if they desire to do so is completely contrary to my views and those of the Government.

I also remind the hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Apsana Begum) that, actually, we have record numbers of disadvantaged students who have gone to university this year, and we had record numbers of disadvantaged students going to university last year. In fact, a disadvantaged student in 2020 was 80% more likely to go to university than they were 10 years ago. That staggering statistic shows that the impact of tuition fees is certainly not the one being painted by Opposition Members.

As I mentioned, I think we all have very similar motivations for being here today. My focus, when looking ahead, is on how we can get the best value for students and support the most disadvantaged while maintaining the highest quality and standards that we are internationally renowned for. Although a cut in tuition fees would not help, it is also clear that raising fees would be equally wrong, so last week I was pleased to confirm that tuition fees will be frozen for the fifth year in a row. Compared with a situation where tuition fees had risen in line with inflation each year, that freeze means that a student on a three-year degree course has saved over £3,400—a real-terms reduction that I am sure supporters of the petition would welcome.

[Carol Monaghan]

May I ask the Minister when we are likely to see the recommendations of the Augar review implemented, including significantly reducing the student fees that are being paid?

[Michelle Donelan]

We are considering the remaining recommendations made by the independent panel chaired by Philip Augar, including on fees, funding and student finance, and we plan to set out our full conclusion on that shortly. I urge colleagues not to refer constantly to media speculation, because we have not yet made an announcement, but it will be coming shortly.

Following on from that, as part of our consideration of the recommendations made by Augar, I and my ministerial colleagues are still in the process of building a post-18 education system that massively improves the value and quality of learning and equips learners with the skills they need to get those high-wage, high-skills job opportunities. The way we drive up quality in our higher education system is not by diverting money from universities to high earners, but by investing in a system that focuses on high-value skills. That is the way to promote genuine social mobility. We have already delivered on several of the recommendations made by Augar in our first response to that, including investment in the further education estate, increasing funding to 16 to 19-year-olds, a commitment to introduce a lifelong earning entitlement and the Prime Minister’s lifetime skills guarantee.

[Matt Western]

This is not a difficult question, but I want to pick up on the point made by the hon. Member for Glasgow North West (Carol Monaghan). When the response to the Augar review is made—I think it is now two years, or two and a half years; I have lost track—will the Minister commit today to making that in the Chamber to us and not through the media?

[Michelle Donelan]

I look forward to when we announce our response to Augar shortly, and I am confident that there will be several opportunities for hon. Members to question either me or the Secretary of State for Education in the Chamber. I will pledge to ensure that that happens.

Moving on to the next element of the petition, I am very pleased to see the issue of student representation raised here today and I agree with the hon. Member for Slough (Mr Dhesi) on just how important that and listening to students really is. I know that Members present here today are no doubt excellent campaigners. I am sure we would all agree that no one holds us and higher education providers to account on these issues better than students. The view that has driven our work —from the National Union of Students, the Office for Students, Universities UK and the Office of the Independent Adjudicator for Higher Education—is to ensure that students know their rights with regard to higher education and can feel confident in exercising them.

For those less familiar with this, I recommend the excellent work done by the Office for Students’ student panel, which I have met several times since I have been in post. I am meeting it again next week. Over the past two years, the panel has made some really important points, pushing me and other Ministers, and it has certainly been a positive influence in the Office for Students. I am passionate about giving students more of a voice and more direct influence over student life than ever before, so seeing the panel directly inform the policies and decision making of the Office for Students is really inspiring. I know that the panel has played a fundamental role in informing the early development of the Office for Students’ next strategy—on which it will be shortly consulting—in shaping its statement of expectation on harassment and sexual misconduct, and in informing how student hardship funds can best be utilised.

I remind hon. Members that there is a process in place for students who feel that they have not had the expected quality or quantity of lessons, and they can complain to their university. If they are still not satisfied, they can go to the Office of the Independent Adjudicator, which is helping students to reclaim thousands of pounds where the quality of learning has fallen below standards. In fact, the OIA has already made recommendations for financial compensation totalling £450,000—again, showing just how important it is that the student voice is not only heard, but listened to and acted on. I encourage any student with a particular issue or concern to speak up and engage with the process.

The petition also raises the important issue of accommodation costs for students, which was raised by hon. Members. Again, it is an important factor in our mission to achieve genuine social mobility in the wake of covid. Higher education providers and private accommodation providers are of course autonomous and responsible for setting their rent agreements, but that should not stop the Government being there to advocate for and, where necessary, directly support students, which is why I ensured that providers were able to use the additional £85 million of student hardship funding to support students who were struggling with accommodation costs last year. I have also worked hard to ensure that providers’ rental policies have students’ best interests at heart, and that providers are listening to those interests that are being advocated strongly. If students have concerns about any issues relating to university-provided accommodation, they can of course complain to their university and then go to the Office of the Independent Adjudicator.

[Matt Western]

On accommodation costs, the Minister will be aware that there are many campuses across the country where there is no accommodation owned by the university itself—it is all in private hands. Will she provide the data that show the rate of increase in cost and how that has tracked over the past five years, relative to inflation? My understanding is that it is exceeding inflation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Michelle Donelan]

I will take that away and write to the hon. Member with the specific data that he has requested.

I will bring my speech to a close by picking up on the final point raised in the petition, which is particularly dear to my heart as a result of speaking to many hundreds of students about the uncertainty of their future careers. We have talked a lot today about universities, but job security and our economy also depend on the skills revolution going on in the whole of the further and higher education system. Apprenticeships, higher technical qualifications and T-levels are just some of the skills-focused offerings that will allow thousands of people to gain the skills and experience that they need to secure a high-wage, high-skilled job in future. New skills really are the fuel of social mobility, and universities are just one way to acquire those skills. I am proud to advocate for limitless ambition in what we can achieve through higher education, and I will continue to work to give students the best chance to succeed in the post-covid world.

Higher Education Student Finance

Michelle Donelan Excerpts

Thursday 21st October 2021 Written Statements

[The Minister for Further and Higher Education (Michelle Donelan)]

I am announcing details of student finance arrangements for higher education students undertaking a course of study in the 2022-23 academic year starting on 1 August 2022.

The Government announced in the “Interim Conclusion of the Review of Post-18 Education and Funding” in January that maximum tuition fees would be frozen for a further academic year to deliver better value for students and to keep the cost of higher education under control.

I can confirm today that maximum tuition fees for the 2022-23 academic year in England will be maintained at the levels that apply in the 2021-22 academic year, the fifth year in succession that fees have been frozen. This means that the maximum level of tuition fees for a standard full-time course will remain at £9,250 for the 2022-23 academic year.

Maximum undergraduate loans for living costs will be increased by forecast inflation (2.3%) in 2022-23. And the same increase will apply to maximum disabled students’ allowance for students with disabilities undertaking full-time and part-time undergraduate courses in 2022-23. Maximum grants for students with child or adult dependants who are attending full-time undergraduate courses will also increase by forecast inflation in 2022-23.

We are also increasing support for students undertaking postgraduate courses in 2022-23. Maximum loans for students starting master’s degree and doctoral degree courses from 1 August 2022 onwards will be increased by forecast inflation (2.3%) in 2022-23. And the same increase will apply to the maximum disabled students’ allowance for postgraduate students with disabilities in 2022-23.

I am confirming today that current and former employees of the UK Government and their family members that have been relocated from Afghanistan to the UK under the Home Office’s relocation and assistance scheme will qualify for student support and home fee status in relation to new higher education courses from 1 August 2022 onwards if they have been resident in the UK and islands since the grant of such leave. They will also qualify for advanced learner loans for further education courses. Students who are in this category will not need to demonstrate three years’ ordinary residence in the UK and islands before the start of a course.

I am also confirming today that home fee status and tuition fee loans will be extended to the family members of all persons settled in the UK, subject to three years residence in the UK and islands immediately before the start of the course. Currently only the family members of UK nationals are eligible under this residency category.

I am announcing today that persons who have settled status on arrival in the UK, who come to the UK from specified British overseas territories and who are starting full-time and part-time undergraduate courses in 2022-23 will be eligible for tuition fee loans. To qualify, persons resident in the British overseas territories will need to satisfy the three-year ordinary residence requirement in the UK, islands or specified British overseas territories. Eligible persons in Gibraltar may continue to satisfy the three-year ordinary residence requirement in the UK, Gibraltar, the EEA or Switzerland to qualify for student support for courses starting on or before 31 December 2027.

UK nationals and their family members in the British overseas territories already benefit from access to home fee status if they meet the residency requirement of three years in the UK, islands and British overseas territories immediately before the start of the course. Family members of all persons settled when in the UK will now have access to home fee status.

Corresponding changes will be made in respect of students in the above categories who are starting postgraduate master’s degree courses and postgraduate doctoral degree courses in 2022-23 who will qualify for postgraduate loans and those starting further education courses in 2022-23 who will qualify for advanced learner loans.

The changes set out above demonstrate our commitment to supporting economic development in the British overseas territories and enabling those who wish to study at one of our world-class education providers to be able to do so.

Further details of the student support package for 2022-23 are set out in the document available as an attachment online: https://questions-statements.parliament. uk/written-statements/detail/2021-10-21/HCWS339.

I expect to lay regulations implementing changes to student finance for undergraduates and postgraduates for 2022-23 in November. These regulations will be subject to parliamentary scrutiny.

The Government continue to consider the recommendations made by the Augar panel carefully. We plan to set out a full response to the review of post-18 education and funding in due course.

[HCWS339]

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

Michelle Donelan Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd September 2021 Public Bill Committees

Although the costs may be considerable, the benefits are difficult to quantify, which is to say that the entire clause is a gamble that, following the Government’s rejection of all our amendments, is subject to no political accountability.

[The Minister for Universities (Michelle Donelan)]

We have already discussed the clause extensively, so I will keep my remarks very tight.

The new complaints scheme provided for by clause 7 will be overseen by the new director for freedom of speech and academic freedom within the Office for Students, and that director will oversee the free speech functions of the OfS. That means that there will be an individual within the OfS who has an undivided focus on those fundamental values in our higher education system, and they will play a public role in championing the value of free speech and academic freedom across the higher education sector.

That new high-profile role will demonstrate the importance of free speech and academic freedom in higher education and will empower individuals and providers to ensure that universities and colleges in England are places where freedom of speech can thrive for all staff, students and visiting speakers, contributing to a culture of open and robust intellectual debate.

[Matt Western]

Will the Minister confirm that the role will be a full-time appointment, and what will the tenure of the contract be?

[Michelle Donelan]

As we heard in evidence, the role will be akin to the director for fair access and participation. The job description and all the terms will be published in due course—it would be premature to do that before the Bill becomes an Act.

Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

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

[Michelle Donelan]

Clause 9 gives effect to the schedule to the Bill that makes minor and consequential amendments to other legislation. These consequential amendments are necessary to give effect to the main provisions of the Bill and to make all the legislation work together seamlessly and consistently.

Part 1 of the schedule provides for a number of amendments to be made to part 1 of the Higher Education and Research Act 2017. For example, amendments to section 75 of the 2017 Act allow for the regulatory framework of the Office for Students, which gives guidance on how it will regulate, to include provision on student unions. That is a consequence of the new duties for student unions that are imposed under clauses 2 and 6 of the Bill.

Part 2 of the schedule makes amendments to the Counter-Terrorism and Security Act 2015. Paragraph 13 makes consequential amendments. Paragraphs 14 and 15 make minor changes that are not consequential, but are technical corrections. The effect of the amendments is to match those providers that are monitored for compliance with the Prevent duty under section 32 of the 2015 Act to those listed in schedule 6 of that Act that are subject to the duty. That makes no difference in practice; it is simply to fix inconsistencies in wording.

Part 3 of the schedule amends section 43 of the Education (No. 2) Act 1986, which sets out the current freedom of speech duties on universities and colleges. It removes registered higher education providers from scope, since they will now be covered by this Bill. Part 3 also amends the Higher Education Act 2004 to ensure that the scheme operated by the Office of the Independent Adjudicator for Higher Education, which considers student complaints against providers, takes account of the new freedom of speech complaints scheme to be operated by the Office for Students.

The clause and schedule therefore contain amendments to other legislation that are necessary for the operation of the Bill.

[Matt Western]

I do not have any points to make on this clause.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 9 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule

Minor and consequential amendments

Amendments made: 17, in schedule, page 13, line 25, leave out from “subsection (1),” to end of line and insert—

“for ‘a provider’ substitute ‘a registered higher education provider, or a students’ union,’”.

This amendment is consequential on Amendment 18.

Amendment 18, in schedule, page 13, line 27, leave out “provider,” and insert—

“registered higher education provider or of a constituent institution of such a provider,”.

This enables costs recovery from constituent institutions in connection with the complaints scheme.

Amendment 19, in schedule, page 14, line 6, after “provider” insert “, constituent institution”.

This amendment is consequential on Amendment 18.

Amendment 20, in schedule, page 14, line 43, at end insert—

“(aa) after the definition of ‘a fee limit condition’ insert—

‘“constituent institution”, in relation to a registered higher education provider, has the same meaning as in Part A1 (see section A3A(4));’;”.

This defines “constituent institution” for the purposes of Part 1 of the Higher Education and Research Act 2017.

Amendment 21, in schedule, page 15, line 46, leave out sub-paragraphs (2) to (4) and insert—

“(2) In paragraph 1, for the words from ‘in relation’ to the end substitute ‘where under section 73 the OfS imposes a requirement to pay costs on—

(a) the governing body of a registered higher education provider,

(b) the governing body of a constituent institution of a registered higher education provider, or

(c) a students’ union.’

(3) In paragraph 2—

(a) in sub-paragraph (1)— in sub-paragraphs (3) and (5), after ‘governing body’ insert ‘or students’ union’.

(i) after ‘governing body’ insert ‘or students’ union’;

(ii) for ‘73(1)’ substitute ‘73’;

(4) In paragraph 3(1) for ‘of a provider’ substitute ‘or students’ union’.”.

This amendment is consequential on Amendment 18.

Amendment 22, in schedule, page 16, line 15, at end insert—

“(1A) In subsection (1)—

(a) in paragraph (b), omit the final ‘or’;

(b) after paragraph (b) insert—

‘(ba) a constituent college, school or hall or other institution in England or Wales of an institution within paragraph (b), or’.”.

This amendment aligns section 31(1)(b) of the Counter-Terrorism and Security Act 2015 with the concepts used in the Higher Education and Research Act 2017, in order to facilitate the Minister’s other amendments to Part 2 of the Schedule.

Amendment 23, in schedule, page 17, line 4, leave out from “provider” to end of line 7 and insert—

“or a constituent institution of such a provider has the meaning given by section 85(6) of the Higher Education and Research Act 2017;”.

This amendment and the Minister’s remaining amendments to Part 2 of the Schedule clarify how section 31 of the Counter-Terrorism and Security Act 2015 applies in relation to constituent institutions of registered higher education providers.

Amendment 24, in schedule, page 17, line 13, at end insert—

“‘constituent institution’, in relation to a registered higher education provider, has the same meaning as in Part A1 of the Higher Education and Research Act 2017 (see section A3A(4) of that Act);”.

See the explanatory statement to Amendment 23.

Amendment 25, in schedule, page 17, line 22, leave out from “provider” to end of line 24 and insert—

“(aa) a constituent institution of such a provider, and”.

See the explanatory statement to Amendment 23.

Amendment 26, in schedule, page 17, line 28, at end insert—

“(e) after the definition of ‘qualifying institution’ (inserted by paragraph (d)) insert—

‘“registered higher education provider” has the meaning given by section 3(10)(a) of the Higher Education and Research Act 2017.’”.—(Michelle Donelan.)

See the explanatory statement to Amendment 23.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle]

I totally agree. However, an example might be if a lecturer wishes to run a course about Islamic radicalisation. They might say to the university, “I need some extra safeguards put around this course because of the students it might attract and the topics we might be dealing with. It is important to teach this course for academic rigour, it is important to understand these issues, but it might attract people to join the course for undue reasons.” That is not to stop them from doing it; it is just to make sure there is a safeguarding approach. All of that kind of stuff needs to be in the guidelines, not here. I hope that that is what the Minister will say. I think a safeguarding, prior notification approach is what is needed here.

I did want to touch on the interesting contradiction brought up by this amendment. Prevent—although there is debate about its understanding and its use, I do not think that is relevant here—is an important programme to try to safeguard and stop the radicalisation of people in our country. However, it applies to the institutions, and the institutions cascade to bodies that work within them, such as student unions. It does not apply directly to student unions in terms of the duty. This does, which is an example of where this Bill overreaches.

If the Bill is going to have a deeper, more intrusive reach than the Prevent programme, we need either to revisit the Prevent duty or to say that this Bill is a bit of an overreach, that it is not necessary for it to be regulating as deep down as student unions and student clubs. This amendment helps to highlight that. That is an argument I have made many times in this Committee, so I will not go any further on that point.

[Michelle Donelan]

Under amendment 70, higher education providers would not have to comply with certain academic decisions such as those concerning delivery of curriculum or research in relation to the Prevent duty. The Government are clear that the Prevent duty should be used not to suppress freedom of speech but to require providers, when exercising their functions, to have due regard for the need to prevent people from being drawn into terrorism. There is no prescription from Government or the Office for Students on what actions providers should take once they have that due regard.

Specific guidance has been published by the Home Office on how higher education providers should comply with the Prevent duty. The legislation imposing the Prevent duty in higher education already specifically requires that providers have particular regard to the duty to ensure freedom of speech and the importance of academic freedom. That means that providers already have special provisions on the application of the Prevent duty to enable them to take proper account of academic freedom, so there is no need for this amendment to go further.

The Government have commissioned an independent review of the Prevent duty and are looking at how effective the statutory the Prevent duty is, to make recommendations for the future. I hope that reassures the Committee.

[Sir John Hayes]

I find the Minister perpetually reassuring, so that is a good starting point. The anxiety is that research is curbed, materials that might be accessed by students are in some way constrained and activities on campus are curtailed, particularly around research and new courses that, by their nature, are contentious. We have heard some examples so I will not repeat them. There are fears in universities that the authorities will not allow academics to run a course in a controversial area or commission research that might be deemed by some to be awkward or embarrassing. That is not in the spirit of academic freedom that I think we all want to engender in our universities. My intention with the amendment was to protect that academic freedom.

There is a problem with Prevent; I am a great supporter of it, as is the right hon. Member for North Durham, but there is an issue on which the review of Prevent might focus. It is the number of referrals and whether all those referrals are appropriate. That is a different debate for a different place, with different people.

On the basis of the Minister’s reassurance, the healthy debate we have had on the subject and that we need to make progress, with my mission to clarify and bring certainty to this legislation, I happily beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question proposed, That the schedule, as amended, be the schedule to the Bill.

[Michelle Donelan]

The schedule contains minor and consequential amendments to other legislation and is brought to effect by clause 9. As we discussed, the consequential amendments are necessary to give effect to the main provisions of the Bill and make all the legislation work together seamlessly and consistently. Therefore, it will contain amendments to other legislation that are necessary for the operation of the many measures of the Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

Schedule, as amended, accordingly agreed to.

Clause 10

Extent

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

[Michelle Donelan]

The clause is a technical provision setting out the extent of the provisions of the Bill. The majority of the Bill extends to England and Wales, but part 2 of the schedule makes a minor technical correction and consequential amendment to the Counter-Terrorism and Security Act 2015, the relevant part of which extends to England, Wales and Scotland and. As a result, certain provisions in the Bill extend to England, Wales and Scotland. The clause is a necessary technical provision.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 10 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 11

Commencement

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

[Michelle Donelan]

The clause sets out the commencement provisions for certain clauses. It provides that clause 6 and related provisions will come into force on the day the Act is passed, to allow the Secretary of State to make regulations under new section 69B(3) and (4) of the Higher Education and Research Act 2017 in respect of the amount of the penalties that the Office for Students may impose on student unions for breach of freedom of speech duties, and the matters to which the OfS must or must not have regard when imposing such penalties.

Paragraph 7 of the schedule will come into force two months after the legislation has passed, to allow the OfS to consult on changes to its regulatory framework, as required by section 75 of the Higher Education and Research Act 2017. The early commencement of those provisions will allow time for preparation in advance of the main provisions of the Act coming into force. The other provisions will come into force in accordance with regulations made by the Secretary of State. Different days may be appointed for different purposes. Such regulations may include transitional provision and savings.

The clause is a necessary technical provision to allow suitable dates for the commencement of various provisions of the legislation when it is passed.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 11 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 12

Short title

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill

[Michelle Donelan]

New clause 2 seeks to requires providers to take steps to ensure that student unions have sufficient resource to carry out their duties—

[The Chair]

Order. We are discussing clause 12.

[Michelle Donelan]

I apologise, Mrs Cummins. I am one ahead.

[Matt Western]

I have a minor point relating to the title. It appears pretty straightforward, but there seems to be a variance in how it is listed. The Education Act 1986 included further and higher education. Perhaps it should be the further and higher education (freedom of speech) Bill. Is that something that the Minister would consider?

--- Later in debate ---

[Michelle Donelan]

We believe that the title of the Bill is correct.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 12 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

New Clause 1

Duties of constituent institutions

“After section A3 of the Higher Education and Research Act 2017 (inserted by section 1) insert—

“Duties of constituent institutions

A3A Duties of constituent institutions

‘(1) Sections A1 to A3 apply in relation to the governing body of a constituent institution of a registered higher education provider as they apply in relation to the governing body of the provider.

(2) Accordingly, in the application of those sections by virtue of subsection (1), references to “the provider” are to be read as references to the constituent institution.

(3) The duties of the governing body of a constituent institution of a registered higher education provider under sections A1 to A3 do not affect the application of any initial or ongoing registration conditions imposed on the provider under Part 1.

(4) In this Part—

“constituent institution”, in relation to a registered higher education provider, means any constituent college, school, hall or other institution of the provider;

“governing body”, in relation to a constituent institution of a registered higher education provider, has the same meaning as in Part 1 of this Act.’”—(Michelle Donelan.)

This new clause secures that the new duties relating to freedom of speech apply to colleges and other constituent institutions of registered higher education providers in England.

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 2

Providers’ duty to ensure adequate resources for students’ unions

“After section A5 of the Higher Education and Research Act 2017 (inserted by section 2) insert—

‘A5A Resourcing of students’ unions

The provider must take steps to ensure that students’ unions have sufficient resources to carry out their duties under sections A4 and A5 of this Act.’”—(Matt Western.)

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Matt Western]

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

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

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

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

The Minister now has responsibility for further education and higher education, and the Government have spoken about parity and the importance of both. I believe in the importance of both, and in colleges and higher education institutions such as Hull College having just as good a student union as the University of Hull. However, the student union of the University of Hull has more resources than that of Hull College. All the amendment is saying is they should be given enough resources so that both student unions can abide by the rules that the Government are putting on them, and both can afford to keep going. If the Minister rejects the amendment, which sadly I think she will, she needs to look again at the affordability of the Bill for some of those smaller institutions—in particular further education colleges.

[Michelle Donelan]

Earlier, I was too eager to get to new clause 2. The new clause would require providers to take steps to ensure that student unions have sufficient resources to carry out their duties under proposed new sections A4 and A5 of the Higher Education and Research Act 2017.

There is universal agreement about the importance of freedom of speech in university life. We saw that in the evidence sessions. There is also broad consensus about the important role that student unions play in protecting freedom of speech on campuses. Many student unions do fantastic work in that area, including having their own codes of practice, which often involve collaborative relationships with the provider. We fully expect that to continue, and for providers and student unions to work together, hand in hand, in relation to freedom of speech. That may include, where appropriate, a provider taking steps to ensure its student union is adequately resourced to carry out its duties. It may also involve the sharing of good practice, or a provider assisting the student union with the development of its own code of practice.

The measures are about protecting fundamental principles, not creating more red tape. There is huge diversity among student unions in the ways they are established and funded, reflecting the huge variety in the higher education sector as a whole and in further education. It is important that we reflect that variety in the Bill and do not seek to regulate the relationship between providers and student unions with a one-size-fits-all policy. Some student unions are heavily reliant on funding from their university; others may be more financially independent. Many have developed innovative portfolios as a way to generate income to contribute to a fulfilling university experience for students. The amendment does not reflect that variety or the differing, often complex arrangements that exist between providers and their student unions.

It is also important to note that the duties in proposed new sections A4 and A5 apply only to student unions of approved fee cap providers. Student unions of small, specialist providers that are not approved fee cap providers are not in scope of the Bill. In that way, we are ensuring that the Bill’s measures are not overly bureaucratic and follow the approach in the Education Act 1994, which sets out regulatory requirements relating to student unions at a number of institutions, including approved fee cap providers, but not other providers. In contrast, new clause 2 would place an additional, unnecessary regulatory requirement on providers in relation to student unions. In addition, we expect that there will be guidance from the Office for Students in due course that will help student unions to understand how to comply with their duties and assist them in drafting their code of practice.

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle]

If the student union has nothing more than a petty cash box and no staff or sabbatical officers—there are some such student unions—how does the Minister suggest that they draft a professional code of conduct without the institution ensuring that they have the resources to do so? The new clause does not talk about cash; it could be secondment of staff.

[Michelle Donelan]

I thank the hon. Member for that very good point. While not wanting to predetermine the work of the new director, I fully anticipate that they will look at drawing up templates of such codes of practice to assist.

I trust that I have been able to reassure the Committee that we are taking appropriate and proportionate actions to ensure that student unions can address freedom of speech in a way that is not overly bureaucratic and that reflects the variety in their composition, size and financial arrangements.

[Matt Western]

I hear the Minister, but the Opposition believe that it will lead to considerable red tape, even if there are templates to be adopted and so on. I just do not believe that many student unions would be able to cope. There will be associated stresses and certainly great costs, such as the insurance we picked up on the other day. The right hon. Lady talks about there being many student unions that have developed innovative revenue raising. Perhaps there are a number of such cases—I would be interested to know how many there have been among the hundreds we are talking about—but we will press the clause to a vote, because we think there is serious concern about the viability of student unions.

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

--- Later in debate ---

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

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

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

[Michelle Donelan]

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

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

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

[Emma Hardy]

May we return to the issue of the Select Committee and whether it will have a pre-appointment hearing for the freedom of speech director? Will the Select Committee be able to call the director to give evidence and to have scrutiny, as it did with the leader of Ofsted, Amanda Spielman?

[Michelle Donelan]

A pre-appointment scrutiny hearing is the prerogative of the Government. The Government could decide that, but it does not need to be on the face of the Bill. As for whom the Select Committee calls, I fully anticipate that once the new director is in office, the Select Committee will want to speak directly to them.

Turning to new clause 6, we do not think it would be right or appropriate to set a sunset clause in the Bill. Equally, it would not be right to allow Ministers to remove provisions in the Bill by way of regulations only one year after Parliament had approved the Act, when there has not been enough time for the Act to bed in. A sunset clause for a whole Act would be extremely unusual and considered appropriate only in very particular circumstances. We see no reason why the Bill should be treated differently from the majority of other primary legislation.

The Government believe that the Bill is important and necessary. It must be allowed to take effect in the sector to deal with the issues, so that we no longer have cases of freedom of speech and academic freedom being wrongly restricted. If we do have instances of that, those affected must be able to seek redress. We must have a change of culture on our campuses and create a climate of accountability for decision making, to ensure that our universities are places where debate can thrive. I trust that the Committee will agree with me that these amendments are not necessary and the Bill should be allowed to do its work once it is enacted.

--- Later in debate ---

[Michelle Donelan]

New clauses 5 and 13 seek to provide that a dismissal and breach of the new section A1 duty is specifically to be treated as an automatically unfair dismissal under the Employment Rights Act 1996. New clause 13 further seeks to disapply the two-year qualifying period for unfair dismissal in these cases, removing the limit on the level of compensation that can be awarded and applying provisions allowing claimants to seek interim relief, pending determination of their claim.

Let me be clear that the Bill does not stop employees in higher education from taking their claims to employment tribunals. In doing so, employment tribunals may consider questions of freedom of speech and academic freedom and alleged breaches of the section A1 duty in that context, although the Bill does not give them the jurisdiction to hear freedom of speech cases.

The current two-year qualifying period for unfair dismissal is intended to strike the right balance between fairness for employees and flexibility for employers, to ensure that employers are not discouraged from taking on new staff.

[Mr Jones]

I am very interested in what the Minister just said. It is clear that an employment tribunal can be held on sex discrimination grounds or on other grounds, but could she point out in present employment law where it states that someone would be able to bring an industrial tribunal on the basis that they were discriminated against because of freedom of speech? I am not aware of such a law.

[Michelle Donelan]

As I said, tribunals cannot take a freedom of speech case per se, but if there were evidence of discrimination on the grounds of freedom of speech in the case that they were taking, that could be heard. I can come back to the right hon. Gentleman with the details of that after the Committee, but I cannot point out the exact line of the legislation on the spot.

[Mr Jones]

As I understand it, an industrial tribunal case could not be taken on the grounds that someone had been dismissed because their freedom of speech had been infringed. That is a problem that came out in the evidence. A tribunal could be brought on the basis of sex discrimination and for other reasons, but if the sole reason for a tribunal was that someone thought they were being dismissed because of their views and that their freedom of speech was being questioned, I am not sure such a tribunal would have jurisdiction over that, given present employment law. If the Minister does not know, I am happy that she writes to the Committee.

[Michelle Donelan]

The point I am trying to make is that an employment tribunal will determine whether a dismissal was fair or unfair, depending on the specific circumstances of the case. Therefore, it may take into account breaches of academic freedom of speech. The Bill does not amend employment law in this regard and we do not think it would be appropriate to make dismissal because of a breach of the new duties an automatic unfair dismissal.

The Bill does, however, give new protections to academic staff, including those who may not have employee status or who have been employed for less than two years. It therefore broadens the scope of the current provision section 43 of the Education (No. 2) Act 1986, to ensure that visiting fellows, for example, have the freedom to research and teach on issues that may be controversial or challenging, without the risk of losing their post.

The Bill provides new specific routes of redress for those without employee status, including a complaints scheme operated by the Office for Students and a statutory tort. I hope that Members are reassured that the Bill strengthens protections for academic staff and employees. It expands the range of available routes of complainants and ensures that a wide range of individuals are able to secure redress.

[Fiona Bruce]

I hear what the Minister says, as well as the comments from other Members, but there is still a lack of clarity. The Minister said that an employment tribunal will decide if a dismissal has been fair or not fair, and may take into account academic freedom.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matt Western]

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

The former Secretary of State for Education, the right hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Gavin Williamson), said on Second Reading that

“the right to lawful free speech will remain balanced by the important safeguards against harassment, abuse and threats of violence as set out in the Equality Act 2010, the Prevent duty and other legislation, none of which we are changing.”—[Official Report, 12 July 2021; Vol. 699, c. 49.]

We need to ensure that we embed that balance in harassment provisions in the Bill.

During the evidence sessions, Professor Biggar said:

“The tension arises around the definition of harassment. It is quite right that those with protected characteristics should be protected from harassment. The problem is that harassment is often interpreted by universities—not so much by courts—in such a fashion that dissent from, disagreement with and criticism of becomes harassment. That is obviously a dampener on free speech. The Bill will not resolve that”.––[Official Report, Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Public Bill Committee, Tuesday 7 September 2021; c. 30, Q59.]

New clause 12 seeks to harmonise the relationship between promoting academic freedom and freedom of speech with the legal concept of harassment in a way that could act as a counterweight to potentially expansive interpretations of harassment by universities and management. Professor Whittle said:

“The Equality Act provides little protection for anybody who feels that their rights are being disturbed by somebody else’s freedom of speech.”––[Official Report, Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Public Bill Committee, 7 September 2021; c. 43, Q80.]

Dr Bryn Harris said that

“the explanatory notes of the 2010 Act, as enacted, quite clearly say that in making findings of harassment, courts should take into account academic freedom. I think there is a lot that can be done that would not substantially change the Equality Act, but that would clarify how it applies in the academic context.”––[Official Report, Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Public Bill Committee, 7 September 2021; c. 80, Q169.]

Once again, we are seeking to clarify and tighten the legislation on harassment, which is why we tabled new clause 12.

[Michelle Donelan]

New clause 12 seeks to amend the provisions relating to harassment in the Equality Act 2010, which defines it as

“unwanted conduct which is related to a relevant characteristic and has the purpose or effect of creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment for the complainant or of violating the complainant’s dignity.”

The new clause would provide that where a case concerns the conduct of an academic staff member of a registered higher education provider, in deciding whether the conduct has that effect, the importance of freedom of speech and academic freedom must be taken into account. The new clause would amend section 26 of the Equality Act—the general definition of harassment that applies to all areas covered by the Equality Act—rather than chapter 2 of part 6, which deals with further and higher education.

It is already the case that when considering a claim of harassment, courts and tribunals must balance competing rights on the facts of a particular case, which could include the right of freedom of expression, as set out in article 10 of the European convention on human rights, and academic freedom. The explanatory notes to the Equality Act state that specifically in relation to determining the effect of unwanted conduct. Guidance has made it clear that the harassment provision should not be used to undermine academic freedom.

It is also important to note that, under the Equality Act, harassment has both a subjective and an objective element. It is not just based on the views of the person making the complaint. The Act provides that, in deciding the effect of the unwanted conduct, the complainant’s perception must be taken into account, but so too must the circumstances of the case and whether it is reasonable for the conduct to have that effect.

New clause 12 would potentially override that by adding a new factor that must be taken into account when deciding whether the conduct of a member of academic staff at a higher education provider constitutes harassment: the importance of freedom of speech and academic freedom. As a result, it could alter the balance that constitutes unlawful harassment and undermine existing protections from harassment in the Equality Act.

I believe that the terms of the Equality Act already address the concerns raised by the new clause, and it would not be appropriate to amend it in that way. It is, of course, vital that freedom of speech generates rigorous debate and advances understanding. To uphold freedom of speech in higher education, students and staff members must be able to express ideas within the law that may be controversial, unpalatable or even deeply offensive. As such, students’ learning experience may well include exposure to course material, discussions or speakers’ views that they find offensive or unacceptable, but that is unlikely to be considered harassment under the Equality Act.

I hope Members are reassured by that and agree that the new clause is not necessary. As ever, we have sought in the Bill to strike an appropriate balance between protecting individuals from harassment on the one hand and securing lawful freedom of speech on the other. Amending the Equality Act in this way would risk unsettling that balance.

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Michelle Donelan]

On a point of order, Mrs Cummins. I will take this opportunity to thank you and our other Chair for your excellent chairing of this Committee. I also thank all the Clerks, who have facilitated our Committee, and all hon. Members for the very productive and extensive debate on each of the measures in the Bill.

[Matt Western]

Further to that point of order, Mrs Cummins. I will just add my thanks to you and to Sir Christopher Chope for your sterling work as Chairs of this Committee.

I also express thanks to both the Clerks for their great assistance in assembling the amendments; it was the first time I had to do that, so I greatly appreciated the support and direction that they gave me. I thank the Whips for putting all the work of the Committee together, and I thank all members of the Committee for the spirit of engagement that we have had.

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

Michelle Donelan Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd September 2021 Public Bill Committees

[Matt Western]

It is a pleasure to see you back in the Chair, Sir Christopher.

The amendments collectively address the issues of duplication and confusion we see in the complaints process and identify what we regard as an essential matter, which is the serious omission from the Bill of an appeals process. Our proposals are designed to clarify certain points.

Amendment 38 is designed principally to clarify the relationship between the Office for Students and the Office of the Independent Adjudicator, the ombudsman. In the witness sessions, I asked the chief executive of the Office for Students, Nicola Dandridge, whether she could imagine any situations in which one body or individual might go to the Office of the Independent Adjudicator and another to the Office for Students, and how that might be reconciled. She replied:

“That is exactly the sort of thing that we need to make clear. I do not see that that is an insuperable problem. We just need to make sure that we have sorted it out and that there is clarity for everyone involved.”––[Official Report, Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Public Bill Committee, 13 September 2021; c. 111, Q237.]

That is one of those answers that we sometimes get, where there are a couple of double negatives and we are left wondering how nuanced a particular point is. In an online comment, Jim Dickinson of Wonkhe said that is not good enough and that we cannot informally discuss how to arrange the relationship when in the Bill itself there is no provision to lay out the framework. That is the root of the problem: the lack of clarity between both bodies is a serious structural issue in the Bill, which therefore needs structural modification.

We have the prospect of what I understand in legal terms is referred to as res judicata issues, which is the possibility of a case having already been decided if the same aspects apply. In its own impact assessment, the Department for Education said that in its cost-benefit analysis, one of the costs of the implementation of the complaints scheme was the cost to students of not knowing which route to go. During a meeting I had a while back with the University Alliance, it stressed that there was serious confusion between the responsibilities of the OIA and the OfS. The Universities UK advisory board has also said that the Bill could duplicate the existing complaints system of the OIA.

The OIA itself says:

“We remain concerned that having two complaints schemes for student complaints, with overlapping but not identical remits, is very likely to cause confusion and put additional pressure on students having to choose where to take their complaint about freedom of speech issues.”

It added:

“We are concerned that creating a second complaint route with overlapping, but not identical remits, will be confusing for students and add complexity for higher education providers as well as students’ unions and other student representative bodies advising students.”

We have the situation where it is possible for an incident to result in some individuals complaining to the OfS, others complaining to the OIA about the same incident and both receiving a different remedy, depending on the context of the complaint. In the case of David Palmer, a Catholic chaplain at the University of Nottingham, the student could go to the OIA, and David Palmer could go to the scheme. It was the same issue: two bodies, two remedies. That leads to an administrative nightmare.

Amendment 39 would require institutions to balance out other legal duties in the assessment of free speech complaints. Danny Stone of the Antisemitism Policy Trust told us:

“The Prevent guidance that followed talked about freedom of speech and moral obligations to address harms. We have seen it in Government guidance from 2008 about free speech, which said that everyone can be safe and not intimidated at university. In fact, the human rights memorandum for this Bill says that there will be competing freedoms, but it suggests leaving it to the end point: the universities. You have heard from people today who say, “Well, the universities aren’t getting it right.” My view is that it should be on the face of the Bill”.––[Official Report, Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Public Bill Committee, 13 September 2021; c. 129, Q283.]

Even the former Education Secretary, the right hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Gavin Williamson), said:

“the right to lawful free speech will remain balanced by the important safeguards against harassment, abuse and threats of violence as set out in the Equality Act 2010, the Prevent duty and other legislation, none of which we are changing.”—[Official Report, 12 July 2021; Vol. 699, c. 49.]

I accept that those duties already exist, but why not make it clear in the Bill that they interact with freedom of speech issues?

[The Minister for Universities (Michelle Donelan)]

I can answer that question quite swiftly. We cannot get into the business of listing every single law in every Bill. The Bill, as the hon. Gentleman will recognise, does not supersede, contradict or replace existing law in relation to the Prevent duty—which is not a law, actually—or the Equality Act 2010. It is quite simple: we cannot get into the practice of having legislation where we list every other law on the face of each Bill.

[Matt Western]

I think it is important that there are references to other legislation in the Bill. Such elements are critical to the foundation of a freedom of speech Bill.

Amendment 40 would allow the scheme to result in a warning rather than a recommendation or a fine. This is about recognising that in most, if not all, cases, there is a fine line. It would allow universities to make judgment calls that were wrong and give them room to change their mind, rather than leap towards fines. We heard, for example, from Bryn Harris, who commented on how to balance

“the potential conflict that we were talking about, between the Equality Act”—

harassment provisions “and this Bill”, which would have to

“have guidance to help universities navigate this very fine line.”––[Official Report, Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Public Bill Committee, 7 September 2021; c. 80, Q168.]

Hand in hand with the guidance—not mandatory—is warnings, or gentle persuasion. The vice president of the National Union of Students, Hillary Gyebi-Ababio, said that it is

“really concerning, such as measures under which people could get monetary sanctions for breaches of freedom of speech. Not only will that involve lots of bureaucracy for universities and student unions to make sure they are complying with the Bill, but it will take away from their ability to freely and fairly facilitate freedom of speech on campus.”––[Official Report, Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Public Bill Committee, 13 September 2021; c. 128, Q281.]

That, of course, will have a disproportionate impact on smaller institutions, as we have heard. We have repeatedly made the point about the smaller institutions, typically higher education bodies, but also further education colleges, that were not consulted at all in the drawing up of the legislation.

--- Later in debate ---

[John McDonnell]

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

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

[Michelle Donelan]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Emma Hardy]

I should have waited an extra moment, because I think the Minister just answered my question, which was about who else would be involved in the consultation. She mentioned wider stakeholders. Will she clarify whether that includes the National Union of Students?

[Michelle Donelan]

Absolutely; we would expect the OfS to consult the NUS, as well as additional student unions and student representative bodies, to ensure that it hears a comprehensive range of views when developing the guidance. That will ensure that the details of the scheme can be developed as appropriate, as it would not be appropriate for primary legislation to set out every aspect of the detail. That is similar to how the complaints scheme operated for the Office of the Independent Adjudicator for Higher Education when it was established. The structure of the complaints scheme was set out in the Higher Education Act 2004, but its details were developed subsequently. I hope that that reassures Members that the Bill as drafted ensures that justified freedom of speech complaints can be dealt with by the OfS in the way that is most appropriate to each individual case.

Amendment 42 would allow higher education providers and student unions to appeal against a decision of the OfS under the complaints scheme. Clause 7 provides that the OfS may make a recommendation where a freedom of speech complaint is found to be wholly or partially justified. That gives rise to recommendations that are not legally binding, although of course we expect providers and student unions to comply. That is in line with many other redress schemes, including the scheme operated by the Office of the Independent Adjudicator, against whose recommendations there is no right to appeal. I think there is a little bit of confusion about that in the Committee, but I hope that I have clarified that on the record. As the recommendations are not binding on a provider or an student union, it is not necessary for there to be a route of appeal, because they are not legally required to comply.

In a case of non-compliance, of course, the complainant would have the option of bringing proceedings before the court via the new statutory tort. In doing so, the decision of the OfS in its complaints scheme, including reasons for the decision, will be part of the evidence put before the court. The approach of the complaints scheme is “distinct from” where a legally binding sanction is imposed on a provider by the OfS as a result of a breach of one of its registration conditions.

[Emma Hardy]

I thank the Minister for that point about the OIA, but the OIA website states:

“A student or provider may ask us to consider reopening our review if they have new evidence that could not have been given to us earlier or think there is an error in the Complaint Outcome… Requests must be made within 28 days of the date of the Complaint Outcome or Recommendations.”

That sounds awfully like an appeals process.

[Michelle Donelan]

There is no formal right of appeal. If a provider or student felt that there was a factual error, of course that would be outlined in the guidance by the OfS director in relation to this Bill as well.

In the case of a monetary penalty, which is something that hon. Members have raised multiple times, there is a right of appeal set out in schedule 3 to the 2017 Act. That will be available if a monetary penalty is imposed because of a breach of the new freedom of speech registration conditions in clause 5 of the Bill.

[Sir John Hayes]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for drawing attention to the connection between this legislation and existing provisions. In the guardian of free speech’s dutiful determination to preserve that freedom, it is right that the watchdog barks before it bites. Equally, however, and as with some of the examples given in evidence by Professor Kaufmann, Professor Goodwin, Dr Ahmed and Professor Biggar, it seems to me that there has to be a righteous severity in the cases of those who cajole, bully, intimidate and cause fear across our universities, for that is exactly what is happening.

[Michelle Donelan]

I absolutely agree with my right hon. Friend, which is exactly why we are bringing forward this legislation, which really will have teeth to tackle the issue at hand.

I hope that hon. Members are reassured that for binding decisions made by the OfS there is already a route of appeal in place, and that it is not necessary to have a route of appeal against non-binding recommendations.

New clause 8 would require the Secretary of State to publish guidance before the Act comes into force, setting out which complaints routes to use and in which order. The Bill provides for two new specific routes for redress: a complaints scheme operated by the OfS and a statutory tort. These replace what is currently available for breach of section 43 of the Education (No. 2) Act 1986, which is judicial review, giving the duties real teeth. These new complaint routes will be available in addition to other possible complaint routes, depending on the circumstances for students: the Office of the Independent Adjudicator for higher education and the employment tribunal for employees.

It is of course important that individuals are well informed about the most appropriate route for their complaint. For example, in certain cases a student may decide to go to the OIA rather than the OfS, for instance where freedom of speech is only a small part of their complaint. That is because the OfS will be able to make recommendations only on the free speech element of the complaint. The OIA and the OfS currently already work together in a variety of ways, and the Government will work with them to ensure that these processes are clear and accessible, so that students understand their options and both schemes are free of charge.

It is important to note that proposed new schedule 6A to 2017 Act, as set out in clause 7, will allow the OfS to provide in the scheme that it will not consider complaints where the same subject matter is being, or has been, dealt with by the OIA. A similar provision will apply the other way around, so the OIA will not consider complaints already dealt with by the OfS. As for the use of the tort proceedings, the Government expect that in most cases this will be used only as a last resort, as the Committee has already discussed, noting the availability of free routes of seeking redress.

Finally, it is likely that employment cases will be appropriate for those who have had employment disputes where there might be a number of employment-related issues to consider, not just academic freedom. The tribunal will be able to consider the question of academic freedom and alleged breached of the duty in this context, although the Bill does not give them jurisdiction to hear freedom of speech cases. New schedule 6A will enable the OfS to provide in a scheme that it will not consider complaints where the same subject matter is being, or has been, dealt with by a court or tribunal.

Now that I have made clear what each complaint route does and who they will be suitable for, I note that the main provisions of the Bill will not come into force until the day set by the regulations. One of the reasons for that is to allow time for the OfS to develop the new complaints scheme and draft comprehensive guidance, including guidance on the new complaints scheme, and consult as appropriate.

I hope hon. Members are reassured that the Government will work with the OfS to ensure that clear guidance is in place before the duties in the Bill come into force and the new complaints scheme and the tort become available. This will ensure that individuals are aware of their various options when seeking to bring a freedom of speech-related complaint.

The strengthened freedom of speech duties set out in clauses 1 and 2 will ensure that higher education providers and student unions are under clear legal obligations to take steps to secure lawful freedom of speech and academic freedom. Nevertheless, it is important that individuals can access a route to raise complaints where they have suffered a loss as a result of a breach of those duties.

Clause 7 ensures that by providing for the establishment of a new complaints scheme within the Office for Students for complaints relating to a breach of the new freedom of speech duties. This will operate alongside the complaints scheme run by the Office of the Independent Adjudicator for Higher Education, a scheme for students with complaints against their provider.

The OfS complaints scheme will provide an accessible, free route for individuals to bring freedom of speech and academic freedom-related complaints against a higher education provider or student union where they have suffered adverse consequences as the result of a breach of duties in new sections A1 and A4 respectively. The scheme will be overseen, as we have talked about extensively, by the new director for freedom of speech and academic freedom.

The scheme will be available for those to whom duties are owed under new sections A1 and A4—students, members, staff and visiting speakers—which will significantly extend access to redress in terms of freedom of speech and academic freedom cases. There is currently no similar route for anyone other than students to bring complaints against their provider.

[Emma Hardy]

I know it was not strictly in our amendments, but I hope that before the Minister sits down she will respond to the points made about the inclusion of further education colleges, and how all this relates to the 165 further education colleges that are registered as higher education providers.

[Michelle Donelan]

To respond directly to the hon. Lady’s point, we think it is right that FE colleges are in scope within the Bill. They are already regulated by the OfS when they put on courses of higher education, so this is not a change for them. They are already subject to working with that regulator, as well as Ofsted and so on. It is right that we ensure that this provision is comprehensive and that we protect freedom of speech for students who are studying higher education in further education settings as well as those studying in higher education settings.

Students will continue to be able to raise complaints with the OIA, but will also benefit from the new complaints scheme in the OfS. Students will have the option to raise freedom of speech and academic freedom-related complaints via the OfS scheme, or to raise their complaint with the OIA, as they can now. Where a complaint has been found to be wholly or partially justified, the OfS will be able to make a recommendation to the higher education provider or student union, which could include a recommendation to pay a specified sum in compensation or, for example, a recommendation to reinstate a complainant’s job or place on a course.

Without this new complaints scheme, staff in the higher education sector and visiting speakers would have no access to a cost-free route to seek redress against a provider, and there would be no way to complain about the student union. This clause provides a free complaints route to individuals, whether higher education staff, students, academics or visiting speakers, to seek redress for an improper restriction of their lawful free speech. The scheme will ensure an accessible route to individual redress that is backed up by new, strengthened duties provided in this Bill.

[Matt Western]

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

--- Later in debate ---

[John McDonnell]

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

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

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

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

[Michelle Donelan]

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

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

[Emma Hardy]

With respect, the Bill brings the student unions under the direct control of the OfS, and, as it is, the student unions do not have a direct voice through the Office for Students. I accept the Minister’s comments so far, but can she explain how the NUS and students can feed into the director for freedom of speech?

[Michelle Donelan]

When the new director is in place, they will produce comprehensive guidance in consultation with the sector, including student unions. I am confident that the individual who is awarded the position will be someone who listens and works collaboratively across the sector.

Not only will the measure ensure oversight of the role of the director for freedom of speech and academic freedom for the rest of the OfS board, but it will allow the OfS to better co-ordinate and monitor its free speech functions. It is, of course, important that the OfS should be held to account in the performance of its functions. That is one reason why paragraph 12 of proposed new schedule 6A, which clause 7 will insert into the Higher Education and Research Act 2017, will require that the OfS conduct a review of the complaints scheme or its operation and report the results of that review to the Secretary of State, where such a report is requested. The Secretary of State may also require the OfS to report in its annual report, or a special report, on matters relating to freedom of speech and academic freedom. That report must be laid before Parliament, as laid out in clause 4.

The Government expect that the OfS will consult widely, including with sector representatives, as I have made clear throughout the Committee, when developing the details of the complaints scheme, as well as on changes to the regulatory framework. There will be guidance to help providers and student unions to comply with their duties under clause 4, which specifically provides for the OfS to give advice to providers on good practice on the promotion of freedom of speech and academic freedom. It is important that the OfS works closely and effectively with the sector, including with student unions—freedom of speech is no different in that respect.

There is no need to set up the bureaucracy of a non-statutory advisory body, as suggested by the amendment. The OfS is independent of the Government, so to do so would simply duplicate its role as set out in the statute.

[Emma Hardy]

With the greatest respect, the Minister has just said that the OfS is independent of the Government, but the chair of the OfS is a Conservative peer, who was a Conservative Member of Parliament. We cannot say that the OfS is independent of the Government when we all know that its chair sits in the House of Lords and takes the Conservative party whip.

[Michelle Donelan]

The hon. Member has made that point before. The chair of the OfS was appointed accordingly, and the director for freedom of speech and academic freedom will be as well. I hope that Members are reassured that the Bill already ensures the accountability of the director for freedom of speech and academic freedom, and the OfS itself.

[Matt Western]

This is a common-sense suggestion about engaging and involving the various sector bodies to assist the director. The director’s role will be a fairly lonely one, sat in a swanky office somewhere, and the amendment represents a constructive suggestion. As we have said from the start of proceedings on the Bill, we are trying to put forward ideas to mitigate some of the damage that the legislation may cause. Engaging those at the coalface, as my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle put it, who see how the measures play out in practice, will be really important.

I do not accept the Minister’s suggestion that the director for freedom of speech is going to be an independent person, or that the chair of the Office for Students is independent. People can make all sorts of suggestions about the process that was followed, but the Opposition has profound concerns, as most people do, about how that was pursued. We also have concerns about what will happen to the director for fair access and participation when that position is filled in a matter of weeks. It seems as though there is a siege mentality at the OfS, and a very determined attempt to centralise powers. I wish to press the amendment to a vote.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

--- Later in debate ---

[Fiona Bruce]

I thank my right hon. Friend for that comment.

Finally, the Wilberforce Academy has been held at Oxbridge colleges for the last 11 years. I have actually spoken at one of its conferences; the students who attend the conference are serious young people seeking to inform themselves about issues of the day. We need to encourage that, not shut it down.

[Michelle Donelan]

Amendment 79 would make the director for freedom of speech and academic freedom responsible for providing an annual update to higher education providers and student unions on the number and nature of freedom of speech complaints that the Office for Students has dealt with, as well as examples of unacceptable infringements of freedom of speech.

It is important that the OfS is accountable for the operation of the complaints scheme. That is why clause 4 provides that the Secretary of State may require it to include a special report in its annual report on matters relating to freedom of speech and academic freedom. Such a report must be laid before Parliament so that Parliament and the sector may scrutinise it. Equally, paragraph 12 of proposed new schedule 6A to the Higher Education and Research Act 2017 provides that the Secretary of State may request that the OfS conduct a review of the complaints scheme or its operation and report on the results.

As for what the OfS believes constitutes unacceptable infringements of freedom of speech, it will issue guidance to providers and student unions to help them to comply with their duties under the Bill. In particular, it will consult on and issue changes to the regulatory framework, under section 75 of the 2017 Act, which states that the OFS

“must include guidance for the purpose of helping to determine whether or not behaviour complies with the general ongoing registration conditions.”

That guidance may specify

“descriptions of behaviour which the OfS considers compliant with, or not compliant with, a general ongoing registration condition”

as well as

“factors which the OfS will take into account in determining whether or not behaviour is compliant”.

Similar guidance will be included for student unions.

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle]

Does the Minister imagine that inappropriate apologies will now not be allowed under that guidance?

[Michelle Donelan]

I do not want to get into the individual example, because I am not fully familiar with the details. My hon. Friend the hon. Member for Congleton said that she was concerned that that event would not happen in future because of that apology. I will look into the details.

Clause 4 also provides that the OfS may identify good practice relating to the promotion of freedom of speech and academic freedom and give advice about that to providers. The Government expect the OfS to work with the sector and a range of relevant stakeholders to ensure that there is clear and relevant advice to help higher education providers and student unions feel confident in fulfilling their duties. I therefore hope that Members will be reassured that the Bill ensures transparency in relation to freedom of speech functions at the OfS, and that guidance will be given to the sector to help it to understand how it comply with its duties. However, as I have previously committed, I will take away the issue of reporting and consider what more we can do on it.

[Matt Western]

I thank the Minister for her remarks, which I accept at face value. I look forward to seeing what form the reporting will take. We would be very open to having some input on how best we can make that work. We do not want to be burdensome in terms of placing bureaucracy on anyone, but I think both sides of the House agree how useful reports can be to help people understand how this legislation might work in practice, by providing not just data but examples. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

The Bill will be stronger if it has a system to ensure that the individual is independent, using the Nolan principles. I cannot understand why the Government are opposed to that.

[Michelle Donelan]

Amendment 85 seeks to ensure that the director is a person who has not donated to any political party in the last three years, and it would prohibit the director from making donations to political parties for the duration of their tenure. New clause 9 seeks to set out additional requirements for the appointment process of the new director for freedom of speech and academic freedom at the Office for Students, requiring approval by the Education Committee and that the Secretary of State take into account the views of an independent advisory body. New clause 11 would require the Secretary of State to conduct a review of the appointment process for the director within six months of the calling of a new Parliament. That review would assess the suitability of the process for selecting politically impartial candidates. The Secretary of State would be required to lay a copy of the review report before Parliament.

The director for freedom of speech and academic freedom will be appointed in the same way as other members of the board of the Office for Students, under the Higher Education and Research Act 2017 by the Secretary of State. I assure Members that that will be done in the usual way, in accordance with the public appointments process. I emphasise, as has been demonstrated in our sittings, that freedom of speech and academic freedom are fundamental principles in higher education; they are not the preserve of one political party.

[Emma Hardy]

The Minister is genuinely very generous in giving way. She always lets me in, and I appreciate that. Will the job description for this brand-new role be written, as discussed previously, in consultation with the sector, including the National Union of Students, so that we get the right description to ensure that we get the right person?

[Michelle Donelan]

Throughout my tenure as Minister of State for Universities, I have worked closely with the sector, listening to its views and its requirements for the role, as the Department has done. We will continue to do that.

[Matt Western]

On the appointment and the process, the Minister was in place as the Minister of State for Higher Education for the appointment of Lord Wharton. What were the skills and expertise that got him the job?

[Michelle Donelan]

We are going very off topic. We have a lot of clauses to get through, so I will continue.

There will also be important oversight built into the system when the director has been appointed. The director will be responsible for reporting to other members of the OfS on the performance of the OfS’s free speech functions. That reflects a similar provision in paragraph 3(1)(c) of schedule 1 to the Higher Education and Research Act 2017, which makes the director for fair access and participation responsible for

“reporting to the other members of the OfS on the performance of the OfS’s access and participation functions.”

That will not only ensure oversight of the role of the director for freedom of speech and academic freedom, but the rest of the OfS board will also allow the OfS to better co-ordinate and monitor its free speech functions.

I therefore hope that Members will be reassured that the appointment of the director will be in line with the usual public appointments process and that the role of the director is ultimately overseen by the rest of the OfS board.

[Emma Hardy]

rose—

[Michelle Donelan]

I have finished.

[The Chair]

The Minister is not giving way.

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

Michelle Donelan Excerpts

Monday 20th September 2021 Public Bill Committees

[Mr Richard Holden (North West Durham) (Con)]

I am vice-chair of the all-party parliamentary group for friends of Durham University

Clause 3

Civil claims

Amendment made: 4, in clause 3, page 5, line 21, at end insert—

“(aa) a constituent institution of a registered higher education provider, in respect of a breach by the governing body of the institution of any of its duties under section A1, or”. —(Michelle Donelan.)

This amendment is consequential on NC1.

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

[The Minister for Universities (Michelle Donelan)]

Clauses 1 and 2 strengthen freedom of speech duties on registered higher education providers and extend them to students unions at approved fee cap providers. Clause 3 plugs an identifiable and substantive gap in the current legislative framework by providing individuals with a route of redress for loss suffered as a result of a breach of these freedom of speech duties. Clause 3 therefore creates a new statutory tort. This enables civil proceedings to be brought against a higher education provider in respect of a breach of the new duties under section A1 of the Higher Education and Research Act 2017, or against a student union in respect of a breach of the section A4 duty.

Individuals can still complain in the first instance—for free—to their higher education provider or student union if they consider that there has been such a breach. They can subsequently complain for free to the new complaints scheme that will be operated by the Office for Students, and students will still be able to complain for free about their provider to the Office of the Independent Adjudicator for Higher Education. However, the statutory tort will also be available, although we are clear that it is intended to be a route of last resort.

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle]

If that is to be a last resort, as the Minister claims—I take her at her word on that, because she is an hon. Member—someone could as a first step go to the courts. Will she ensure that they can do that only if they have exhausted all the other opportunities?

[Michelle Donelan]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comment. The problem is that if someone is a visiting speaker at a university, there would be no internal process that they could follow. We want to be as comprehensive as possible and allow this option to be available.

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle]

Will the Minister give way?

[Michelle Donelan]

I will make some progress and then give way.

As individuals will be able to seek redress for free via the OfS or the Office of the Independent Adjudicator, we expect individuals to make a complaint to the OfS or the OIA before relying on the tort.

[Emma Hardy]

I thank the right hon. Lady for giving way.

I refer the Minister to the Office for the Independent Adjudicator’s written evidence, where it said:

“It is generally accepted that it is not good practice to have multiple routes of ADR redress for the resolution of a complaint because it can make the landscape difficult to navigate and make it harder for individuals to make the right choice for them—particularly if they are vulnerable.”

I wonder how the OIA’s concerns can be satisfied by the clause the Minister is moving?

[Michelle Donelan]

I thank the hon. Member for their comments. It is a good point that students, academics and visiting speakers all need to know the routes available to them. That will be a fundamental part of the new director’s job; I fully anticipate that they will not only set out comprehensive guidance, but communicate with all the different individuals so that they know the options available.

[Emma Hardy]

Going back to the evidence, one of the points made by the OIA is that

“if a student isn’t fully informed or does not understand”—

bearing in mind its previous point about vulnerable students—

“all the consequences of their choice, the decision they make may not be the most beneficial for their particular circumstances.”

The evidence points out that people rarely make a complaint relating just to freedom of speech; rather, it often involves many other different aspects, which the director of freedom of speech would not be able to address. This is a highly complex and difficult procedure for an individual student to be able to understand and navigate, and I am not sure that written guidance from the Office for Students would fully address that.

[Michelle Donelan]

One thing we must be clear on is that the current system is not working. It is failing individuals who are having their freedom of speech breached, as we also heard from multiple sources in the evidence. At the heart of this Bill is unlocking a greater choice for individuals, whether that is going down the OIA route or the one-stop shop of the director who will be responsible for free speech and academic freedom. While it is true that at the moment not many cases that are brought forward are purely to do with freedom of speech, I argue that that is because we need this Bill in place and the new director in their position.

Given that individuals may not want to incur the legal costs and risks associated with bringing a claim before the courts, we do not expect this provision to give rise to many claims. It will operate more as a backstop for complainants, to cover claims by individuals who may feel they have no other recourse.

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle]

Will the Minister give way?

[Michelle Donelan]

I will, but we are going to have to let me do more than two lines at a time or we will never get through the Bill.

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle]

I am grateful to the Minister. She talks about last resort, and in response to my last intervention she said that that could not be put in legislation because external speakers will need it. Is she therefore saying that external speakers have no form of redress apart from the tort—that they do not have access to the other forms of redress?

[Michelle Donelan]

To clarify my comments, I believed that the hon. Member was talking about going through internal processes before addressing the tort.

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle]

I meant all processes.

[Michelle Donelan]

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

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

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

[John McDonnell]

Will the Minister give way?

[Michelle Donelan]

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

[Matt Western]

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

--- Later in debate ---

I come back to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown: these institutions are not one size fits all. There are some very small organisations that will find having to do this every year burdensome. I accept that the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings has moved from where he was last week in terms of wanting it on a more regular basis, but there will be huge burdens. It would be unfortunate to tie up academic time and money in compiling lists that I am not sure will be the top thing that students will look at when they decide which academic institution to go to.

[Michelle Donelan]

As discussed, the amendment seeks to introduce a requirement on the Office for Students to publish an annual report that would assess and rank higher education providers on their compliance with their freedom of speech duties. Schedule 1 to the Higher Education and Research Act 2017 sets out existing reporting requirements placed on the OfS. Paragraph 13 of that schedule requires it to prepare a report on the performance of its functions during each financial year. That annual report already summarises the regulatory activity of the OfS as undertaken in that year. Following the Bill, that report will be able to include the regulatory work that the OfS has undertaken in relation to the new registration condition on freedom of speech and academic freedom, as well as information on the operation of the new complaints scheme.

In that context, proposed new section 69A in clause 4(2) of the Bill also provides that the Secretary of State may, by direction, require the OfS to report on specific freedom of speech and academic freedom matters in its annual report, or in a special report. Both those reports must be laid before Parliament, so they will be subject to scrutiny and can be considered by the sector itself. Members should be aware that another provision of the Bill—paragraph 12 of proposed new schedule 6A in clause 7(2)—requires the OfS to conduct a review of the complaints scheme or its operation and to report the results to the Secretary of State at the Secretary of State’s request. To impose further reporting, as required by the amendment, could be overly bureaucratic. However, as previously discussed, I am happy to reconsider the reporting requirements. I hope that that will satisfy my right hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings. I will take the matter away and continue to consider it.

[Sir John Hayes]

The Minister is becoming increasingly characterised by her willingness to listen, and that is the mark of any good member of the Government. All people who have been Ministers know that Bills improve through scrutiny—I am thinking of the right hon. Member for North Durham, and I am looking around for others. The right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington was an aspirant Minister—an aspirant Chancellor, indeed. Governments that listen usually end up with better legislation, so it is of great credit to the Minister that she is listening to the scrutiny and responding with the tone that she is.

The hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington said that freedom is hard to quantify and that the measures in the Bill will be hard to measure. Freedom is like happiness. Neither is absolute, both are hard to define, but the pain of the absence of either is keenly felt and better cured. That is what the Bill tries to begin to do. I am anxious that it has the effect that the Government desire, and keen that we produce some means by which we measure that effect. The amendment may not be the ideal way of doing so, but I am grateful for the comments that have been made from across the Committee recognising that my attempt is to make the Bill as consistent in its application as possible, and as clear to those who will have to work with it.

On the basis of the Minister’s welcome willingness to listen and respond subsequently, and with one final caveat, I am minded to withdraw the amendment. The caveat is on my point about universities being obliged to report to the new director in those instances where there are matters of contention, such as changes to the curriculum, courses that are not run, or events that are stopped in some way. I have no doubt that that might form an amendment when this matter comes to the other place. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

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

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

Michelle Donelan Excerpts

Monday 20th September 2021 Public Bill Committees

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

[The Minister for Universities (Michelle Donelan)]

The Office for Students, as the regulator of the higher education sector in England, provides a valuable independent service that helps to ensure that our universities are institutions to be proud of. Universities have historically been centres of inquiry and intellectual debate and bastions of free thought from which new idea can emerge to challenge the current consensus. The OfS is therefore ideally positioned to positively impact on our universities. Our aim is to strengthen freedom of speech and academic freedom in higher education.

The clause strengthens and extends the current legislative framework on the duty of the OfS, enabling it to fulfil that role. The clause amends the general duties of the OfS in the Higher Education and Research Act 2017 to include that, when performing its functions, it must have regard to

“the need to promote the importance of freedom of speech within the law”

and

“to protect the academic freedom of academic staff at English higher education providers”.

The clause also inserts section 69A into the 2017 Act, with the provision that the OfS “must promote the importance” of freedom of speech and academic freedom in higher education. That is central to the Bill’s aim of changing the culture on campus so that freedom of speech can thrive. Section 69A sets outs provisions about OfS advice on good practice in relation to the promotion of freedom of speech and academic freedom, and gives the Secretary of State the power to require the OfS to report on freedom of speech and academic freedom matters.

I believe that the clause is essential to extending the general duties of the OfS to ensure the promotion and protection of freedom of speech and academic freedom within higher education. It is therefore a necessary and important part of the Bill.

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

My only comment, which has been made throughout the debate, is about how much responsibility goes to the OfS and how much should remain with the Office of the Independent Adjudicator for Higher Education. We still have profound concerns about how the measures will work between the various bodies, but we will not divide the Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 4, as amended, accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 5

Regulation of duties of registered higher education providers

[Matt Western]

I beg to move amendment 54, in clause 5, page 6, line 39, at end insert—

“(4) The OfS must ensure that the ongoing registration conditions of each registered higher education provider that is eligible for financial support include a condition requiring the governing body of the provider to report to the OfS each year on the number of events that have been cancelled following a complaint about the opinions held by a person due to speak at the event.”

This amendment would require higher education providers to report to the OfS each year the number of events that have been cancelled following a complaint about the opinions of the speaker, as part of OfS registration conditions.

It is a pleasure to see you back in the Chair, Sir Christopher. The amendment is straightforward. It is a shame that the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings is not present, because I know that such amendments are quite close to his heart.

In the debate on amendment 73, we expressed concern about the burden and responsibility being placed on the sector, which we felt was inappropriate because that measure could not be applied. [Interruption.] I welcome the right hon. Gentleman back to his place. We believe there should be some means of quantifying data, which is important to understanding the scale of the issue. One of the problems has been in trying to recognise the nature and extent of the claimed problem. Our amendment seeks simply to ensure an annual registration or report detailing the number of cancelled events following a complaint.

As I mentioned in debate on amendments 72 and 73, we have to be careful about the burden of bureaucracy being placed on the sector, and appreciate that institutions already have a similar duty—the Prevent duty—as part of what is termed the “accountability and data return”. On that, I point out that the last results of that input showed that 99.8% of external speaker events went ahead, which suggests that the system is working largely as planned.

It reminds me of that great commercial many years ago from one of the beer companies. An individual passing through the offices hears the phone ringing and thinks, “That’s strange. It sounds like one of those old Bakelite phones. I’d better look in the office to see what’s going on.” He walks in and sees dust-covered furniture there. He finds the phone, dusts it off and answers, saying, “You’ve got the wrong number.” As he leaves the office, the sign reads “Carlsberg Customer Complaints Dept.” There is a little bit of that with this. How many will we actually see go through this office?

The data has been cited so often in our debate, but we have to ask how much of a problem this is in terms of events. There are increasing claims of self-censorship from witnesses and Government Members, but the data shows that 99.8% of external speaker events go ahead and suggests that the system is working. That leads directly to the quantifiable evidence of no-platforming issues. Professor Grant, whom we heard from in evidence, made it clear that

“It is not about the process of inviting people on to campus and worrying about no-platforming and cancel culture. The data there says that it is a non-issue.”––[Official Report, Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Public Bill Committee, 13 September 2021; c. 120, Q259.]

The events data will also help to rebut claims made by the likes of Professor Kaufmann, who, oddly, claimed:

“The no-platforming incidence is really the crux of the issue, which the Bill will address.”––[Official Report, Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Public Bill Committee, 13 September 2021; c. 90, Q184.]

It is hard to address something that, clearly, hardly exists. The Government’s own data from the Office for Students shows only a tiny percentage of cancellations. That is the only report that was available. In 2017-18, it showed that of 62,000 events, just 53 were rejected, or about 0.1%. The cancellation of some of those events had nothing to do with people’s views.

Where evidence is available, there is little evidence of a big problem. According to the Russell Group, the figures were 0.09% of all events cancelled in 2017-18, 0.23% in 2018-19 and 0.21% in 2019-20. The organisation Wonkhe did its own survey of 61 student unions, which showed that just six of 10,000 events were cancelled.

The amendment would also have the benefit of addressing the concerns raised by the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy’s regulatory policy committee, which said:

“The evidence underpinning the proposed intervention and its intended effects is not strong.”

The committee supported the Department presenting

“concrete and well-founded examples of the ‘chilling effect’ and the consequences in those circumstances.”

That is what we want to see from the Government.

In the evidence sessions, a couple of witnesses talked of the effects of the Bill becoming apparent over the next 10 years. I am thinking particularly of Professor Goodwin. Well, 10 years is a long time to wait for something to appear. I do not think that any of us have the patience for that. Members will see from our amendments that we wish to review this regularly and within a period of time after the Bill becomes law to see its progress and whether it is doing any good or the burdens are causing considerable financial costs and other issues on campuses.

Of course, it takes time for Bills to embed and for change to be seen, but we do need to see some sort of evidence to support the approach. We are proposing amendment 54 for that reason. We believe that it is vital and in all our interests that there should be quality data to illustrate the nature of any issue, if there is one out there, and perhaps also its scale. As I have said, the numbers we have so far suggest that there is not. That is why we believe that it is important that amendment 54 is agreed to.

[Michelle Donelan]

As we have heard, the amendment seeks to ensure that registered higher education providers who are eligible for financial support are required to report to the Office for Students each year on the number of events that have been cancelled following a complaint about the opinions held by a person due to speak at an event. I agree with the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington that we need to be careful about the bureaucratic burden that would potentially be placed on the sector. However, I have already made a commitment to this Committee to take away the point about reporting and whether we need to go further in terms of our ask on the face of the Bill. We do, however, have to ensure that we are not duplicating existing information requirements under the Higher Education and Research Act 2017. Under section 8 of that Act, the OfS must ensure that the ongoing registration conditions of each registered provider include certain conditions relating to the provision of information to the OfS. This section has been implemented by the OfS through registration condition F3, which applies to all registered providers, not just those that are eligible for financial support from the OfS, commonly called approved fee cap providers.

[Matt Western]

I thank the Minister for giving way; she is being very generous. Can she explain why the OfS does not appear to have been reporting regularly in the last few years?

[Michelle Donelan]

The hon. Gentleman makes a point about the previous activities of the OfS, whereas today we are focusing in this Bill on freedom of speech. This is a new set of requirements, with a new director, that will be coming into force, and they will be doing an annual report, as we have already discussed.

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

rose—

[Matt Western]

rose—

[Michelle Donelan]

I give way to the hon. Gentleman.

[Matt Western]

To come back on that point, this is a genuine and sincere question, and it would apply to anyone in the Minister’s position—I appreciate that she has been in the role for 12 or 15 months or so; I cannot remember, but it would apply to her predecessors as well. Since 2017-18, there has been a rising concern in certain circles about an issue. If it was possible to get that data in 2017-18, why has it not been asked for since? I would have thought that that was incumbent on the Department for Education, and on the Minister and her predecessors.

[Michelle Donelan]

The OfS did publish data around no-platforming, but as we heard from several of the witnesses who appeared before the Committee, no-platforming is just the tip of the iceberg. It is the chilling effect that we are dealing with in the Bill. To minimise that, and focus just on no-platforming, is to fail to understand the gravity of the issue that we are trying to tackle.

The governing body of the registered provider is required to provide the OfS with such information as it may specify to assist the OfS in performing its functions. The registration condition also requires providers to take such steps as the OfS may reasonably request to co-operate with any monitoring or investigation by the OfS, which may include providing explanations or making staff or documents available. In addition, following Royal Assent to the Bill, we will fully expect the OfS to consult on the detail of the new registration conditions relating to freedom of speech, in accordance with the statutory provisions on consultation in section 5 of the Higher Education and Research Act 2017.

This process will enable the OfS to best understand what is required from the providers in order to comply with the new conditions, including by way of reporting and information. Adding a further separate information requirement to the 2017 Act would cause duplication with section 8 and the existing registration conditions and could also increase bureaucracy. As I have said throughout the Committee stage, I will commit to take away the issue of reporting and seeing how we could go further.

[Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con)]

I had hoped to speak for a moment against the amendment but, before the Minister concludes, I draw the Committee’s attention to the written evidence that was submitted by Professor Kaufmann, I believe after he gave his verbal evidence. He confirmed that the number of cancelled events is tiny—just a handful among some 10,000—and he gave us some very interesting survey data about the much deeper and widespread crisis in our universities of the chilling effect of self-censorship.

[Michelle Donelan]

I completely agree with my hon. Friend. That point was laboured by many of the witnesses we saw in evidence. As I said to the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington a moment ago, this is much more than an issue of dealing with no-platforming; we are trying to address the chilling effect.

[Emma Hardy]

I am slightly confused. The Minister is saying that the OfS has been collecting the data, but why has it not been reporting on it? The difficulty with the chilling effect is how quantifiable it is. This is about hard data and events that have been cancelled or no-platformed. The amendment would provide hard data, rather than reliance on some mystical ability to mind-read or judge how chilled someone feels in a particular environment.

[Michelle Donelan]

I heard the hon. Lady, but yet again the Opposition are failing to grasp the severity of the problem we are trying to deal with, and so honour our manifesto commitment to squash the issues with free speech on our campuses. Those issues are much more entrenched than simply no-platforming. We have heard that from various sources, academics and students alike, who have told us that they have felt curtailed in their ability to speak out on certain issues, to teach certain topics, and so on.

[Matt Western]

rose—

[Michelle Donelan]

I have finished my speech, but I will give way.

[Matt Western]

I will be delighted to hear more. I hear the Minister and the point made by the hon. Member for Congleton. I want to repeat the words of Professor Kaufmann, who was a star witness for the Government, if we may use terms like that:

“The no-platforming incidence is really the crux of the issue, which the Bill will address.”––[Official Report, Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Public Bill Committee, 13 September 2021; c. 90, Q184.]

Those are his words, not my words, which is why I am asking—as was put differently by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle—why that data has not been available for the past few years. The reason it was not being reported was that there was clearly no issue.

[Michelle Donelan]

I think it is quite clear, from my own words, that the Government do not feel that no-platforming is the crux of the issue; the issue is a chilling effect. We have been very open about the fact that the number of no-platforming incidents is low, but the Bill is about the broader issue of the chilling effect.

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

I am grateful to the Minister for giving way on the issue of the chilling effect, which I described earlier as the fear that pervades many of our universities. That was made clear by the witnesses who came before the Committee. Dr Ahmed said:

“You can distinguish between hard censorship and soft censorship…Soft censorship is where there is not any regulation, but people know—people sense it themselves, because they know that if they say this, or they say that, or if they present these views, they will be regarded adversely. If they are a student, they might be ostracised.”––[Official Report, Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Public Bill Committee, 7 September 2021; c. 9, Q13.]

That fear affects academics and students, and it is damaging the calibre and quality of our universities across the land, which is why the Minister is right about the chilling effect.

[Michelle Donelan]

I agree with my right hon. Friend, but I fear that we are slipping into a debate on the necessity for the Bill itself, which we have already had at great length on Second Reading. I close my remarks on the amendment.

[Matt Western]

I hear the Minister. I believe that the amendment was a constructive suggestion, and we would have liked it to have been formalised in the Bill, but I will not press it to a vote. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

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

[Michelle Donelan]

The Office for Students is the regulator for higher education in England and as such it has a vital role to play in ensuring that our universities and colleges continue to be spaces where views can be freely expressed and debated, without fear of repercussions. The OfS regulates English higher education providers by way of registration conditions. The current registration condition requires higher education providers registered with the OfS to ensure that their governing documents uphold certain public interest governance principles. Those include principles that relate to protecting academic freedom and taking reasonably practicable steps to secure lawful freedom of speech. Therefore, the OfS already has experience with freedom of speech and academic freedom.

To protect freedom of speech and academic freedom to the fullest extent, we need to create a new mandatory initial and ongoing registration condition in the Bill. Clause 5 amends the Higher Education and Research Act 2017 to provide the legislative framework for the creation of the new registration conditions. Proposed new section 8A of the 2017 Act requires the OfS to ensure that the registration conditions of higher education providers include certain specific requirements. They must include a condition that the institution’s governing documents are consistent with its freedom of speech duties and that it has adequate and effective governance arrangements to secure compliance. They must also include a requirement that the governing body of the higher education provider complies with its duties under new sections A1 to A3 of the 2017 Act, as inserted by clause 1 of the Bill. Finally, in the case of approved fee cap providers, a particular category of registered providers, the ongoing registration condition must include a requirement to keep the OfS informed of their student unions.

Clause 5 will ensure that the registration conditions relating to freedom of speech and academic freedom are aligned with the duties imposed on higher education providers by the Bill. The OfS will be able to ensure compliance with the new registration conditions by using its powers of enforcement, such as the power to impose monetary penalties. The creation of these new, stand-alone registration conditions will highlight the importance of freedom of speech and academic freedom. It will make the obligations of higher education providers more up front and it is therefore a central part of how the Bill will work. I urge that clause 5 stand part of the Bill.

[Matt Western]

Sir Christopher, I do not wish to say any more on this clause; I am willing to let it pass.

--- Later in debate ---

[John McDonnell]

That is what generated my question. Why are the Government targeting young people in this way? It would not take much for the Minister to go away and to come back and give the House an indication, at least before Report, of the types and level of sanctions the Government are considering. When the Bill goes to the other place, there will be some insistence on that.

It is very rare for this House not to have some indication of the scale of a sanction that is being introduced in criminal or civil law, because it is seen as unfair. In both the Commons and the other place, there has been a consistent standard of behaviour: when the Government impose sanctions they undertake considerable consultation, so that people have confidence in the legislation that is passed, and in the institution that will adjudicate on the monetary penalties levied. I speak as someone who has been trying to amend Government legislation for about 23 years, even when my own party was in Government. It is a very simple point—nothing more than that—but it is important and is at the heart of the legislation.

[Michelle Donelan]

Under the amendment, that the monetary penalty that the Office for Students can impose on student unions for breach of their duty to protect freedom of speech will be subject to a maximum amount, set by the OfS and decided following consultation with representative bodies of higher education providers and student unions. However, the Bill already provides that the amount of the monetary penalty is to be decided by the OfS, in accordance with regulations made by the Secretary of State; the regulations will of course be subject to parliamentary scrutiny. This mirrors the approach taken in section 15 of the Higher Education and Research Act 2017 on monetary penalties imposed on higher education providers.

[Matt Western]

Given what the Minister was just saying about the promise from the previous Secretary of State, will she say precisely when that will be? She is obviously aware of something that I am not. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington says, we would like to see that before Report.

[Michelle Donelan]

I am not going to set out a detailed timetable, but I assure the hon. Member that there will be sufficient consultation with both the sector and student unions.

[Emma Hardy]

Further to the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington, the Minister mentioned parliamentary scrutiny, and I want to press her on this issue. She should be able to give us at least an outline of whether we will know about this before Report, before Third Reading and before it goes to the Lords. When will parliamentary scrutiny happen? On something as important as this, surely we should have some indication from the Government.

[Michelle Donelan]

This is in line with how we have done legislation before, and to have in the Bill the details of the exact things that the hon. Member is asking for would not be appropriate.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Michelle Donelan]

I will make some progress.

[John McDonnell]

Can I help the Minister on that point?

[Michelle Donelan]

I will give way to the right hon. Gentleman, but if I can then make some progress, I might actually answer some of the Opposition’s questions.

[John McDonnell]

What would be helpful—before Report, at least—is to have some discussion on the draft regulations. I understand that it is not possible to publish the regulations formally, but we could have a discussion on the draft regulations before Report, so that Members can at least be assured of the range that the Government are thinking about with regards to the monetary penalties.

[Michelle Donelan]

Our process here is in line with section 15 of the 2017 Act. It is suitable for secondary legislation that will be subject to sufficient parliamentary scrutiny.

The regulations will make provision about the matters to which the OfS must or must not have regard when imposing the penalty. We intend to ensure in that way that the penalty is set at a reasonable and proportionate level. In making the regulations, careful consideration will be given to student unions’ status and financial position, and their varying sizes,.

[Matt Western]

I hear the Minister, and she is a decent individual—I am sure that she means well and I trust her—but one cannot say that a speeding fine is proportionate to the driver when one person can afford it and another can ill afford it. We have repeatedly made the point that there is an absolute diversity of institutions, so there is real concern about the measures.

The Government are on a bad wicket already, and given the way that they are going about this, they will lose the faith and trust of the sector, particularly of student unions. I urge the Minister to take on board the suggestions made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington to bring the draft regulations as early as possible before Report, to give us an indication of where the Government are heading with the measures.

[Michelle Donelan]

I think what is actually important is to have sufficient time for engagement and consultation with the sector and student unions, for the very reasons given about their varying size, financial assets and so on. Rushing the regulations would have an effect contrary to what Opposition Members are arguing for.

It is important to note that the power of the OfS to impose a penalty will be subject to the safeguards set out in schedule 3 of the 2017 Act. That reflects the approach taken to the monetary penalty under section 15 of that Act. We see no reason to deviate from that tried and tested approach.

[Emma Hardy]

I thank the Minister for giving way again—she is being generous. To make it as simple as possible, we would like to know when we will find out what the maximum penalty will be. She talks about parliamentary scrutiny and the need for consultation. To be as clear as possible, will we know before the final vote on Third Reading?

[Michelle Donelan]

I think that I have been quite clear, but I shall be even clearer: the regulations will be passed via secondary legislation, when there will be an opportunity for hon. Members to scrutinise those decisions. We want to ensure adequate time for consultation with the sector and with students unions to get that right.

[Matt Western]

The Minister is being incredibly generous. She said that the Government do not want to rush the regulations and need time to go through the proper process. I remember that in March last year, when former Home Secretary Amber Rudd was no-platformed at Oxford, the previous Secretary of State—bless him—said, “Right, that’s it. We’re going to bring forward this legislation.” Here we are, 18 months later. There has been plenty of time, and this has been on the cards for some time, particularly because the legislation has been driven by the right hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Gavin Williamson). It would have been possible to produce the draft regulations if the proper consultation process had been gone through. I really fear that they are being held back for political reasons, and that student unions are going to be hit hard.

[Michelle Donelan]

I have reiterated many times, as Hansard will show, that it is not our intention to hit, penalise or alienate student unions. We are talking here about proportionate measures to protect freedom of speech. We will ensure that there is a consultation and that the voices of student unions are heard so that the regulations are right.

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle]

rose—

[Michelle Donelan]

I will give way, and then I really will finish.

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle]

The Minister mentioned “proportionate measures”, so will she commit to ensuring that the regulations reflect the size of the institution or student union, and the ability of the student union to comply? I am worried because if, after consultation, there is a flat rate, that would be disproportionate.

[Michelle Donelan]

Before I finish, I will repeat what I said a moment ago. In making the regulations, careful consideration will be given to the status and financial position of student unions and their varying sizes. I hope that having that confirmation on the record will satisfy hon. Members.

[Matt Western]

I hear what the Minister says. It is so frustrating because we want to be constructive. We want to mitigate the damage of the Bill, but it has been so badly conceived, with so many gaps in it, so much information lacking, and so much left to guidance, it is really problematic. It should be for all of us across the Committee, to accept this. We will vote for our amendment, and hold back on the clause.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

--- Later in debate ---

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

[Michelle Donelan]

We know the important role that student unions play in ensuring that freedom of speech can thrive on our university campuses. We therefore know how vital it is for the current legislative framework to be extended to student unions and approved fee cap providers—a category of registered higher education providers—as provided for by clause 2. It is necessary to have mechanisms in place to ensure that the freedom of speech duties of student unions are monitored effectively, and that action is taken if the freedom of speech duties are infringed.

Clause 6 extends the regulatory functions of the Office for Students so that it can regulate the student unions. It does that by inserting new section 69B into the Higher Education and Research Act 2017. That new provision will require the OfS to monitor whether student unions are complying with their duties under proposed new sections A4 and A5, as inserted by clause 2. If it appears to the OfS that a student union is failing, or has failed, to comply with its duties, the OfS will be able to impose a monetary penalty. That will enable the effective regulation and enforcement of the freedom of speech duties of student unions by the OfS.

The power to impose a monetary penalty is based on the existing enforcement regimes for higher education providers, and is intended to encourage compliance. Proposed new section 69B will also require the OfS to maintain and publish a list of student unions and approved fee cap providers. That will make it clear which student unions the OfS has been informed by these providers are subject to the duties in new sections A4 and A5. It will also require those student unions to provide the OfS with information that it may require for the performance of its functions.

These new regulatory functions are intended to support the new duties in clause 2. Together with clause 2, clause 6 will ensure that freedom of speech is protected not just by higher education providers but by student unions and across campus. I believe it is a necessary and important part of the Bill, and I beg to move that it stand part.

[Matt Western]

It was not just our amendment 77. The nub of the problem is how student unions are being muscled by the Government to do certain work for them. I cannot help but use the word “authoritarian” throughout, but this heavy jack-boot seems to be stamping down on student unions across the country, particularly the smaller ones, which will not have the scale, finances or resource to sustain the obligations that the Government are putting on them—particularly if that is the Government’s aim. Maybe their intention throughout all this is to see the demise of student unions and maybe some alternative structure to replace them.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle]

My understanding is that this relates not just to the student union’s activities be in the HE sector, but to the whole of the student union’s activities, even in the FE part of the institution, so student unions in that sector may face more administrative and regulatory burdens than their parent institutions. It is a bizarre situation. That is why this whole provision must be withdrawn, or voted against, or at least rephrased. The Minister must make sure that this is restricted to only that part of the activity that is HE, and that the regulation is light-touch, and she must make reference to how this relates to Charity Commission regulation. That does not apply for higher education institutions, because they are not regulated by the Charity Commission; they are exempted charities. Since 2010, student unions have not been exempted, so they have to register. They are regulated charities, and this measure is totally contradictory to the current regulation.

[Michelle Donelan]

It might be useful if I clarify for the hon. Member that, where student unions are registered charities, charity law will still apply to them. The OfS will only regulate student unions on freedom of speech matters.

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle]

Of course I understand that, but a complaint is not simple and will not be simple. For example, a charity that is seen to prejudice one part of speech, particularly political speech, would be in breach of charity regulations already, because we cannot privilege one part of speech or one part of activities as a charity because it is political speech. That is quite right, excepting the ruling of Baldry v. Feintuck, which says that political party associations of students can be supported within the student union if it is self-organised, because it is not the political activity it is supporting but the educational activity of students mocking up being in a political party, so they can hold mock elections and so on.

There is detailed case law and detailed legislation. The danger is that this Bill runs roughshod over that. People would have two places where they could complain. The complainant can go to the Charity Commission, where there is a basis of case law that is already very nuanced, and they can go to the OfS, where there is no case law and no such basis. Because we know the OfS will not necessarily be built with lawyers or making its decisions based on case law, the danger is that we will end up getting semi-contradictory decisions.

Baldry v. Feintuck says that student unions are free to support a Conservative club, for example, and to give money to that student Conservative club for its operations, as long as it offers the same amount of resources to the Labour club, the Lib Dem club or whatever different clubs might come along. There is a danger, however, that free speech regulation will say, “Actually, the regulations need to be different and will require the clubs to accept a broad range of views.” That is different from the basis on which those clubs have been set up.

I ask the Minister to reconsider ensuring that there is a direct reference to the Charity Commission and to the order of priorities in which someone would make a complaint to a student union. Currently, they could make a complaint to the institution, to the Charity Commission and the OfS.

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle]

And the OIA. I would appreciate the Minister doing that, because it is a minefield. We heard as much from the representative of Universities UK, who said that they were deeply worried that this would confuse the matter and make things more difficult in terms of regulation.

Before I finish, I will touch on the finances. Universities effectively have the powers to raise finances through their recruitment of students and the research grants they get. Universities live and die, in that sense, in their corporate actions. Student unions, for the most part, raise no money themselves. Gone are the days of the student bar and the student club. If Conservative hon. Members think that student unions get money from those, I am afraid they are misguided. The vast majority of student unions rely solely on a grant from the university. They are solely dependent on the university, higher education institution or further education institution.

[Michelle Donelan]

Listening to the debate, I am quite perplexed. On the one hand, the Opposition argue there is no problem with free speech, but on the other, they argue that once the Bill is introduced, virtually all student unions will be fined because they will be breaching it, and they will not be afford the fines. I am a bit confused about the argument here.

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle]

My argument does not necessarily only deal with fining; I am talking about regulation as opposed to fining, and we have had a debate on that. The point on fining is that we are worried that we will end up seeing a chilling effect and people coming forward vexatiously. That is a real concern—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for North West Durham groans, but he should stand up and say why he groans—give a speech or make an intervention supporting the Bill. He has said very little.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matt Western]

Clause 7, of course, is about the complaints scheme. In that constructive vein that we have spoken of many times before, we want to make some small detail improvements and changes that clarify, or are more appropriate than, what is currently referenced—hence amendments 35 and 36. The amendments are intended to address the scheme and seek to introduce tighter, but not unreasonable, requirements for someone to go through the complaints scheme.

Amendment 37 stipulates the narrowing down of the eligibility of someone who comes forward to seek redress. The Bill seems to appear to remove any minimum requirements for standing. As it stands, the OfS scheme is open to anybody who is or was a member of staff, of the students’ union or of the provider, or who was at any time invited to be a visiting speaker. That opens up a can of worms. Just think, through the aeons of time, how many people could be eligible to make claims against universities and students’ unions through the scheme. It would really widen the scope of eligibility with two significant consequences.

The first consequence is regulatory. A broader standing has the potential to overrun the OfS scheme with a flood of complaints, much like the issue of tort, as we discussed earlier. What is to stop the 43 people mentioned in the examples given by the witness Bryn Harris all lodging freedom of speech complaints under the scheme the day the Bill passes? Nothing. As it is written, they are all eligible for it, even though some date back to—I am trying to recall the earliest I can recall—2013 or 2015, and certainly before the five years we propose.

The second consequence is the effect on administrative justice. Could the Bill, as written, introduce an element of retrospective administrative decision making? Given that the legislation is so clunky and full of holes, it is disappointing that we heard from only one lawyer. I am pleased that we put forward one, but I regret not putting forward a second in order to get a broad perspective on the Bill. I am sure that two lawyers would have picked the whole thing apart. However, Smita Jamdar from Shakespeare Martineau—the one lawyer we heard from—said,

“Until quite recently I would have been confident that, as a matter of rule of law, you could not retrospectively apply conditions in that way. However, I am less confident about that than I have been in the past. I think there are regulatory trends that say that people do sometimes try and retrospectively shift the goalposts.”

In such cases, judicial review could step in—or so the Minister may claim. However, Ms Jamdar said,

“Normally, you would then potentially be able to go for judicial review, and say that this is a decision that is in breach of public law principles, either because it is irrational or in some way procedurally flawed. However, under the Bill you would not have that right because you cannot challenge the decisions of the free speech champions.”––[Official Report, Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Public Bill Committee, 7 September 2021; c. 58, Q112.]

My colleagues and I will address the concept of appeals later, during the next grouping of amendments.

However, although it may be true that the scheme has the power to weed out some vexatious claimants, if “eligible persons” is expanded too broadly, it will be left to the Office for Students to sift through numerous complainants. That could have the effect of taking away resources from the operation of the scheme, undermining its effectiveness and therefore the purpose of the Bill.

We are still none the wiser about the scale of the operation under the Office for Students. How many people will it employ, and will they be full time? Will the director of free speech be full time? The chair of the Office for Students is not full time. How much of that director’s professional time will be devoted to this matter? How many people will they have within that, and at what budget? As it stands, we are concerned that the measure will open the floodgates. That is why, under amendment 37, we propose that the period should be limited to five years, counted from the date to which the claim relates.

[Michelle Donelan]

Amendment 35 would allow only current students, members or staff of a provider to make a complaint to the Office for Students complaints scheme. A key aspect of the Bill is that it provides new routes of redress to individuals who have suffered loss as a result of a breach of the new freedom of speech duties. That includes where students have been expelled from courses or where staff members have been dismissed from their jobs. The amendment would prevent former students, members and members of staff accessing the new complaints scheme.

Of course, the duty will have been owed to such individuals while they were at the provider. In circumstances in which they have subsequently left the provider, however, it is also important that they are still able to access the complaints scheme. For example, we must ensure that, if a provider breaches its freedom of speech duties in a way that leads to a staff member leaving their role, that staff member is still able to access the complaints scheme, otherwise the Bill would be fundamentally undermined.

[Matt Western]

May I explore that a little further to understand that? Are we saying that the former Secretary of State could go back to the University of Bradford, a fabulous institution, which I was delighted to get the chance to visit, and say, “I had this particular issue” whatever number of years ago—I assume something like 15 years, but perhaps longer—would he be able to do so under the Bill as drafted?

[Michelle Donelan]

The time limit refers to amendments 36 and 37, which I will proceed to, but indeed we are not setting a time limit. It would depend on what had happened and the facts that were available. It would be investigated. I am not convinced that getting into a speculative hypothetical will help today’s discussion.

Amendments 36 and 37 seek to impose on the face of the Bill a time limit of five years as to who may bring a complaint to the OfS complaints scheme. As drafted, proposed paragraph 5(2)(a) of new schedule 6A in clause 7 sets out that the complaints scheme

“may include provision that…complaints…must be referred under the scheme within”

a specific time frame. That reflects similar provisions in the Higher Education Act 2004, enabling the Office for the Independent Adjudicator for Higher Education to set a time limit for its scheme. The OIA only considers complaints made within 12 months of the date that a higher education provider told the students of its final decision. That is considerably shorter than the five years in the suggested amendments. To refer back to the point made by the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington, that needs to be decided by the director and in the guidance and regulations. We are not setting out a timeframe in the Bill. That would come in the detail.

[Emma Hardy]

May I clarify whether a time limit will be set out, if not in the Bill, in the guidance produced later?

[Michelle Donelan]

To clarify, in the Bill there is no time limit, but our full expectation is that there will be one in accordance with precedent, such as that of the OIA. There will be a reasonable time limit, set in conjunction with the voices that have been heard, of the sector and of the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington, who made his suggestion today. Accordingly, when the OfS sets out the details of the complaints scheme, it will be able to set an appropriate time limit. It is not necessary to set that out on the face of the Bill, as I have stated.

[Matt Western]

I hear what the Minister has said and I absolutely take her at her word. I therefore very much look forward to seeing that specified in the guidance. So, there will be a time limit, otherwise there will be an almighty problem, not just for universities and student unions, but for the OfS. It could become a ridiculous situation. Given what has happened with claims in Northern Ireland and elsewhere, for example, as the Government have sought to introduce limits there, I imagine some consistency from them in applying a limit here. Will the Minister confirm whether she is considering amendment 35—likewise amendment 36—for inclusion in the Bill, rather than letting the matter be dealt with in guidance, otherwise we will press it to a vote?

[Michelle Donelan]

Amendment 35 would seek to allow only current students, members and staff of a provider to make a complaint, which would rule out those who had been expelled or lost their job as a result of free speech so, absolutely, we will not consider it for inclusion.

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

Michelle Donelan Excerpts

Thursday 16th September 2021 Public Bill Committees

[Matt Western]

That could be the case—I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his intervention. The concern overall is about the number of reports. It could well be that guidance can assist in the delivery of that, but we will see. As my right hon. Friend the Member for North Durham mentioned, the criteria and what leads to sanction are important to establish.

Finally, we have to be careful about the number of demands on the universities, and we have to be consistent about how frequently we want those reports to be provided. Looking at the other amendments in which we ask for reporting from universities or from the OfS, there is some inconsistency—amendment 73 tabled by the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings and our amendments 54 and 79. We have to have consistency. It would have much more weight if there were an annual report, which everyone knew they were working towards. With the introduction of the REF and the TEF—the research and teaching excellence frameworks—and so on, there are huge demands on the institutions.

Dr Greg Walker of MillionPlus made it absolutely clear—he was one of many to be quite outspoken—in saying that the Bill should

“avoid adding unnecessary bureaucratic burdens on universities which would risk diverting resources away from the frontline education of students.”

That is what the university institutions, and the NUS and the student unions want as well. That is not to defer, delay or prevaricate about understanding the need for reporting. Let us ensure that the reporting that is required, or requested, by the OfS is consistent and useable, as opposed to being about the sorts of issues that many on the Opposition Benches have suggested.

[The Minister for Universities (Michelle Donelan)]

Thank you, Sir Christopher, and thank you for your kind words and those of other Committee members.

The amendment seeks to require providers to report quarterly to the Office for Students on how they are meeting their freedom of speech duties. The duties in the Bill, including those relating to the OfS, sit alongside duties already set out in the Higher Education and Research Act 2017.

The OfS regulates higher education through a register of higher education providers. It imposes initial and ongoing conditions of registration on providers, and monitors and enforces their compliance. There are already clear requirements for registered providers to give information to the OfS. Under the existing registration conditions, providers must provide the OfS with such information as it may require for the purposes of performing its functions. Providers must also take steps to co-operate with reasonable requests made by the OfS in its monitoring or investigation work. That may include providing explanations or making documents available.

The information requirements form part of a mandatory registration condition under section 8 of the Higher Education and Research Act 2017, and have been implemented by the OfS via registration condition F3. There are also mandatory registration conditions relating to governance, which ensure that providers have the necessary governing documents and management systems in place to comply with their registration conditions, including those concerning freedom of speech.

In addition to those existing requirements, clause 5 of the Bill will provide for new mandatory registration conditions relating to freedom of speech. The creation of the role of director for freedom of speech and academic freedom under clause 8 will mean that there is an ongoing focus on this area.

In light of that, I hope that the Committee shares my concern that the amendment would create an unnecessary bureaucratic burden on higher education providers. I will, however, reflect on the comments made by my right hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings and other members of the Committee. Nevertheless, I believe that there are already sufficient powers in existing legislation to enable the OfS to request information and to monitor and enforce providers’ duties effectively.

[Matt Western]

I hope that the Minister will agree with me—with us, perhaps. The evidence that the Free Speech Union provided included a whole list of what it described as “incidents”. It recorded a plethora of them, but they were clearly very diverse. How those might be categorised into some sort of report would be extremely difficult. Also, something we picked up from the vice-president of the NUS was how she believed that this reporting, this burden, and much of the legislation, will have the reverse effect, impacting on so many of the smaller institutions. That reverse chilling effect might lead to less free speech on our campuses, whatever shape and size they might be.

[Michelle Donelan]

I disagree with the hon. Gentleman about the reverse effect. A key part of the legislation is that it will place a duty on providers to promote free speech. If the opposite were happening, they would contravene the Bill and the director would step in.

Another concern with the amendment is that it would be out of kilter with the approach taken to other registration conditions. As Opposition Members have said, so many things could be asked of the OfS on reporting and our providers. There is a balance to strike. I remind Members that, a year ago, the Government made a commitment to reduce bureaucracy for our higher education providers. A further information requirement, in addition to what is already in place, would increase bureaucracy and the burden on providers. I am not convinced that there is a clear need.

I trust that the Committee will agree that we do not wish to impose a further burden and that the amendment is not necessary. However, I will continue to reflect on the points made in the debate.

[Sir John Hayes]

I do not agree with the Minister on this. The risk is that the new director for freedom of speech and academic freedom will be driven, as I implied earlier, by queries and complaints. The Minister emphasised in her response the investigative role of that individual. That risks inconsistency, rather than consistency. The amendment I tabled might be imperfect in its detail—I am always prepared to concede that point, because Government have at their disposal all sorts of clever people who can draw up amendments far more carefully than I can—but I think that creating openness and a degree of consistency and transparency in the process is important.

--- Later in debate ---

[Fiona Bruce]

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

[Michelle Donelan]

I will try to be brief and not take interventions, given the time. Amendment 74 seeks to ensure that university authorities set out procedures to facilitate peaceful protest on campus and to engage with campus stakeholders on amendments to the code of practice. Amendments 75 and 76 would require the governing body to have a democratic procedure for decisions taken on use of their premises, and a provider would have to have particular regard to that procedure.

Proposed new section A2 of the Higher Education and Research Act 2017 will require registered higher education providers to maintain a code of practice, as they are already required to under section 43 of the Education (No. 2) Act 1986. Providers will, of course, need to revisit their existing codes after Royal Assent to ensure that they are fit for purpose and comply with the new duties of the Bill.

To help providers to update their codes, the Office for Students will in due course issue comprehensive guidance about what should be included in a code of practice. As well as setting out the provider’s values relating to freedom of speech and how those values uphold freedom of speech, the code of practice must set out the procedures to be followed when organising meetings and activities, as well as the conduct required in connection with them, and the criteria for decision making on the use of premises. This will ensure that individuals on campus are aware of the ways in which freedom of speech and academic freedom are effectively secured by the provider, and will provide guidance on how individuals can go about exercising their freedom of speech.

Although we encourage providers to work with their university community to ensure these values are upheld in a transparent way, we do not think there is a need to consult on subsequent changes to the code, as would be required under amendment 74. As for the right to peaceful protest, which is also covered by amendment 74, this is a fundamental tool of civic expression. It is in itself an aspect of freedom of speech, and so it is protected by the Bill. For example, if there is a protest against an academic because they have said something controversial but lawful, providers will need to decide what they can do that is reasonably practical to ensure that that academic can speak freely, but without limiting the peaceful protest surrounding them. Proposed new section A2(3) allows providers to include in their code such other matters as they think appropriate. That could include provision on the right to protest as a key part of freedom of speech.

Turning to amendments 75 and 76, it is intended that the code of practice should facilitate the discharge of the freedom of speech duty. A provider could choose to include a procedure for a ballot to assist with selecting speakers in the first place, but to insist on one would be overly bureaucratic. More significantly, one of the aims of the Bill is to secure the freedom of speech of everybody on campus, including those with minority viewpoints. It would not, therefore, be right to mandate a process that would give the majority a right that might act as an effective veto over decision making on events and, in effect, the free speech of minorities.

I hope that Members are reassured that nothing in this Bill restricts the right to protest, and that the requirements for the content of a provider’s code of practice are appropriate as drafted.

[Matt Western]

I do not have any points to add. I simply wish to push all three amendments to a vote.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

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

Michelle Donelan Excerpts

Thursday 16th September 2021 Public Bill Committees

[The Chair]

Thank you.

Clause 1

Duties of registered higher education providers

[The Minister for Universities (Michelle Donelan)]

I beg to move amendment 1, in clause 1, page 3, line 27, after “providers” insert “and their constituent institutions”.

This amendment is consequential on NC1.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Government amendments 2 to 26.

Government new clause 1—Duties of constituent institutions.

[Michelle Donelan]

Government amendments 1 to 26 and new clause 1 concern the position of certain colleges of universities such as the Universities of Oxford, Cambridge and Durham. The amendments will ensure that, in these collegiate universities, colleges are subject to the new strengthened freedom of speech and academic freedom duties in the same way as the registered higher education providers themselves. The amendments will restore a legislative position similar to the one in place before August 2019, when constituent colleges of collegiate universities in England were directly responsible for meeting the duties set out in section 43 of the Education (No. 2) Act 1986 to take reasonably practicable steps to ensure freedom of speech for their students, speakers, members and visiting speakers.

The Bill sets out new and strengthened duties; in particular, it introduces direct routes for individuals to seek redress when they believe they have suffered loss as a result of a breach of the duties, so it is vital that action can be taken directly against the body that is responsible, including when that is a college. As the types of college in scope of the amendments may enjoy a large degree of legal independence from their parent provider, it is possible that, without these amendments, a registered provider could demonstrate that they have met their duty in new section A1 of the Higher Education and Research Act 2017 to take steps that are reasonably practicable for it to take to secure freedom of speech, but a college could still act in such a way as to restrict someone’s lawful freedom of speech.

My officials have held discussions with some of the main institutions that will be affected by the amendments, in particular the Universities of Cambridge and of Durham, and they have indicated that they would welcome the amendments. They do not think that they will result in a burdensome change in practice for their colleges, since in general their colleges have continued to maintain the codes of practice relating to the freedom of speech duties that they were subject to until 2019.

The wording used for the definition of “constituent institution” in new clause 1, in proposed new section A3A(4) of the 2017 Act, reflects the wording that applies to those bodies subject to the Prevent duty and the coverage of the complaints scheme operated by the Office of the Independent Adjudicator for Higher Education. A college that is required to comply with the Prevent duty will, therefore, also be subject to the freedom of speech duties, which is clearly sensible, and the coverage of the higher education complaints schemes will be consistent.

In addition, amendment 3 makes it clear that student unions at approved fee cap providers that are subject to the new duties in clause 2 do not include student unions at colleges. Colleges fund their junior and middle common rooms and, to that extent, can exert a lot of control over their activities. Those groups do not own or occupy their own premises or run the booking the systems, so imposing a freedom of speech duty on them seems to be unnecessary and overly bureaucratic. We do not believe that including them in the provision is necessary, as the freedom of speech duties on the colleges will apply to the activities of their student unions. I hope it is clear that the amendments are necessary for the Bill to work as intended, to ensure that all key bodies in our universities play their part in securing freedom of speech on campus, and to ensure that where they do not, those who suffer detriment can seek redress from whomever is responsible, whether that is a university or one of its colleges or student unions.

[Matt Western]

It is a pleasure to see you back in the Chair, Mrs Cummins. Overall, I have to say that I am really delighted—I think all the Opposition Members are—that the Minister has listened intently to what we have been calling for in our speeches on Second Reading, in Committee and during the witness sessions. We have been calling for clarity. It was clear that the Higher Education and Research Act 2017 made a similar mistake by omitting the likes of Oxbridge colleges and constituent institutions.

--- Later in debate ---

That is why we need to ensure that we have these organisations—these constituent institutions—clearly included in the Bill, because, to an extent, there is a sense that they are self-governing. In this respect, they have to understand that they have the same degree of responsibility and accountability as any other university institution.

[Michelle Donelan]

We did indeed listen to the sector and Members after the Bill was first published, and we identified a gap. These technical amendments will close that gap, which could otherwise have meant that some individual colleges would not be in scope. Since the Bill introduces new routes of redress for individuals who believe that their lawful freedom of speech or academic freedom has been improperly restricted, it is vital that the right institutions are held responsible.

To reiterate the points that I made in my opening speech, colleges fund their junior and middle common rooms. To that extent, they can assert a lot of control over their activities. Such groups do not own or occupy their own premises or run the room-booking systems, so imposing the freedom of speech duties on them seems quite unnecessary and overly bureaucratic. The amendments are necessary to ensure that the new duties apply to all appropriate bodies on campus and that the routes of redress in the Bill are available for all who need them.

[Matt Western]

The Minister is being generous in giving way. Essentially, what the Bill saying is that the colleges can exert pressure on their middle and junior common rooms and somehow influence behaviour and how free speech is permitted and managed within those forums. It is a delegation to the colleges to do that. But what the rest of the Bill is saying is that all other student unions, bodies, clubs and affiliates are responsible to the university and have to comply. Are we saying that there will essentially be a two-tier system for how the legislation will work?

[Michelle Donelan]

What we are saying is that the junior and middle common rooms are very different from student unions, and we have to ensure that the legislation strikes the right balance—a point made by the hon. Gentleman when we debated the last amendment on bureaucratic burden.

To conclude, colleges have a vital role in the protection of freedom of speech.

[John McDonnell]

rose—

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle]

rose—

[Michelle Donelan]

I really am going to conclude now, as we must move on. Colleges have a vital role in the protection of freedom of speech, which is a fundamental value for all of society, but especially in our world-leading higher education providers, as I am sure hon. Members agree.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matt Western]

I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention. In response to a point by the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings about the detransitioning of research at the University of Bath, Professor Whittle said in evidence that

“had Bath addressed it properly, they could have done more to say, ‘This needs sorting and this does before we will consider it.’”––[Official Report, Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Public Bill Committee, 7 September 2021; c. 41, Q75.]

The amendment would incorporate innovative research under the academic freedom duty, and that would push the likes of the University of Bath towards further exploring how such research proposals could be encouraged. It is a very simple amendment, but we hope that, in the spirit of how we have tried to co-operate, the Government will accept it.

[Michelle Donelan]

This amendment seeks to extend the duty of higher education providers to promote the importance of freedom of speech and academic freedom so that it specifically applies in the conduct of research, as well as in the provision of higher education more generally. The duty set out in proposed new section A3 of the Higher Education and Research Act 2017, created by clause 1 of the Bill, is a new one. It requires a provider to promote the importance of free speech within the law and academic freedom throughout its provision of higher education. This is a general duty that intends to drive a positive tone on campuses across the country, promoting a culture in which everyone on campus can express their lawful views, and in which academics feel safe to question and test received wisdoms and put forward new ideas and controversial or unpopular opinions.

[Emma Hardy]

The amendment is specifically meant to address cases in which an individual is sometimes a student and sometimes a teacher. As a PhD researcher their activity falls under academic freedom, but as a student it falls under freedom of speech. An individual can hold two different roles at two different times depending on what they are doing, and that problem is what we were trying to resolve with this amendment.

[Michelle Donelan]

I think that the next part of my comments will address the hon. Member’s concerns. A key element of this duty is to promote academic freedom for academic staff. It is widely understood and set out in international case law that academics should expect that their academic freedom is protected for any research they seek to undertake, as well as in the design and delivery of their teaching and wider comments or writings that they issue. The duty to promote the importance of academic freedom in the provision of higher education will therefore cover research undertaken in that context, noting the high-level nature of the duty. However, I have listened to hon. Members today, and while this will be made clear in the guidance, I shall commit to take this issue away and see whether further clarity would be of assistance.

[Matt Western]

I have heard what the Minister has to say. I take her at her word and look forward to having further conversations and discussions on this issue. I therefore beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment proposed: 33, in clause 1, page 3, line 28, at end insert—

“(2) For the purposes of this section, ‘freedom of speech’ and ‘academic freedom’ do not extend to any statement that amounts to the denial of genocide.”—(Matt Western.)

This amendment ensures that the objective of securing freedom of speech and academic freedom do not cover those who make statements that amount to a denial of genocide.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matt Western]

My right hon. Friend is right: this is yet another example of how things are well managed by students’ unions up and down the country. They see challenges day in, day out, week in, week out. They manage the various, sometimes conflicting, interests of different groups.

My right hon. Friend has given a simple example of an Islamic prayer room and how that can play out between the Ahmadiyya and other Muslim groups. I urge the Minister to take on board our points and make the changes set out in the amendments. The word “any” is problematic and the Government would do well to remove it.

[Michelle Donelan]

The amendments would narrow the application of the freedom of speech duty in proposed new section A4 on students’ unions so that it only applies, as regards premises, to the “sole” use of those premises and does not apply to the terms of the use of those premises.

Proposed new section A4(1) in clause 2 requires students’ unions to take “reasonably practicable” steps to secure lawful freedom of speech. Proposed new sections A4(3) and A4(4) set out how this duty will work in relation to the use of the premises. The students’ union must take “reasonably practicable” steps so as not to deny the use of their premises because of

“the ideas, beliefs or views”

of an individual body when inviting speakers. That was an excellent point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings.

A key part of the Bill is the emphasis on “reasonably practicable” steps. On the point that the hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown made, if a range of rooms was available and some rooms were not suitable, for example because of religious beliefs, it would be “reasonably practicable” not to choose certain rooms. However, I have heard the concerns raised in the debate and the evidence that has been provided, so I will commit to take this important point away.

[Fiona Bruce]

I thank my hon. Friend for her encouraging words. Could she reflect on whether the code of practice is a vehicle that could be used to respect freedom of religion or belief in this context?

[Michelle Donelan]

An important aspect of the Bill is that it does not place freedom of speech above other duties, such as freedom of religion. It is down to the university or students’ union to balance those competing duties and make a reasonable assessment. We think that freedom of speech duties should apply to the terms of use of premises. It would not be right if a students’ union decided, for example, to charge one group more for room hire than another group. In any event, proposed new section A4(3) is clear that the freedom of speech duties include the stated provision on premises, so the exact wording of the amendment would not be likely to have any effect in practice. However, I am happy to reconsider how we could make it clearer in the Bill.

[Emma Hardy]

On the basis of the Minister’s promise to go away and have a look to ensure that we can offer the clarity and reassurance needed, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment proposed: 34, in clause 2, page 4, line 13, at end insert—

“(4B) The objective under subsection (2) does not apply to any person or body that—

(a) has made any statement in public that amounts to the denial of genocide; or

(b) intends to make any statement that amounts to the denial of genocide within the premises of the students’ union or to any members of the students’ union.”.—(Matt Western.)

This amendment ensures that the duty on students’ unions to secure freedom of speech within the law does not cover those who make statements that amount to a denial of genocide.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle]

I am terribly sorry. I did try to reconsider my language. It was a very rude thing to do. “Bloody” should be used only in the sense of the blood that runs through our veins, and nothing else.

It is very rude to invite someone and then disinvite them, and I do not condone anyone who does that, but we have to have equity. We either have to have all societies able to invite and disinvite people, and to be as rude as they want, or we have to say that it is not acceptable in an academic space because it creates a chilling effect, and then we have to say that no society can do that. We cannot have a two-tier system whereby we say, “If you happen to have affiliated to a student union or institution, you get it, but if you set up shop outside and everyone thinks that you’re that society, it is acceptable.” There lies the real danger, but there are options here.

Finally, I want to touch on the role of such unions as the Oxford Union, the Cambridge Union and the Durham Union. They have been real bastions of free speech, and I do not suspect that they would have any problems with the duties covering them, too. We all know that often they have been the ones that have continued to say, “We want all different people to come, debate and talk.” But we cannot create a law based on the long-standing position of the Oxford, Cambridge and Durham unions—to name the most famous but not necessarily best student debating societies in the country—because they have had an historical foundation, whereas almost every other debating union and society in our country is regulated because it forms an affiliated part of an institution. I do not think it is fair that a few ancient universities get different privileges from the newer universities. That is a dangerous division.

We need to ask whether a debating club made up exclusively of students is regulated or not. The Minister needs to make a decision. I hope that she will say that she has accepted the point. She may not agree with the detailed wording, but I hope she says that she will go away and make sure that the provision applies to either all student societies or none, and either all student spaces or none. That should also cover the commercial sector—bodies with whom an institution may have commercial relationships.

[Michelle Donelan]

Any transgression of freedom of speech and academic freedom goes against the fundamental principles of the higher education sector in England. It is therefore essential that our universities are places where freedom of speech can thrive for all staff, students and visiting speakers, so they can contribute to a culture of open and robust intellectual debate. Student unions provide support and services to their members and their universities. It is therefore appropriate and essential that the legislative framework is extended to cover student unions directly.

The extension of the duties imposed only on higher education providers will ensure that freedom of speech is protected to the fullest extent. This will ensure our universities can continue their long and proud history of being a place where views may be freely expressed and debated. Clause 2 will provide the legislative framework to extend these important duties to student unions at approved fee cap providers—a category of registered higher education providers. It will insert two new provisions into the Higher Education and Research Act 2017. Proposed new section A4 provides that student unions will be required to take reasonably practicable steps to secure lawful freedom of speech for their members and staff; for students, members and the staff of the provider; and for visiting speakers.

[Emma Hardy]

May I seek a point of clarification? I will be super-quick.

[Michelle Donelan]

Opposition Members have spoken at great length on this clause, so I will give way only once.

[Emma Hardy]

Thank you. I want clarification about non-affiliated student societies—student societies that are not directly affiliated to the student unions.

[Michelle Donelan]

If the hon. Lady will bear with me, I will come on to student societies.

In deciding what is reasonably practicable, student unions must have particular regard to the importance of freedom of speech. This will allow those involved in all aspects of university life to contribute to a culture of open and robust intellectual debate, without fear of repercussion. Those are new duties, providing new protections and ensuring coverage across campus. Proposed new section A5 will require student unions to maintain a code of practice, which will act as an aid for compliance with the new duty in proposed new section A4.

The code of practice must set out the procedures to be followed when organising meetings and activities, as well as the conduct required in connection with them. That is in addition to the criteria for making decisions about student union support and funding, and who can use premises. The clause sets out the new duties on student unions that are vital for ensuring that freedom of speech is protected to the fullest extent within higher education in England. It is therefore an important and necessary part of this Bill.

New clause 4 would extend the duties on student unions at approved fee cap providers so that they also apply to junior and middle common rooms at colleges and student societies. Taking student bodies at constituent colleges first, the colleges fund their junior and middle common rooms and can exert a high level of control over their activities. We do not believe that imposing the duty on junior and middle common rooms would be appropriate, as they are autonomous, as has been said. Freedom of speech duties would be unnecessary and bureaucratic if applied to junior and middle common rooms. A point was made about booking systems, but even given that junior and common rooms may book rooms, those rooms are owned by colleges and the JCRs have no actual control over them. Given that, we do not believe that including them is necessary as the freedom of speech duties on the colleges will apply to the activities of their student unions. It is important to note that student unions at constituent colleges are not classified as student unions under the Education Act 1994. In addition, the administrative burden on providers to give the Office for Students details of the student unions of their constituent colleges in addition to their own student unions, with the OfS then under a duty to maintain a list of them, monitor their compliance with their duties and deal with them in regulatory terms, as well as under the complaints scheme, would be resource intensive and disproportionate. That point has been made many times by Opposition Members in relation to other issues that have been raised today.

As for student clubs and societies, if they are affiliated to the student union, they will be covered by the student union’s code of practice. If they are not affiliated, they will still be subject to their provider’s code of practice, a point that I think has been missed in today’s debate. For similar reasons to those I have already set out in relation to JCRs and MCRs, we therefore do not think it would be appropriate to extend the duties to cover those clubs and societies directly. I hope that this clarifies the points made, and that we can agree not to accept new clause 4 and to move forward with the rest of the Bill.

[Matt Western]

The debate on these particular points has been really healthy and robust, and my Labour colleagues’ contributions have been extremely important—I particularly note those of my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown. What we have been saying for the last hour or hour and a half is that all we are seeking is consistency in this Bill, and that we cannot afford to have a two-tier higher education system. The words “iniquitous” and “unfair” have been used, but the problem is that either we recognise there is a need for coverage for all bodies and all groups that are exclusively student, as was rightly said, or there is not. The Minister has just said that it would be unnecessary and bureaucratic for this provision to be applied to middle and junior common rooms. We would say that it is unnecessary and bureaucratic for all institutions, irrespective of what they are or their heritage and history, and particularly for the smaller organisations that we keep speaking up for. As is well understood by many of us in this room, the whole higher education sector is incredibly diverse. Many smaller bodies—further education colleges and so on—will not be geared up to sustain these changes.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matt Western]

Mrs Cummins, I am sorry if it was not clear that I was trying to sum up the points that were put so well by my colleagues. The Minister has said that these non-affiliated groups would be covered by these duties, but it is not clear to me or to my colleagues how that will be the case.

[Michelle Donelan]

To clarify, if a non-affiliated group were having an event on a university campus, it would of course be covered under the university’s code of practice.

[Matt Western]

I thank the Minister for her intervention. I do not mean to try her patience; the points we are trying to make are simply an attempt to explore absolutely all eventualities. We have talked about PBSA—purpose-built student accommodation—and the increasing amount of private sector premises on campus and elsewhere that are being used by universities. I can speak from local experience. In Leamington, we have private accommodation that is being used by the student union.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matt Western]

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

[Michelle Donelan]

I appreciate the point that hon. Members are trying to make, but I think it is time to step back and reflect on the consequences of what they are arguing. They are effectively arguing that if a group of students were in their homes, or if they organised an event in a pub, we would have to regulate that. We have to be reasonable about what we are asking universities to regulate and what is in their control.

[Matt Western]

That is the issue, perhaps in part, with the Bill. The Government are trying impose, top down, a series of responsibilities and duties on universities to oversee and implement this legislation. The points we are making are about how many loopholes there are and how groups, particularly well-funded groups and private societies, will disaffiliate from the union and seek other premises in which to practise this sort of speech.

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

Michelle Donelan Excerpts

Wednesday 15th September 2021 Public Bill Committees

[John McDonnell]

Right, I am waiting for the Minister to say that this will be covered in guidance. On this occasion, I might well support her, because it is complicated. It is a combination of the level of the degree and the content and status of the research. In some instances, there will be very specific examples and we will see it playing out in individual cases and challenges setting a precedent. If we are not careful, I can see the vista being lawyers making a huge amount of money at the expense of universities.

The hon. Member for Congleton has raised a genuine issue and we should address it with subtlety, recognising that it could open the doors to a whole range of activities that would burden universities and confuse the individual academics and students themselves. I look forward to the guidance.

[The Minister for Universities (Michelle Donelan)]

It is a pleasure to work with you today, Mrs Cummins. These amendments seek to extend academic freedom protections to students as well as academic staff. Where clause 1 provides that higher education providers must take reasonably practical steps to secure freedom of speech for staff and members, as well as students and visiting speakers, this includes securing the academic freedom of academic staff. Academic staff have studied and researched for many years to reach the positions they hold. It is wrong for them to fear for their jobs or career because they have taken a minority view or put forward a controversial opinion.

I am pleased to reassure Committee members that the Bill goes further than previous legislation, broadening the definition of academic freedom so that it will include promotion and new applicants for academic positions. Indeed, it goes even further, in that all academic staff, not just employees, will have the benefit of academic freedom. That means that the Bill covers those who hold honorary positions, whether they are paid or not, as well as PhD students who teach undergraduates.

I must be clear that the additional protections afforded by academic freedom are relevant only to the academic staff of a provider. That is because the provision is about the risk of losing one’s job or the possibility of promotion, which are not issues that apply to students.

[Fiona Bruce]

I am listening very carefully to my hon. Friend, as I did to the right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington. It was refreshing to hear him make common cause with me, and I appreciate it. If academic freedom is not to be extended to students, would freedom of speech under this Bill have covered the situation of the midwifery student who lost a year of her academic life? It is a very important point and I would appreciate it if the Minister reflected on it.

[Michelle Donelan]

While it would not be appropriate for me to outline how the Bill would apply to a retrospective individual case, I can give guarantees that in broad terms it will be comprehensive, and freedom of speech will cover students in a range of scenarios, so it is not necessary to include academic freedom for students. However, I have listened to the arguments that have been made today, and I will keep them under consideration.

[Fiona Bruce]

I thank the Minister for her promise to keep under consideration the points that have been made today by Members on both sides of the Committee, and I look forward to her returning to this issue as the Bill progresses. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

One of the reasons I am not happy with the Bill is that I believe most of these protections should be installed in employment law, which would mean that they are much stronger than they are in a Bill of this sort, but the Government have chosen to go down this path, and that is why we tabled these amendments. I think they are completely reasonable, and I cannot understand why anyone would not support them. If it is a matter of wording, semantics or whatever, let us work on them and resolve the issues. Either we should accept them today or we should get a very strong commitment that a similar form of words will be introduced into the Bill.

[Michelle Donelan]

Amendments 80, 28, 45, 46 and 49 seek to set out the type of speech that the definition of academic freedom in clause 1 covers, and to ensure it includes the right of academic staff to express opinions about the curricula, governance, affiliation and the teaching and research at their provider, to design and deliver their teaching and do innovative research. Amendment 28 would also remove the limitation in the current provision that it covers only law speech that is within the person’s field of expertise, and makes other changes that I will discuss shortly.

As currently drafted, the definition of academic freedom includes the freedom to put forward new ideas and controversial or unpopular opinions. To be clear, that includes the right of academic staff to put forward opinions about any issue, including the curricula, governance, affiliation and teaching and research of their provider. It would also include the right to put forward research proposals that some might see as controversial or to pursue a range of methods when designing and delivering high-quality course material. There is therefore no need to specify in the Bill the type of opinions and speech that are covered, since all opinions and speech are covered as long as they are within the law and one’s academic field of expertise—a point I will return to in a minute. Of course, I shall consider once again the comments made in the debate.

Amendment 28 would make other changes to the definition of academic freedom. The first is the requirement that academic freedom means freedom within the law, which is a vital qualification in the Bill. Let me be clear once again that the Bill does not cover unlawful speech. The amendment would remove the qualification, but I do not see why the lawfulness of speech should not apply to academic staff as it does to anyone else on campus. Amendment 28, as well as amendment 80, would also remove the requirement that the protected speech should be within an academic’s field of expertise.

I commit to the Committee that I will take the topic away. We have heard a very compelling case from both Opposition Members and Government Members today. I want to outline why the provision is in the Bill, but I commit to taking the topic away.

[Emma Hardy]

Does the Minister commit to taking away the topic relating to amendment 28? Or was it amendment 27?

[Michelle Donelan]

Sorry; I commit to taking away the topic of field of expertise, which is covered in amendment 28, as well as amendment 80.

I will outline the reason why the topic is in the Bill in the first place. Academic staff will have extra protection under the Bill, in addition to the more general protection for freedom of speech. That is the reason that the additional protection only covers speech where an individual has expertise. For example, a maths professor should not have greater protection than a non-academic colleague or a student when they are speaking about matters unrelated to their role as an academic, but in that case the professor would still benefit from the same freedom of speech protections.

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle]

I understand exactly what the Minister is trying to say, although there is some advanced maths that could move into philosophy and so on, depending on how deep we want to go. It is about the word “expertise”. That is why I put forward the idea of academic “interest”, which is a much lower bar and means that someone just needs to demonstrate that they have had an academic interest or research in that area. Would she go away and think about the bar that the word “expertise” sets—who proves that expertise?—compared with other qualifications that might fulfil the Minister’s purpose, but give people the right to explain a broad range of academic interests?

[Michelle Donelan]

I thank the hon. Member for that helpful point. I commit to taking away that very topic.

[Emma Hardy]

I take the commitment, but it does not have a lot of detail. A commitment to do what? A commitment to rewrite those five words? A commitment to reassess whether those five words need to be in there or not? I would like a little more detail on what the Minister is committing to.

[Michelle Donelan]

I and the Government commit to taking the topic away, listening to Members from across the Committee today and their very valid points and concerns on the topic, and to look at the topic again.

On the rationale behind the topic, the Government intend the definition to be interpreted broadly, so that a maths professor who uses their mathematical or statistical skills to analyse a non-mathematical subject would be covered, for example—that references the point made by the hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown. It would also cover situations where an academic discusses teaching generally or the governance of their department—all that is within their area of work and subject expertise.

The wording reflects Strasbourg case law, where it has been held that academic freedom is not restricted to academic or scientific research, but also extends to an academic’s freedom to freely express their opinions in the area of their research, professional expertise and competence. Our courts must take this judgment into account when considering the question of what academic freedom is.

Further on amendment 28, I will move on to the inclusion of the wording that seeks to clarify that academics should enjoy academic freedom without “unlawful interference”. That is unnecessary, because any such interference with academic freedom will by definition be unlawful, which does not need to be stated in the Bill.

Finally, amendment 28 adds “without being adversely affected” to the definition. Being placed “at risk” of adverse effect is already covered by the Bill. It would be sufficient for an academic to show that they were at risk of adverse effect. It would not be necessary to go further and show that there had actually been adverse effect. Even a threat to damage an academic’s career, for example, could be sufficient. Therefore that aspect of the amendment is not required, as the current drafting is actually wider.

Amendments 27, 57 and 58 all seek to broaden the definition by removing the requirement for speech to fall within an academic’s field of expertise—once again, we shall cover this topic. Clause 1 provides that higher education providers must take reasonably practicable steps to secure freedom of speech for their staff and members. This includes securing the academic freedom of academic staff. As I have already said, this means that academic staff will have particular extra protection, in addition to the more general protection that the Bill offers for freedom of speech. This will allow academics to bring complaints to the Office for Students or a tort claim before the courts, which will reflect the high level of importance that the courts have consistently placed on academic freedom. I have outlined our rationale behind the “field of expertise” requirement and that it should be interpreted broadly, but as I have already stated to the Committee, I will take away and consider the issues raised regarding this topic.

[John McDonnell]

I hate to raise this subject, but it was suggested that someone in any field of academic expertise would somehow be denied the ability to talk about or comment on Brexit. Can we just clarify that?

--- Later in debate ---

[Michelle Donelan]

This particular element of the Bill does not deny people the ability to speak on anything, because as I have already stated, academic freedom is a subset of the broader term “freedom of speech”, so they would be covered by that as well.

[Matt Western]

I heard the Minister’s point about committing to go away and discuss this issue and so on. Things are clearly moving quite fast in the reshuffle. I would like to think that she will still be in her post and perhaps will not have been promoted—perhaps she wishes to be promoted—but the essence of this is so important that I think it goes beyond the words of this Minister because in two weeks’ time we could have a very different person actually handling this particular issue.

[Michelle Donelan]

I can see what the Opposition are cleverly trying to do here to push me to go further than my words, but I am sure that the hon. Member will understand that the words that I am using today will be on the record in Hansard for ever more and for any future Ministers in my position or, indeed, me to revisit in a few weeks’ time.

Amendments 60 and 68 seek to extend the concept of academic freedom to students as well as academic staff. There are long-standing reasons why academic freedom for academic staff is considered so important and particularly worthy of protection under article 10 of the European convention on human rights. Academic freedom for academic staff is a long-standing concept that is already used in legislation—including the Higher Education and Research Act 2017—and is understood in the sector. It has also been considered in an international context. An example is the 1997 UNESCO Recommendation concerning the Status of Higher-Education Teaching Personnel. As is clear from that recommendation’s title, academic freedom concerns teaching personnel, not students. Strasbourg case law also confirms that, in determining whether speech has an “academic element”, it is necessary to establish whether the speaker can be considered an academic.

Accordingly, the academic freedom provisions in this Bill are relevant only to those who are academic staff. That will include those who are employees of the provider, but also those staff who do not have employee status. That could include staff who undertake teaching or research as part of an honorary appointment for which they are not paid. Similarly, it will mean that PhD students who teach undergraduates at the provider can be considered to be academic staff for that purpose. However, as I have committed to this morning, I will consider this topic once again.

A first-year undergraduate student would not be considered to have the particular protection afforded by academic freedom. But I reiterate that all those on campus, whether a student, a member of staff, members of the provider or visiting speakers, are nevertheless covered by the freedom of speech duties placed on providers. That is made very clear in the Bill. I hope that Committee members will be reassured by what I have said and understand the rationale behind maintaining that the additional layer of protection for academic freedom should be reserved for academic staff, but I will, as I said, consider this.

--- Later in debate ---

[John McDonnell]

I apologise to the Minister for interfering again. I want to be absolutely clear about these amendments, though, because at the moment, I am not. She has dealt with amendment 45; could she make it absolutely clear that, even if she will not accept the amendment to include “innovative research” on the face of the Bill, the Bill does encompass protections for innovative research?

With regard to amendment 46, the Minister has made no reference to the protections against Government interference in academic work. Again, it would be helpful to get assurance about that, and if we cannot get that assurance I would urge my hon. Friends to press amendment 49 to a vote, which is about protections enabling members of staff, academics and others to criticise their own institution.

[Michelle Donelan]

Academic freedom would indeed cover academics’ own research; the research of students would be covered by the broader freedom of speech. If it were the Government interfering with an academic’s freedom of teaching or research, that would be covered in just the same way as if it were the institution interfering. I hope that reassures the right hon. Member.

I understand the concerns that have been raised today, and I assure Members that it is not our intention to unnecessarily limit the right of academic freedom. I therefore will, as I have already stated, commit to exploring this issue, particularly as regards the field of expertise.

[Sir John Hayes]

I have heard what the Minister has said. I am not entirely satisfied, although I appreciate her point about taking this issue away and looking at it again. There is a debate to be had about how explicit legislation should be, and there is a case to be made—and the Minister has made it well—that much of what we are asking for is implicit: that freedom of speech is a sufficiently broad term to allow those who will have the power to oversee these matters, particularly the new regulator, to take into account many of the points that have been made by Members of this Committee. However, I am inclined to the view that we do need to be more explicit in respect of academic freedom, and I am mindful of what the witnesses have told us and Members from both sides of the Chamber have reinforced: that, if there is indeed a climate of fear and a culture of silence given expression by self-censorship, as we heard from Professor Goodwin, Dr Ahmed and others, we need to be crystal clear about the protections that the Bill will afford.

Nevertheless, mindful of the integrity of the Minister and her assurances, I hope she will look at this issue again, and on that basis I am happy to withdraw the amendment that stands in my name in order to facilitate our progress. In doing so, let me just say that I also welcome her assurance about the amendment in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton in respect of fields of expertise. I do think that “areas of interest”, or some such similar phrase, might be more appropriate, and would deal with some of the points that have been raised by Members. Furthermore—the right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington knows I have form on this subject—I am very happy to support his remarks about the need to protect employees’ interests from employers. My views on that are just as deeply held as his, as he knows from previous exchanges that we have enjoyed. It is important to take that away and think of it afresh, as the Minister has suggested she will. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment proposed: 46, in clause 1, page 2, line 14, at end insert—

“(c) to freely pursue chosen topics for teaching and research without government or institutional interference, and

(d) to express their opinions in relation to higher education providers, including that at which they are employed,”.—(Matt Western.)

This amendment would expand the definition of academic freedom to encompass an academic’s ability to freely pursue chosen topics for teaching and research, free from external interference, and express an opinion in relation to a higher education provider.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matt Western]

Briefly, I thank my hon. Friend for her clear and considered speech in support of the amendments, some of which are in my name, given that we were not entirely sure how they would fall over the four days of the Committee.

In the evidence sessions and on Second Reading, we heard just how concerned people are. My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle mentioned the evidence given by Sunder Katwala, but I am think too of the moving comments by my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds North West (Alex Sobel) about his experience at Leeds University and the prospect of having the likes of David Irving or Nick Griffin coming on to campus to speak. I will also just pick up on the point made by Professor Whittle:

“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.”––[Official Report, Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Public Bill Committee, 7 September 2021; c. 39, Q73.]

The amendment seeks to draw a line under the question, what constitutes reprehensible but lawful speech that is inimical to academic freedom? I cannot see any academic benefit to denying any genocide, and it would do great harm to an academic were such views espoused on campus, as well as to the wider academy, let alone damaging student welfare.

[Michelle Donelan]

Amendments 32 to 34 and 69, taken together, seek to exempt providers and student unions from the duty to secure freedom of speech of persons who speak or intend to speak to deny genocide. The Government, however, are clear that genocide denial, including denial of the holocaust, is abhorrent and morally reprehensible. The new director will produce extensive guidance to assist universities, further to the points made by hon. Members. That guidance will make it clear that the European Court of Human Rights has held that holocaust denial is not protected speech under article 10 of the European convention on human rights. As such speech is intolerable in a democratic society, and that holocaust denial, even if dressed up as impartial historical research, must be seen—

[Emma Hardy]

I refer the Minister to the evidence given by Sunder Katwala:

“Comparing the Israeli Government to Nazi Germany, for example, is a lawful position that we wish to stigmatise.”––[Official Report, Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Public Bill Committee, 13 September 2021; c. 102, Q209.]

He complimented—if that is the right word—the Government on trying to get universities to adopt the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance definition; likewise, we support that. However, that is still a “lawful position”. What this amendment would do is to make that, even though it is within the law to hold those opinions, we do not want them in our universities.

[Michelle Donelan]

If the hon. Member will forgive me, I will carry on and respond to her point regarding the balancing act that universities will perform.

Holocaust deniers often have clear links with neo-Nazi extremism, and with antisemitic violence and intimidation. As I said on the Floor of the House, the Government are clear that there is no place in our universities for an extremist view that is a complete work of fiction and one that grotesquely seeks to misrepresent our global history.

Let me once again be clear that nothing in the Bill encourages providers or student unions to invite speakers who have denied or deny genocide. The Bill will not give anyone the right to a platform, and on that I am categorical.

[Charlotte Nichols]

As we have heard about the broad range of individuals and organisations covered by the Bill, any student society that sought to invite a holocaust denier or genocide denier on to campus could technically have protection under the Bill as drafted. For example, if a free speech society wishes to test the absolute limits of what its university would tolerate regarding free speech and decided, as the Oxford Union did, to invite Abu Hamza and Nick Griffin along, I think it would be irresponsible of the university to allow such events to go ahead. There is nothing to say that the university has to invite them, but clearly there is nothing to say that a society or the students union could not invite them, or what would that mean for the university if it chose to intervene accordingly.

[Michelle Donelan]

Two points are being made. One is about the right to a platform, whereby an individual can, in essence, demand to speak at a university. In no way does the Bill give anyone the right to a platform.

The second point that the hon. Member is referring to is if an individual is invited by a society, a union or a university itself. With regard to that, freedom of speech is not an absolute right; it does not include the right to harass others, or incite people to violence or terrorism. The Bill requires reasonably practicable steps to be taken to secure freedom of speech within the law. That is the crucial point. The Bill is not about unlawful speech.

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle]

But the Bill does require student unions to allow students to set up societies regardless of their viewpoints; such societies must be able to be registered and cannot be denied. There could be a group of three students—three deluded, holocaust-denying students—and the student union would not be able to deny them an affiliation, according to the Bill, and they would be given a right to speak in the student union. I am just trying to be clear, especially because of the tort element. That is the particular problem here, because that is not in regard to the Office for Students; it is separate to the courts. If there is not a protection here in the Bill, can the Minister give assurances that no group of three students can take a student union to court for tort, for being denied a room to preach genocide denial?

--- Later in debate ---

[Michelle Donelan]

The hon. Member is absolutely incorrect, because universities and student unions will only have to take reasonably practicable steps to ensure that freedom of speech exists. University student unions or other bodies will also have to balance that with the Equality Act, with the public sector equality duty and with the Prevent duty, and also criminal law may apply. This is about balancing competing duties, not about giving primacy to freedom of speech, which was in fact the aim of the Opposition amendment.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

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

Michelle Donelan Excerpts

Wednesday 15th September 2021 Public Bill Committees

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

I beg to move amendment 50, in clause 1, page 1, line 8, leave out from beginning to “must” and insert:

“Every individual and body of persons concerned in the government or management of a registered higher education provider”.

This amendment expands the duty on a governing body of a registered higher education provider to take steps that are reasonably practicable to secure freedom of speech within the law to include any individual or body of persons concerned in the government or management of a registered higher education provider.

I thank you, Sir Christopher, and your co-Chair, Mrs Cummins, for your chairmanship up to this point. I also thank the Clerks for all their work keeping us in order and for putting everything together.

I have not checked the numbers this morning, but it is interesting that some 84 amendments and counting have been tabled. That underlines the fact that many of us, especially Opposition Members, have profound reservations not only about whether the Bill is needed but about its extent and its detail. If it was a dog’s breakfast before, it looks like a bit of a canine meal plan this morning.

Amendment 50 covers a small but important detail. We are here to be constructive and to try to make the best of the Bill, and this is the first example of that. We are seeking to broaden the meaning of the “governance” of an institution. We do not want it to be too narrow, or to simply mean the senate or board of trustees. Recognising the complex nature of modern higher education institutions, we want the term to reflect the wide array of professionals involved in university administration who should be subject to the legal requirement to uphold freedom of speech and academic freedom

It is important that we recognise the diversification of the management of the HE sector. It seems that the Bill’s wording is a carbon copy of the section 43 duty under the Education (No. 2) Act 1986. We have repeatedly heard from the hon. Member for Congleton about the need to develop the 1986 Act to reflect today’s reality, and that is what the amendment seeks to do.

All we are asking is that the legal duty be expanded to include anyone involved in the government or management of a higher education provider, rather than solely the governing body, as is the case in the Bill as drafted. The definition is far too narrow. It is the wording of yesteryear and does not reflect the complex nature and structure of the governance of the universities and higher education institutions of today. Indeed, Professor Stock said in her evidence that, thanks to the consumer dynamic, universities are presenting their best public relations face to prospective students, and that involves a plethora of people behind the scenes, including human resources professionals. Tom Simpson, likewise, in his evidence, stated:

“At the moment, the crucial question is the position of those involved in university leadership and administration.”––[Official Report, Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Public Bill Committee, 7 September 2021; c. 71, Q148.]

We wish to be constructive today and in the coming days, and will do our best to try to refine the Bill to make it workable. We do not believe clause 1 is absolutely necessary, but we will do our best to refine it and make it practical. That is what amendment 50 seeks to do.

[The Minister for Universities (Michelle Donelan)]

I, too, thank the Clerks for their work in facilitating this Committee.

Amendment 50 would reinstate the wording currently in section 43(1) of the Education (No. 2) Act 1986, where the freedom of speech duty applies to individuals and bodies involved in a higher education provider’s governance or management. The approach in the Bill, which is to impose the duty on the provider’s governing body, is taken for a number of reasons. A key plank of the Bill is introducing new enforcement measures, including a new Office for Students complaints scheme and a statutory tort. In the light of the potential for tortious liability, it would not be appropriate for the duties to apply to any individual in that management. It should be the provider that is held responsible by the OfS or the courts. Of course, the provider will generally be liable for the acts of its staff in any event, so the change in emphasis will not necessarily make any difference on the ground. The provider will require its staff to act in accordance with the duty, as it will be held liable for their conduct. This approach mirrors other statutory duties imposed on the governing bodies of higher education providers, for example under the Equality Act 2010. It therefore makes sense for the same body to be responsible for all relevant duties under consideration.

I hope that reassures the Committee that the amendment is not needed. The Bill ensures that responsibility for the freedom of speech duties will lie with higher education providers, and and that where they are found to be in breach of those duties, they can be held to account.

[Matt Western]

I hear what the Minister says, but the amendment is not aimed at every individual in a higher education institution. It is specifically about every individual and body of persons concerned in the government or management of a registered higher education provider. The crucial point is that it absolutely is about those involved in the governance and wider management of the institution, not every individual within that university or higher education institution. I stand by the amendment and wish to push it to a vote.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

--- Later in debate ---

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

I rise to make a general point and a specific point. The general point is that you, Sir Christopher, have been around for longer than me and you know how these Committees work: we can either work together to improve the legislation or we can all turn up and allow individuals to speak while the rest do their correspondence. I hope that this Committee will be one that works together to improve the legislation.

I do not support the legislation in principle. It is unnecessary, over the top and a hammer to crack a nut, but the Government have a right to introduce their legislation. They have a big majority and therefore the legislation will go through in some form. The responsibility therefore falls upon us all to try to ensure that it does so in a form that is implementable and does not cause problems in the future. We have to take that attitude on the Bill, and work together to improve it. This first stage is part of that test.

We listened to a large number of witnesses, chosen cross-party by both sides. The Government brought their witnesses forward and the Opposition were able to insert some of the views of others as well. It was interesting, and at times entertaining, and it threw a fair amount of light on the overall process that the Bill would eventually implement as a result of the Government’s wishes to legislate in this field. One of the issues that came up, which my hon. Friends referred to, is the need to broaden the definition. What I heard from the witnesses was almost a consensus on that. Whatever political position they were coming from, they expressed the need to strengthen this aspect of the Bill.

We may well come back to that on Report, depending on the Speaker’s selection of amendments, but we could deal with it at this stage, and we might be able to build consensus on the Committee about designing a Bill that will deliver on the intention that we all have, I think, to ensure freedom of speech and guarantee academic freedom. That came from all the witnesses and all the contributions in our sessions so far, interrogating those witnesses. I hope that there will be a constructive response to a number of the amendments, rather than the traditional response that whatever the Opposition table has to be opposed, while everyone else sits on their hands and busies themselves with other matters.

[Michelle Donelan]

The amendments relate to the new aspect of the free speech duty that will require higher education providers to pay particular regard to the importance of lawful freedom of speech when considering what “reasonably practicable” steps they can take to secure it.

Amendment 43 would add a reference to academic freedom. The Bill refers to that in a provision on freedom of speech, which is a broad concept protected under article 10 of the European convention on human rights. Academic freedom is considered to be a subset of freedom of speech—a distinct element with particular considerations within the broader concept. As a result, there is no need for this provision to specify academic freedom separately, as it is already covered.

[John McDonnell]

What harm would it do to insert it into the legislation, on the basis of the witnesses that we heard?

[Michelle Donelan]

I thank the right hon. Member for his question. There is no point in duplicating in the Bill, because academic freedom is a subset of freedom of speech. That is clearly accepted.

[Emma Hardy]

Will the Minister give way?

[Michelle Donelan]

I will continue a little bit. Amendment 51 proposes primacy instead of importance. The Government are clear that freedom of speech is a fundamental right. Indeed, the new requirement to have “particular regard” is intended to shift the dial in the balancing act that providers have to undertake in order to give more weight in favour of freedom of speech than currently. However, this does not mean that freedom of speech must always outweigh other considerations; rather, it indicates that it is a very important factor. This is the right approach. The Bill does not place on providers a requirement to prioritise freedom of speech over other rights, such as freedom of religion. The requirement to have particular regard to the importance of freedom of speech may, in a particular case, prompt a provider to prioritise freedom of speech over another right, but this would always be subject to the provider’s assessment of what is reasonably practical, and would need to be lawful. The Bill does not create an obligation on the provider to reach a particular outcome. It is vital to remember that, in context, the right to freedom of speech is not, and should never be, absolute.

[Emma Hardy]

I apologise for returning to the previous point, but is the Minister aware how remarkable it is to have a group of different academics agreeing on one issue? It is truly remarkable; we achieved the almost impossible by getting them united on the issue of academic freedom. Therefore, it does seem rather preposterous that we have a Bill claiming to be about freedom of speech that does not include the two words “academic freedom”. I wonder, with the greatest of respect, what the point was of having all those witnesses give evidence if everything they said is disregarded, and the Government intend to stick with what they already published before those sessions.

[Michelle Donelan]

I refute the point that everything in the evidence was disregarded. The Government reserve the right to stick by their opinion, which is that this Bill will protect academic freedom and freedom of speech. Academic freedom is a subset of freedom of speech.

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

Will the Minister give way?

[Michelle Donelan]

If I could continue, the Government recognise that a provider will be best placed to consider, on a case-by-case basis, how to fulfil its duties under the Bill while also meeting its other duties, including those under the Equality Act 2010 and the Prevent duty. The provision in the Bill requires reasonably practical steps alongside the particular regard duty, which allows for the balancing exercise to be properly done.

Once the Bill has completed its passage through both Houses, I expect that the new director for freedom of speech and academic freedom will issue comprehensive guidance to the sector on the expectations of the Office for Students. I am confident that providers will be well equipped to strike an appropriate balance when exercising their various duties. I trust that the Committee members are reassured that this amendment is not necessary.

[John McDonnell]

Actually, I think there might be a bit of movement here. Can the Minister assure us that the Government will indicate to the director for freedom of speech and academic freedom that there should be a specific reference in the guidance to academic freedom?

[Michelle Donelan]

The director and the OfS will be publishing their own guidance, and it would not be appropriate for me to pre-empt that. I would, however, expect there to be a reference to academic freedom within that guidance. I hope the Committee is reassured that the Bill strikes the right balance.

[Matt Western]

I thank my colleagues for their contributions, which flesh out these points. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington said, we have approached this Committee in a spirit of co-operation and constructive thought, to try and improve the Bill. As my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle said, there was a surprising, perhaps staggering, consensus from the witnesses about the need to clarify the importance of academic freedom, from whichever side we sit on. The Minister may be right that academic freedom technically falls within freedom of speech, but this is a higher education Bill—legislation about higher education—so surely the emphasis must be on how freedom of speech relates to higher education. I urge us as a Committee to stress the importance of academic freedom in the Bill and give real emphasis to it.

--- Later in debate ---

[John McDonnell]

I would not want the right hon. Gentleman to go too far, because I still think that it is a rubbish Bill. I want to address the issue of occupied premises; the online point has been made well by Members across the Committee.

The issue of the occupation of premises is important in a number of areas where the university is not sited in the constituency but uses, often temporarily, premises around the area. Without the amendment, the Bill will have a potential loophole that could be exploited. My hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington made a valid point about that.

On the online issue, if we do not build it in early, we will really miss a trick. The scale of online abuse that most of us receive is enormous—perhaps I receive more than others; I do not know—and if we do not venture into that territory and secure it, we will not be seen to be actually operating in the real world as it now is. Most of the universities that I have been dealing with recently are only now going back to any form of physical participation; virtually everything up until now has been online. They have also encouraged students to maintain some form of student life as well, such that where physical meetings cannot take place, student societies go online, using Zoom, Teams and so on. The Bill could make explicit reference to that. Failing that, I would welcome the Minister’s views on any alternative solution, but we need to be convinced that the issue is being addressed.

[Michelle Donelan]

Amendment 52 seeks to make clear that the duty of higher education providers to take reasonably practicable steps to secure freedom of speech applies in relation to the use of online platforms as well as physical premises. As drafted, section A1(3) requires that providers must take reasonably practicable steps to secure freedom of speech, including by securing that the use of premises is not denied because of the ideas, beliefs and views of an individual or body, and that the terms of the use are not based on such grounds.

Importantly, the provision uses the word “includes”. In other words, the duty in section A1(1) is not limited to what happens on the physical premises. Therefore, the requirement for a provider to take reasonably practicable steps may apply to online events hosted by the provider every bit as much as to physical events held by the provider.

Of course, it is important to be clear that the lawful speech of students, staff, members and visiting speakers in online spaces is covered by the Bill. The Government believe that the Bill as drafted achieves that aim, and I absolutely expect that the new director for freedom of speech and academic freedom will set that out clearly in the guidance in due course. I hope that I have reassured the Committee. However, I also commit to the Committee to keep this under further consideration.

[Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)]

I am concerned that a lot is going to be left to guidance. I want to explore the Minister’s role in ensuring that the commitment that she has given today will actually get into that guidance. If the operation of the Bill is going to be reliant on the guidance, that guidance is going to be very important.

[Michelle Donelan]

I have committed to the Committee today to consider this further as the Bill progresses through the House.

[Mr Jones]

Over the past few years it has increasingly been the case that the bite is found in guidance rather than on the face of the Bill. I am trying to understand what the Minister or the Department’s input will be in terms of framing that guidance, because that is going to be very important in determining whether the Bill works.

[Michelle Donelan]

The right hon. Gentleman can be assured that I work very closely with the Office for Students and intend to continue to do so in the formulation of the guidance. It is important that that guidance is robust and comprehensive and that it enables both universities and student unions to know exactly how to work with the legislation. It would be impossible for the Bill to detail all of the things that the guidance needs to address.

I now want to turn to amendment 31.

[John McDonnell]

Will the Minister give way?

[Michelle Donelan]

I really do want to get to amendment 31, but I will let the right hon. Gentleman in.

[John McDonnell]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady. I just want to get this clear, because I might have missed this: the guidance itself will be prepared by the director. That guidance will not be subject to parliamentary approval or amendment in any form, and therefore the opportunity for Members of the House to influence that guidance does not exist. That is my worry, and that is why having things on the face of the Bill shapes the guidance in due course. The hon. Lady has said that she will give this further consideration, but could I suggest that she offers the Opposition lead, my hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington, the opportunity to meet her and go through the potential for an amendment on this topic on Report?

[Michelle Donelan]

I am always only too happy to meet the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston, and to discuss this Bill in particular, so I can commit to that.

Amendment 31 seeks to expand the duty on higher education providers to secure freedom of speech by not denying the use of its premises to an individual or group because of their ideas, beliefs or views. It seeks to do so by explicitly including premises that a provider occupies. The Bill strengthens and expands the existing freedom of speech duty on providers contained in section 43 of the Education (No. 2) Act 1986. The wording of this Bill—

“any premises of the provider”—

is effectively carried over from section 43 of that Act. The Bill requires providers to take “reasonably practicable” steps to secure lawful freedom of speech for its members, staff, students and visiting speakers.

In this context, proposed new section A1(3) to the Higher Education and Research Act 2017 deals with university procedures, namely room booking systems. It requires that the use of providers’ premises is not denied because of someone’s ideas, beliefs or views, and that the terms of use are not based on such grounds. If the provider is responsible for such decisions in relation to the premises, this provision will apply. That is likely to be the case when the provider owns the premises or is in a long-term leasehold, for example; “the premises of the provider” will apply in both cases, noting that the Bill does not say “premises owned by the provider”.

However, where a provider hires rooms on a short-term basis, it is unlikely to be within its control to decide who can access rooms owned by an external party and how those rooms are used. Accordingly, such premises would not be the premises of the provider under the Bill. Of course, as I have said, the provider must still take reasonably practicable steps to ensure that there is lawful freedom of speech, but that would not apply to booking decisions about external parties’ rooms.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

That was a very long intervention, which I allowed in order to facilitate debate, but I do not want that to be a precedent for the future.

[Michelle Donelan]

Thank you, Sir Christopher. While I recognise the hon. Gentleman’s points, this Bill does cover accommodation that is in different locations. Multiple universities and higher education providers will have satellite campuses: this amendment is about who owns the premises, and the kind of lease it is. We cannot get into a predicament where universities are tied in bureaucracy and are being asked to be responsible for the freedom of speech of other organisations that hold leases on buildings.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matt Western]

I echo the comments of colleagues, who have made the case so well. We have profound concerns about the amendment, I am afraid. We understand what it is trying to do, but it could be very broad if accepted as it is. On Second Reading, the Secretary of State made it crystal clear that

“the right to lawful free speech will remain balanced by the important safeguards against harassment, abuse and threats of violence as set out in the Equality Act 2010”.—[Official Report, 12 July 2021; Vol. 699, c. 49.]

The amendment could strip out that safeguard of harassment protection. The Minister, too, stressed the point on Second Reading. She said:

“To be absolutely clear, the Bill does not override the existing duties under the Equality Act regarding harassment and unlawful discrimination.”—[Official Report, 12 July 2021; Vol. 699, c. 120.]

We should be very careful about the existing duties, and we need to ensure that they are protected in future as well. That could be a real problem for us, if the Bill is amended.

Professor Stephen Whittle said:

“The Equality Act provides little protection for anybody who feels that their rights are being disturbed by somebody else’s freedom of speech. For example, if somebody is speaking and they are antisemitic, unless it directly relates to that person, unless they have some sort of standing, the Equality Act cannot protect them as such.”––[Official Report, Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Public Bill Committee, 7 September 2021; c. 43-44, Q80.]

The Equality Act is already a fairly flimsy tool for interfering with freedom of speech, so I really want to know why the amendment should so brutally cut the legs from under the Act’s harassment provisions. Even Bryn Harris commented:

“I accept that getting into the Equality Act is very controversial and tricky terrain”.––[Official Report, Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Public Bill Committee, 7 September 2021; c. 80, Q168.]

I fear the Government’s approach is a bit of a sledgehammer to crack a nut. The concern is about a fundamental change to the Equality Act. As the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings said, universities are trying to do, or should do, the right thing. That is what has always been sought. In one evidence session, Professor Grant referred to the Chicago principles, under which a university can restrict expression that violates the law, that falsely defames a specific individual, or that constitutes a genuine threat or harassment. The amendment would be counter to those principles, which is why we will oppose it.

[Michelle Donelan]

Amendment 71 seeks to override the law on harassment so that higher education providers would be required to take reasonably practicable steps to secure freedom of speech in scientific or academic discussions, even where that would constitute harassment under the Equality Act 2010. Freedom of speech, which generates rigorous debate and advances understanding, is vital. To uphold freedom of speech in higher education, students, staff and members must be able to express their ideas within the law that may be controversial, unpalatable or even deeply offensive. That is how students develop the ability to think critically, to challenge extremist narratives and to put forward new and controversial ideas.

As is the case now, providers must consider each case on its own facts, and work collaboratively with those involved to ensure that there is an appropriate balance across the range of relevant duties, including in relation to equality protections. It is already the case that, when considering a claim of harassment, courts and tribunals must balance competing rights on the facts of a particular case, which could include the rights of freedom of expression, as set out in article 10, and academic freedom. Guidance has made it clear that the harassment provision within the Equality Act cannot be used to undermine academic freedom. I expect that that will be reiterated in the new Office for Students guidance.

Students’ learning experience may include exposure to course material, discussion or speakers’ views that they find offensive or unacceptable. That is very unlikely to be considered harassment under the Equality Act. Also, if the subject matter of a talk is clear from the material promoting an event, people who attend are very unlikely to succeed in a claim for harassment arising from views expressed by the speaker. At the same time, if speech does constitute harassment, it should not be tolerated, even in the context of academic discussion in higher education. Any form of harassment is abhorrent and unacceptable anywhere in our society, including in universities. It is vital that the Bill makes clear that it protects only lawful free speech. Although I hugely respect my right hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings—as, it seems, does the Committee—I must ask the Committee to agree that the amendment is unnecessary. The Bill meaningfully strengthens protections for lawful freedom of speech and academic freedom.

[Sir John Hayes]

The Minister may persuade me to withdraw the amendment, in the spirit that has pervaded the Committee so far, if she addresses the issue raised by Professor Biggar and other academics, who said that at the moment, universities may be over-interpreting their responsibilities in respect of the Equality Act. Professor Biggar made clear that they are interpreting it in a way that the courts would not. All I ask is that universities stick to the law and what the courts would do on harassment, rather than over-interpreting in the way that Professor Biggar suggested. If she included that in her remarks and in the subsequent guidance, I would be happy to withdraw my amendment, but I will wait to hear what she says.

[Michelle Donelan]

I wholeheartedly agree with my right hon. Friend that neither universities nor anybody else should be over-interpreting the Equality Act. That will be made clear in the guidance that the Office for Students will bring forward, and I fully expect that to help clarify the situation and ensure that freedom of speech is prevalent on our campuses. With that in mind, the Bill meaningfully strengthens protections for lawful freedom of speech and academic freedom, but absolutely does not, and should not, provide a vehicle for people to harass one another.

[Sir John Hayes]

With that hearty recognition of my point, I will happily withdraw the amendment. I take the points that have been made on both sides of the Committee about how vital it is to protect students from all the things that I think we would all regard as fundamentally unacceptable. In the light of the comments from Professor Biggar and others on the need to get the balance right, and with the Minister’s assurances, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con)]

I tabled amendment 29, as other Members have tabled other amendments, on a constructive basis, seeking to improve a Bill that I strongly support.

Amendment 29 would clarify that

“references to “members of the provider”—

that is, the higher academic provider—

“include any affiliated academics and any other person holding an academic position at the provider”.

Why is this important? It is to ensure that those who are undoubtedly intended to be covered by the Bill, such as visiting fellows, research associates, life fellows, guest scholars and emeritus fellows do not fall outside the scope of the Bill’s protection. Many within the higher education sector would not view these categories of affiliated academics as “members”, on the basis of what I understand is a commonly accepted understanding of that word. The simple remedy provided by amendment 29 would be to clarify and broaden the meaning of “members” to include affiliated academics and anyone held to be occupying an academic position within the university.

I will just refer to two remarks from witnesses who gave evidence to the Committee. Associate Professor Tom Simpson told the Committee:

“In academic life, there is a really important category of what you might call affiliated academics—people with visiting fellowships or emeritus professorships, guest scholars or life fellows. The wording does not make it plain that such people would be included.”––[Official Report, Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Public Bill Committee, 7 September 2021; c. 67, Q136.]

And Professor Matthew Goodwin told us of academics being “disinvited from workshops”, who I rather think might not necessarily be a member of the higher academic provider, when he said that

“speaking out about issues that go against the monoculture in many of our universities comes with very real consequences, and I know that from the many emails that I have received from junior academics and members of staff at universities who simply feel unable to voice their true views on those issues because they are fearful of what will happen to their careers. Indeed, in some cases—including friends of mine—they have been sacked or disinvited from workshops.”––[Official Report, Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Public Bill Committee, 13 September 2021; c. 91, Q185.]

I do not propose to press this amendment to a vote, but I hope that the Minister will confirm in her closing remarks that she will consider taking this matter away for consideration as the Bill progresses through the House.

[Michelle Donelan]

Amendment 29 seeks to expand the notion of who is a member of a higher education provider to include affiliated academics and other individuals holding academic positions. Amendments 55 and 56 seek to extend academic freedom to members and visiting academic speakers.

Clause 1 will insert part A1 into the Higher Education and Research Act 2017. Part A1 (1) and (2) require registered higher education providers to take “reasonably practicable” steps to secure lawful freedom of speech for their

“staff…members…students…and…visiting speakers.”

Turning to amendment 29, we have used the term “staff” to broaden the existing reference to “employees” in the Education (No. 2) Act 1986, because not all of those who work at a provider have an employment contract or employee status. To be clear, expanding the protections to these individuals is a key aspect of the Bill and ensures that all academic staff have access to redress. It is important to note that the term “staff” is already used in the current definition of academic freedom in the Higher Education and Research Act, so it is an understood term in this context. Similarly, “members” is a commonly used term in the sector, as well as in legislation. It is included in the existing provision in the Education (No. 2) Act, which is carried over into the Bill to ensure that individuals who are currently covered do not lose that protection. Members of a university include members of the governing council, for example.

I now turn to the proposed extension of academic freedom to members and visiting academic speakers in amendments 55 and 56. As already defined in the Higher Education and Research Act and strengthened in clause 1, academic freedom is necessary for academic staff who may be at risk of losing privileges and jobs or with reduced likelihood of securing a new academic role because of their views. Visiting academic speakers will therefore have academic freedom in relation to their own universities. A visiting speaker who speaks controversially at another university will have the benefit of the provision at their own university, but they do not need it at the university they are visiting, as they do not have a job or promotion prospects at that university that they are at risk of losing.

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle]

Very often, an academic seeking promotion has to demonstrate that they have published work and have spoken at an event external to the institution that they work in. If they are unable to prove that they have spoken at a number of events, they are unable to secure promotion. Therefore, the protection that the Minister talks about is a protection in the institution, but if academics are not protected in external institutions they will not even be able to apply for promotion. Does she understand that there does need to be an extension, and would she consider how that could be done?

[Michelle Donelan]

Importantly, they will be covered by the overarching protections in relation to freedom of speech when they speak at other institutions. As for members, they are specifically covered under proposed new part A1(2). Strasbourg case law has confirmed that, in determining whether speech has an academic element, it is necessary to establish whether the speaker can be considered an academic. To the extent that a member of a university could also come within the category of academic staff will be a question of fact. Quite simply, if they are covered they will have academic freedom as defined in the Bill. I hope that reassures members of the Committee that these amendments are not needed, as the members and types of academics mentioned can already be assured that they will be protected under the Bill.

[Matt Western]

I am reassured by what the Minister says. It seems there is coverage for visiting academic speakers. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Ordered, That the debate be now adjourned.—(Michael Tomlinson.)