New Clause 2
Overseas funding
“(1) The Higher Education and Research Act 2017 is amended as
follows.
(2) After section 69C (as inserted by section 8) insert—
“69D Overseas funding: registered higher education providers
(1) The OfS must monitor the overseas funding of registered
higher education providers and their constituent institutions
with a view to assessing the extent to which the funding presents
a risk to the matters in subsection (2).
(2) The matters are—
(a) freedom of speech within the law, and
(b) the academic freedom of academic staff of registered higher
education providers and their constituent institutions,
in the provision of higher education by registered higher
education providers and their constituent institutions.
(3) The duty in subsection (1) includes a duty to consider, in a
case where the OfS has found that a registered higher education
provider or any constituent institution of a registered higher
education provider is in breach of its duty under section A1,
whether overseas funding was relevant to the breach.
(4) The information which the governing body of a registered
higher education provider may be required to provide under the
condition under section 8(1)(b) in relation to the function of
the OfS under subsection (1) is—
(a) information as to relevant funding from a relevant overseas
person, where the funding from that person exceeds the threshold
in any period of 12 months specified by the OfS, and
(b) if the OfS considers it appropriate in any circumstances,
such other information as the OfS may reasonably require.
(5) In this section “relevant funding” from a relevant overseas
person, in relation to a registered higher education provider,
means amounts which are received by the provider or a connected
person—
(a) by way of endowment, gift or donation from the relevant
overseas person,
(b) by way of research grant from the relevant overseas
person,
(c) pursuant to a research contract with the relevant overseas
person, or
(d) pursuant to an educational or commercial partnership with the
relevant overseas person.
(6) In subsection (5) “connected person”, in relation to a
registered higher education provider, means—
(a) the governing body of the provider,
(b) a constituent institution of the provider, or
(c) a member or member of staff of the provider or of a
constituent institution, in their capacity as such.
(7) For the purposes of subsection (5), treat receipt of anything
that is not money as receipt of an amount equal to the value of
the thing to the recipient at the time of receipt.
(8) In this section “relevant overseas person” means—
(a) the government of an overseas country, other than a
prescribed country,
(b) a body which is incorporated or registered in, or has its
headquarters in, an overseas country other than a prescribed
country, or
(c) an individual who is a politically exposed person in relation
to an overseas country other than a prescribed country.
(9) In this section—
“overseas country” means any country or territory outside the
United Kingdom, but not including the Channel Islands, the Isle
of Man and any British overseas territory;
“politically exposed person” has the meaning given by regulation
35 of the Money Laundering, Terrorist Financing and Transfer of
Funds (Information on the Payer) Regulations 2017 (S.I.
2017/692);
“prescribed country” means a country or territory specified in
regulations made by the Secretary of State.
(10) For the purposes of subsection (4)(a), “the threshold” means
an amount specified in regulations made by the Secretary of
State.
(11) Regulations under subsection (10) may include provision—
(a) as to how the amount specified is to be calculated;
(b) to treat amounts received from a person other than a relevant
overseas person as received from the relevant overseas
person.
69E Overseas funding: students’ unions
‘(1) The OfS must monitor the overseas funding of students’
unions at registered higher education providers that are eligible
for financial support with a view to assessing the extent to
which the funding presents a risk to the matter in subsection
(2).
(2) The matter is freedom of speech within the law for—
(a) members of the students’ unions,
(b) students of the providers,
(c) staff of the students’ unions,
(d) staff and members of the providers and of their constituent
institutions, and
(e) visiting speakers.
(3) The duty in subsection (1) includes a duty to consider, in a
case where the OfS has found that a students’ union is in breach
of its duty under section A5, whether overseas funding was
relevant to the breach.
(4) For the purpose of the function of the OfS under subsection
(1), a students’ union referred to in that subsection must
provide to the OfS at such times, and in respect of such periods,
as the OfS may reasonably request—
(a) information as to any amounts received from a relevant
overseas person, where the amounts exceed the threshold in any
period of 12 months specified by the OfS, and
(b) if the OfS considers it appropriate in any circumstances,
such other information as the OfS may reasonably require.
(5) If a students’ union fails to comply with its duty under
subsection (4), the OfS may enforce the duty in civil proceedings
for an injunction.
(6) The following provisions of section 69D apply for the
purposes of this section—
(a) subsection (7) (things other than money);
(b) subsections (8) and (9) (meaning of “relevant overseas
person”);
(c) subsections (10) and (11) (meaning of “threshold”).
(3) In Schedule 1, in paragraph 13 (annual report), after
sub-paragraph (3) insert—
“(3A) The report must include—
(a) a summary of information received by the OfS pursuant to
sections 69D and 69E for that year, and
(b) a summary of conclusions drawn by the OfS for that year, from
its monitoring under sections 69D(1) and 69E(1), regarding
relevant patterns, trends or other matters which it has
identified and which are of concern to the OfS.”
This new clause makes provision for the reporting of overseas
funding by registered higher education providers and their
students’ unions.—(.)
Brought up, and read the First time.
5.41pm
The Minister for Higher and Further Education ()
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
Madam Deputy Speaker ( )
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
New clause 1— Duty to disclose overseas gifts and contracts
affecting freedom of speech—
‘In section A3 of the Higher Education and Research Act 2017
(inserted by section 1), at end insert—
“(2) Whenever a registered higher education provider, or any of
its members, employees, departments or associated bodies, enters
into a disclosable arrangement with an overseas counterparty, its
governing body shall, as one part of discharging the duty to
promote the importance of freedom of speech and academic freedom
in subsection (1), promptly report the required information about
such arrangement to the OfS and the Secretary of State.
(3) By 30 April each year, the OfS shall publish on its website a
searchable report which contains all required information which
has been disclosed to it pursuant to subsection (2) above in the
preceding year.
(4) If the governing body of a registered higher education
reasonably believes that the publication of the identity of the
overseas counterparty pursuant to subsection (3) or subsection
(6) might present a risk of serious harm to any natural person,
it may notify the OfS and will provide such information as the
OfS may require to investigate such risk(s).
(5) If, following a report under subsection (4) above and such
investigation as it considers appropriate in the circumstances,
the OfS finds that the publication of the identity of the
overseas counterparty pursuant to subsection (3) or subsection
(6) might present a risk of serious harm to any natural person,
then it may redact such information from its report.
(6) By 30 April 2023, the governing body of each registered
higher education provider shall report to the OfS and the
Secretary of State the required information of any disclosable
arrangement which it, or any of its members, employees,
departments or associated bodies, entered into during the ten
years prior to this section coming into force, and the OfS shall
publish such information on its website in a searchable report by
30 April 2024.
(7) If the registered higher education provider fails to comply
with this duty, the OfS may enforce compliance in civil
proceedings for an injunction.
(8) In this Part—
(a) “associated bodies” means any company, institution, trust,
organisation or similar body or group in respect of which the
relevant registered higher education provider has significant
control or ultimate beneficial interest;
(b) “disclosable arrangement” means any formal or informal
contract, gift or other arrangement by which a financial or other
advantage is offered, promised or given to a registered higher
education provider or any person or body mentioned in subsection
(2) above, whether conditionally or unconditionally, which is
equal to or exceeds £50,000 (or would equal or exceed such value
in combination with other potentially disclosable arrangements
entered into with the same overseas counterparty, or connected
overseas counterparties, within the previous twelve months);
(c) “overseas counterparty” means—
(i) any natural person who holds citizenship of, or is domiciled
in, any country or territory outside the United Kingdom (or any
subdivision of such a country or territory);
(ii) any government, organisation, institution, company,
foundation, legal person, trust, or similar body or group which
is registered, incorporated, headquartered or carries out
significant activities in any country or territory outside the
United Kingdom (or any subdivision of such a country or
territory) or in respect of which ultimate beneficial ownership
or significant control resides in a person falling within
subsection (c)(i) above; or
(iii) any person acting in any capacity for or on behalf of any
person who would fall within subsection (c)(i) or (c)(ii) above
if they were acting on their own account;
(d) “required information” means—
(i) the exact value of the relevant disclosable
arrangement(s);
(ii) the identity of the overseas counterparty and the name of
any relevant country or territory (and, if relevant, such
information about the person(s) for whom they are acting or in
whom ultimate beneficial ownership or significant control
resides);
(iii) the date on which the relevant disclosable arrangement(s)
was entered into;
(iv) details on the general purpose of the relevant disclosable
arrangement(s); and
(v) any specific stipulations or obligations imposed on the
registered higher education provider or any of its members,
employees, departments or associated bodies (including, but not
limited to, any changes to any curricula, governance or control
of them).””
This new clause seeks to introduce transparency and public
reporting of foreign donations to universities, in order to
promote freedom of speech and academic freedom, and increase
public confidence in universities.
New clause 3—Duties regarding language and cultural
programmes—
In section A3 of the Higher Education and Research Act 2017
(inserted by section 1), at end insert—
‘(2) Whenever a registered higher education provider enters into
partnership with an overseas organisation to deliver foreign
language, culture or exchange programmes or courses, its
governing body must, as one part of discharging the duty to
promote the importance of freedom of speech and academic freedom
in subsection (1), promptly report the required information about
the partnership to the OfS and the Secretary of State.
(3) In response to the information received under subsection (2),
and where there are concerns regarding the effect of the
partnership on freedom of speech and academic freedom, the
Secretary of State may issue a direction to the registered higher
education provider.
(4) A direction under subsection (3) may be either to—
(a) terminate the partnership, or
(b) offer an equivalent range of programmes or courses delivered
in partnership with an alternative organisation.
(5) In this Part, “required information” means—
(a) the financial value of the partnership;
(b) any specific stipulations or obligations imposed on the
registered higher education provider or any of its members,
employees, departments or associated bodies (including, but not
limited to, any changes to curricula, governance or control of
them).”
New clause 4—Appointment of the Director for Freedom of Speech
and Academic Freedom—
‘(1) A person may not be appointed as the Director for Freedom of
Speech and Academic Freedom (‘Director’) if the person has at any
time within the last three years made a donation to a political
party registered under the Political Parties, Elections and
Referendums Act 2000.
(2) The person appointed as the Director may not whilst in office
make any donation to a political party registered under the
Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000.
(3) The appointment for the Director shall be made by an
independent advisory panel to be established by regulations made
by the Secretary of State.
(4) The appointment of the Director for Freedom of Speech and
Academic Freedom shall be subject to a confirmatory resolution of
the relevant Select Committee of the House of Commons.
(5) A statutory instrument containing regulations under
subsection (3) may not be made unless a draft of the instrument
has been laid before and approved by resolution of each House of
Parliament.”
This new clause would ensure that the Director of Freedom of
Speech and Academic Freedom has not and cannot whilst in office
donate to a political party and ensure they are only appointed
subject to confirmation of an independent advisory panel, the
Select Committee of the House of Commons and a resolution of each
House of Parliament.
New clause 5—Sunset clause—
‘(1) This Act expires at the end of the period of 3 years
beginning with the day on which it is passed.
(2) A Minister of the Crown may by regulations made by statutory
instrument remove any of the provisions of this Act after one
year from the day on which it is passed if he is not satisfied
that the provision is working as intended.
(3) Before three years from the day on which this Act is passed a
Minister of the Crown must present to Parliament a written report
on the effectiveness of the provisions of the Act.
(4) A Minister of the Crown may by regulations made by statutory
instrument renew this Act, subject to parliamentary approval in
full or in part, or make transitional, transitory or saving
provision in connection with the expiry of any provision of this
Act.
(5) Regulations under this section shall be subject to the
affirmative procedure.”
This new clause would mean the legislation would have to be
renewed by Parliament after a period of three years.
New clause 6—Academic staff: interpretation—
‘(1) Section 121 of the Higher Education and Research Act 2017 is
amended as follows.
(2) After “Act—” insert—
“academic staff, for the purposes of any provision inserted by
the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act 2022, includes any
academic staff (however engaged or employed), honorary, visiting
and emeritus academic members of a provider and any other person
held out as holding any academic position at the provider;””
New clause 7—Harassment—
In section 26 of the Equality Act 2010, after subsection (4)(c)
insert—
“(d) when A is a student or a member of the academic staff of a
registered higher education provider and the conduct took place
in the context of a discussion in a higher education setting—
(i) the importance of freedom of speech and academic freedom, as
provided for under Part A1 of the Higher Education and Research
Act 2017 (as inserted by section 1 of the Higher Education
(Freedom of Speech) Act 2022), and
(ii) whether A intended to harass B, or was reckless as to
whether A’s conduct constituted harassment towards B.”
Amendment 21, in clause 1, page 2, line 2, at end insert—
“(3A) Any conduct that would otherwise constitute conduct having
the effect of harassment in accordance with section 26(1) of the
Equality Act 2010 shall, notwithstanding any provision to the
contrary in that Act, constitute freedom of speech within the law
for the purposes of subsection (2), provided that—
(a) the conduct constitutes, or forms part of, discussion of an
academic or scientific matter in a higher education setting,
and
(b) the person engaging in such conduct did not know or could
reasonably not have known that it would have the effect of
harassment.”
Amendment 19, in clause 1, page 2, line 6, at end insert—
“(4A) The objective in subsection (2) includes securing that no
person listed in paragraphs (a) to (d) of subsection (2) is
deprived of an ability to speak freely as a result of a
non-disclosure agreement or confidentiality agreement between
that person and the governing body of the registered higher
education provider.
(4B) The provision in subsection (4A) does not prevent the use of
a non-disclosure agreement in any case where the governing body
and academic staff member agree that a non-disclosure agreement
or confidentiality agreement is necessary for the protection of
intellectual property.”
This amendment would ensure that non-disclosure agreements or
confidentiality agreements between those listed on the Bill and a
higher education providers does not inhibit the freedom of speech
for those concerned, save where it is agreed to protect
intellectual property.
Government amendment 1.
Amendment 17, in clause 1, page 2, line 14, at end insert—
“(c) to conduct research,
(d) to engage in intellectual inquiry and contribute to public
debate,
(e) to criticise any institution,
(f) to be affiliated to any institution, and
(g) to be a member of a trade union body,”
This amendment would widen the definition of academic
freedom.
Government amendments 2 and 3.
Amendment 20, in clause 1, page 2, line 32, after “views” insert
“or to share experiences”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 19.
Government amendments 4 to 10.
Amendment 18, in clause 8, page 9, line 32, at end insert—
“(3A) In reaching a decision as to the extent to which a free
speech complaint is justified, the OfS must be mindful of the
following—
(a) the right of students to feel safe on university campuses,
and
(b) other legal duties of governing bodies and students’ unions,
such as but not limited to those under the Equality Act 2010 and
section 26 of the Counter-Terrorism and Security Act 2015.”
This amendment would ensure other competing freedoms as found in
the Equality Act and the Counter-Terrorism Act and Security Act
2015 are considered in relation to complaints lodged under the
Free Speech Complaints Scheme
Government amendments 11 to 16.
I thank all Members for their important contributions throughout
the Bill’s consideration. More than two thirds of the world’s
population live in countries where academic freedom is severely
limited. For decades, people have travelled across the globe to
study in the UK because we are one of the few nations in which
free, fair and lawful speech at university is truly valued. It is
no coincidence that the most academically free countries in the
world are also the most socially progressive, the most
democratic, the most peaceful and, of course, the most
prosperous.
Free speech is as fundamental to what academics and students do
on university campuses as it is to what we do in the House.
However, as we saw on Second Reading, the Opposition chose to
deny that there is a problem at all, despite overwhelming
evidence to the contrary. In fact, since we last debated the
Bill, the UK has become the only country in the top tier of
academically free countries to be significantly downgraded by the
academic freedom index. A report published by the Varieties of
Democracy Institute determined that despite the UK’s status as a
historic bastion of academic freedom and scientific excellence,
not only is academic freedom in the UK declining but that decline
appears to be accelerating.
(Gainsborough) (Con)
The Alliance of Pro-Life Students says that more than 70% of
pro-life students face situations in seminars or lectures where
they feel unable to speak openly, and one in three students
surveyed had seen events cancelled due to the no-platforming of
pro-life students and speakers. Will the Minister make it
absolutely clear that whatever people’s views on pro-life issues,
those who take that stance have a right to be heard in our
universities?
I wholeheartedly agree with my right hon. Friend. Of course, they
deserve and have a right to be able to air their views and debate
that subject.
In oral evidence, Dr Arif Ahmed spoke about how his fellow
academics told him that they supported his campaign for free
speech but were concerned that their careers would be impacted if
they aired that publicly. We also heard from Professor Kathleen
Stock, who has been the subject of the most grotesque and
sustained campaign of threats and abuse, which compelled her to
resign. Is it therefore any wonder that, in 2019, a King’s
College London survey found that, chillingly, one in four
students believed that physical violence was justified to shut
down views that they deemed to be hateful?
The following year, a report by Policy Exchange found widespread
self-censorship among university staff, but students and staff
did not need to wait for those damning studies or for oral
evidence to be published to know that there was a problem. The
students forced to self-censor know that there is a problem. The
academics bullied off campus, excluded by colleagues or forced to
censor their lectures know that there is a problem. Legitimate
organisations, speakers and guests who have been no-platformed or
physically and verbally abused on campus know that there is a
problem. It is just the Opposition who have their heads in the
sand.
5.45pm
The Government not only understand that there is a problem—we
have a plan to solve it by requiring providers to not only
protect but promote free speech and academic freedom, by placing
freedom of speech duties directly on student unions and by
introducing effective enforcement mechanisms through the Office
for Students. We all know that a law with no enforcement
mechanisms is toothless. The new director for freedom of speech
and academic freedom on the OfS board will be able to force
improvements and impose penalties, including fines, if the new
duties are breached.
(Rutland and Melton)
(Con)
Will the Minister confirm that the Secretary of State will
maintain the ability to direct the director to further inquiry,
should he have concerns that the OfS is not investigating an
issue suitably?
Of course, we work hand in hand with the OfS and if there were
concerns, we would be able to direct.
We are introducing a new complaint scheme, operated by the OfS,
for students, staff and visiting speakers who have suffered loss
as a result of a breach of those duties. On top of that, we are
introducing a new statutory tort as a legal backstop. The
Government tabled amendments in Committee to ensure that new
strengthened freedom of speech duties apply directly to
constituent colleges of registered higher education providers.
That will ensure that appropriate institutions must comply with
the new duties in universities such as Oxford, Cambridge and
Durham.
(Cambridge) (Lab)
Will the Minister give way?
I will, and then I will make progress.
I am grateful. I am sure the Minister will be aware that
institutions such as the University of Cambridge are concerned
about the extra bureaucracy that may well create—particularly for
commercial partnerships, which are completely unrelated to
freedom of speech issues. Will she clarify what is meant by
“constituent institutions” and the intent in new clause 2? Is she
really putting a general monitoring duty on the OfS to require
pre-emptive reporting?
The hon. Gentleman raises a few points. In new clause 2,
“constituent institutions” mean colleges. It is right that we
should not have a potential loophole in the Bill. When forming
new clause 2, I worked very closely with the university sector,
including the University of Cambridge, so I ask him,
respectfully, to talk to it again.
A number of important issues were raised in Committee. Opposition
Members expressed concerns that the Bill would protect hate
speech on campus. I have been clear throughout the passage of the
Bill and will make the point once again: the Bill is only about
lawful free speech. Let me be clear that this cheap shot has no
actual validity. It is the Opposition’s attempt to discredit the
Bill. It is a strong signal that they are content for an
intolerant minority to silence those they disagree with, content
for academics to feel the need to self-censor, content for
students to miss out on the ability to debate, to critique and to
challenge, and, ultimately, content to stifle debate. The Bill
does not override the existing duties under the Equality Act 2010
regarding harassment and unlawful discrimination, nor the public
sector equality duty and the prevent duty. Nor does it give
anyone the right to be invited to speak at a university.
There were also questions from Members on both sides of the
House, including my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (), on whether junior researchers
and PhD students will be covered as academic staff. That was laid
as an amendment by my right hon. Friend the Member for South
Holland and The Deepings ( ). To clarify, the Bill uses the
term “staff” to broaden the existing reference to employees, as
not all those who work for a higher education provider have an
employment contract or employee status. I can confirm that it
will include those on short-term, casual contracts and PhD
students undertaking teaching.
I now turn to the Government amendments tabled in the name of my
right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. New clause 2 and
Government amendments 13 and 14 will impose a duty on the Office
for Students to monitor the overseas funding of registered higher
education providers and their constituent institutions, so as to
enable it to assess the risk from such funding on freedom of
speech and academic freedom. The duty will include a requirement
to consider this in the context of a finding of a breach of new
section A1 in clause 1. Higher education providers will be
required to supply to the OfS information about overseas funding
from certain individuals and organisations, with the details to
be set out in regulations. The funding will cover not only the
income that providers receive, but that of their constituent
institutions, their members and their staff in their capacity as
such. Similar provision will also apply to student unions. The
OfS must include a summary of the information in its annual
report, along with relevant patterns of concern.
Our amendments are proportionate, but we must ensure that our
higher education system remains world leading, safeguarding an
environment in which freedom of speech and academic freedom can
thrive.
(Sleaford and North
Hykeham) (Con)
The Secretary of State was escorted off the premises by security
following his attendance to give a speech at one of our leading
universities, after he was hassled. That was shameful behaviour,
but that level of security is not available to everyone at all
times. We need not just legislative change but a culture change,
so that we accept that everyone with a different view is not a
bad person and that there is not necessarily a right or wrong
answer. What wider work are the Government are doing to instil
that in younger children before they get to university?
My hon. Friend is right. We need a cultural change, and
legislation of this nature can spur such change. In our schools,
we also need an environment of openness and frankness, and to
grow that throughout the education system. I know that my
colleagues in the Department are looking at this and will provide
further guidance to support teachers shortly.
I know and understand the concerns raised by hon. Members,
including my right hon. Friends the Members for Hereford and
South Herefordshire () and for Chingford and
Woodford Green ( ), and my hon. Friend the
Member for Rutland and Melton (), which is why the
Government are acting on new clause 3. I can confirm explicitly
that the Government amendment will include educational
partnerships, including Confucius institutes, and that the OfS
will be able to impose a wide range of proportionate remedies as
specific conditions of registration. That could include requiring
a provider to make available alternative provision, or even to
terminate a partnership if necessary to protect free speech. We
will ask the OfS and its new director to make it clear that those
are possible remedies in the guidance that will be published.
We of course continue to welcome foreign investment and donations
to higher education as a key part of supporting innovation and
development, but the amendments will increase the transparency of
overseas income by requiring granular data to be reported to the
OfS. Our intention is to proscribe countries for the purpose of
the amendment by mirroring the countries listed in the academic
technology approval scheme, which will exclude countries such as
our NATO and EU allies, as well as countries such as Japan. We
also intend to set a threshold of £75,000 in regulations. Hon.
Members should be assured that in each case the ability to make
provision by way of regulations will allow us the flexibility to
amend as appropriate.
I thank my right hon. Friend for the significant time that she
has invested in speaking to my colleagues and me about this. Can
she confirm clearly that Confucius institutes will fall within
the remit of the organisation she is discussing because of the
grave concerns about their strangulation of freedom of speech and
thought on British campuses?
I can confirm that Confucius institutes fall within the scope of
these proposals, as I have outlined, and I urge all universities
to increase the choice that they provide to students in this
regard.
(Chingford and Woodford
Green) (Con)
Following the intervention by my hon. Friend the Member for
Rutland and Melton (), I wish to be assured on
one point. Do the Government genuinely believe that the Confucius
institutes pose a threat? Other Governments in the free world
have banned the institutes from campuses, not only because they
limit free speech, but because they have been involved in spying
on Chinese students, especially those who show any kind of
disregard for what China does. The institutes are very dangerous,
and the issue goes wider than just the ability to shut down free
speech: they are also reporting back about Chinese students, many
of whom live in fear.
Many countries have worked with their university sectors to
enhance the choice on offer. For the first time, the Bill will
give the OfS the power to act if free speech is in question, so
it is radical in that sense.
(New Forest East) (Con)
I appreciate that the provision is mainly about free speech in UK
universities, but does the Minister share my concern about the
proposed £155 million gift from the billionaire chairwoman of a
Vietnamese company to Linacre College, Oxford, a distinguished
graduate college, on condition that the name of the college is
changed to that of the chairwoman? Her company is extremely close
to the Vietnamese Communist Government, where there is certainly
very little freedom of speech. The Privy Council has to approve
the change. Are the Government taking a view on the matter?
I have recently been alerted to this issue and I am actively
investigating it. I will update my right hon. Friend in coming
days.
Government amendments 3 and 4 and 6 to 10 make provision on the
payment of security costs for events. The amendments place a duty
on higher education providers, colleges and student unions not to
pass on security costs unless in exceptional circumstances to
secure freedom of speech within the law. The Government want to
put an end to the practice of no-platforming by the back door,
raised by many Members in Committee, including my right hon.
Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings.
I said then that I was listening, and the amendments address the
concerns. We have seen reports that a student society faced a
£500 security bill from Bristol University student union to allow
the Israeli ambassador to give a talk, while charging nothing to
allow his Palestinian counterpart to do the same. The Union of
Jewish Students has reported to me that some Jewish societies
have even been billed for security costs for having stalls at
freshers’ fairs. That is outrageous. If a university has a
culture on campus in which security is required for inviting
routine speakers, it has a culture in which intimidation, threats
and violence are seen as acceptable. That does not constitute
promoting free speech. The solution is to stamp that unacceptable
culture out and stop student societies paying the price for those
who break the law.
Government amendment 5 will change the coverage of college
student unions, often called junior and middle common rooms. It
makes it clear that the Bill does cover the activities of JCRs
and MCRs, thereby clarifying the position.
Government amendment 11 will make it clear that the OfS is not
required to make a decision as to the extent to which a free
speech complainant is justified if that complaint is then
withdrawn. Government amendments 12 and 15 set out how
publication under the scheme will work in relation to the more
general publication provisions recently inserted into the Higher
Education and Research Act 2017 by the Skills and Post-16
Education Act 2022. In particular, the Bill provides for absolute
privilege against defamation claims arising from publication of
OfS’s decisions under the complaints scheme, whereas the general
provisions give qualified privilege to other publications. The
absolute privilege matches the approach taken by Parliament to
the complaints scheme run by the Office of the Independent
Adjudicator for Higher Education.
Government amendments 1, 2 and 16 will remove the express
limitation on the definition of academic freedom that it covers
only matters within an academic’s field of expertise. Once again,
the Government have listened carefully to Members who raised
issues in Committee, including my hon. Friend the Member for
Congleton and my right hon. Friend the Member for South Holland
and The Deepings.
The Bill marks the Government delivering on our manifesto pledge,
while listening and strengthening the Bill throughout.
6.00pm
(Warwick and Leamington)
(Lab)
Before I discuss the amendments in my name, I will briefly
reflect on the Bill Committee. Over three weeks, we debated some
80 amendments in a constructive spirit; I commend right hon. and
hon. Members across the Committee who participated and
contributed to what was at times an abstract debate, but an
important one, about academic freedom and freedom of speech.
Since the end of the Committee stage, some 300 days have elapsed
and—nothing. Despite constant speculation about whether the Bill
would fall victim to the Government’s own internal politics, it
is finally on Report. The Opposition welcome that, but if I may
say so, the Bill’s fragmented and bumpy ride through Parliament
is emblematic of what observers widely consider a shoddy piece of
legislation, at best unnecessary and at worst divisive.
I wish to address the amendments in my name—new clause 4, on the
director for freedom of speech and academic freedom; amendment
17, on the scope of academic freedom; amendment 18, which aims to
recognise the competing freedoms in debates around freedom of
speech; new clause 5, our proposed sunset clause; and amendments
19 and 20, which my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham,
Yardley () and I tabled on the
prohibition of non-disclosure agreements—and the Government
amendments.
New clause 4 would ensure that the director for freedom of speech
and academic freedom has not donated, and cannot donate, to a
political party while in post. It would ensure that both Houses
of Parliament and the relevant Select Committee have a say on the
person appointed. It would also provide for the Secretary of
State to set up an independent advisory panel to suggest a
suitable candidate for appointment.
(Twickenham) (LD)
I very much hope that when the Minister responds to new clause 4,
she will acknowledge that the Government’s track record on
appointments has not been strong of late. The High Court has
ruled that the then Health Secretary did not comply with the
public sector equality duty when he appointed the head of a new
public health quango. The chair of the Charity Commission
resigned just days after being confirmed in post. The search for
the chair of Ofcom was rerun after Ministers’ recommendation was
unsuccessful. Does my hon. Friend agree that the checks and
balances in new clause 4 are vital to this important
appointment?
The hon. Member is right. A pattern is clearly emerging, which I
will describe and examine in due course.
Having an Orwellian director for freedom of speech sounds like a
contradiction in terms, but the appointee will certainly have
sweeping powers. They alone will be responsible for making sure
that universities and student unions are upholding their freedom
of speech duties. They will act as judge, jury and executioner in
free speech complaints and will potentially monitor overseas
funding of universities and student unions. As job descriptions
go, it is unprecedented. Incredibly, the job description is
already out there, for anyone who is interested, with a £100,000
salary and a four-year term—I am not sure, Madam Deputy Speaker,
but it could be on your horizon.
New clause 4 should not be necessary, but in the context of this
Government’s record on appointees, it most definitely is. Let us
start at the very top of the tree. In February last year, Lord
Wharton, a Conservative peer, was appointed as chair of the
Office for Students. His appointment was something of a surprise
to many; he himself admitted that he had no experience in the
higher education sector. It seems that the only criterion for his
appointment by this Government was that he had run the Prime
Minister’s leadership campaign.
(Kingston upon Hull West and
Hessle) (Lab)
The standardisation provided by allowing a body such as a Select
Committee to interview a person before appointing them to a role
such as chair of Ofsted is common. The Minister knows that,
because she was on the Education Committee with me when we did
pre-appointment hearings, so it seems a little unusual that
scrutiny is not seen as being as important in this aspect of
education as in other areas.
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We need more process, more
transparency and an honest approach if we are to clean up our
politics. I absolutely believe that that is what I would want any
organisation to have. We must move away from what appears to be
an increasingly transactional approach to these appointments.
In return for his being appointed, Lord Wharton’s company GBMW
Ltd made what is now referred to as a golden thank you for being
handed the job by the Prime Minister: a donation to the
Conservative party of £8,000. That is small change for him, given
that he gets paid £60,000 for just two days’ work per week.
Last month, we discovered that Lord Wharton had chosen to speak
at the Conservative Political Action Conference in Hungary. It
was a sell-out. In his speech, he endorsed Viktor Orbán’s
far-right, autocratic regime—the regime that had forced George
Soros’s Central European University to leave Budapest in 2019. So
much for our champions of academic freedom! He also shared a
platform with Zsolt Bayer, a television talk show host in Hungary
who has been widely denounced for his aggressive racism; his
grotesque comments do not bear repeating in this place.
Despite widespread condemnation from student groups here such as
the Union for Jewish Students, and cross-party calls for the
Government to take action against the chair, it is telling that
Ministers have so far refused to do so. That is important,
because independence, propriety and accountability in public life
absolutely matter. That is the point of new clause 4.
It seems that the politicisation of the Office for Students has
not stopped there. Three months ago, the Secretary of State
appointed Rachel Houchen, the wife of the Tory Tees Valley Mayor
, as a non-executive director
on the board of the Office for Students, despite her having no
direct experience in the higher education sector.
In that context, the comments made in Committee by one of the
Government’s own witnesses, Professor Nigel Biggar, especially
alarmed the Opposition. He agreed that
“the Government…given the legislation…wants a director who has a
certain partiality of that kind.”—[Official Report, Higher
Education (Freedom of Speech) Public Bill Committee, 7 September
2021; c. 22, Q40.]
Even the Government’s own witnesses fear that the appointment
will not be impartial: Dr Arif Ahmed and others made the point
that the person “has to be impartial”.
In Committee, the Minister responded to a series of Opposition
amendments by stating:
“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.”––[Official Report, Higher
Education (Freedom of Speech) Public Bill Committee, 22 September
2021; c. 343.]
Well, clearly not. If the appointments to the OfS are meant to
reassure us that the director will be impartial, they have lost
all credibility. I dare say that the Minister will repeat the
same line today, as she has done—blind to any suggestion of
improvement, not least because this morning her Department
advertised for the position even though the Bill has not even had
its Third Reading.
(South Holland and The Deepings)
(Con)
The hon. Gentleman is right that we had a useful, productive and
positive exchange in Committee. I just want to correct the record
for him because, knowing him well, I know that he would never
mislead the House except inadvertently. Dr Ahmed—Professor Ahmed,
I should say—is an enthusiastic supporter of this legislation and
an enthusiastic supporter of the idea of having someone to
oversee it. What he emphasised in his evidence and subsequently
is that there should be impartiality in the exercise of that
person’s work. This was not, as the hon. Gentleman suggests it
is, about Dr Ahmed in any way questioning either the custom or
practice associated with this legislation.
The right hon. Member was very involved in the Committee, and I
thought that his contributions were robust and helped the debate
along. I do not mean to misrepresent what Professor Arif Ahmed
may have said, and he did say that this should be impartial.
However, it was clear from what was said by Professor Biggar that
that will not be possible if the Government want to do what they
have set out to do. This is the point that I was trying to make,
and if I did not make it clearly I apologise, but I have
certainly tried to put it back on the record now.
(Central Suffolk and North Ipswich) (Con)
Is the shadow Minister suggesting that by previous political
association, someone can never be impartial in any possible
future appointment?
I do not want to suggest that all people come from a position of
partiality, but some are more partial—and overtly partial—than
others. That was the whole point of what I tried to illustrate in
the case of the chair of the Office for Students, who was clearly
appointed according to the preference of the Government at the
very highest level and the Prime Minister. I think that that
surprise appointment, along with the appointment of the board
member with no previous experience, is a further illustration of
just how rabid this has become in our politics.
The issue of impartiality in the appointment process was debated
in detail in Committee. We had a long debate about the job
specification, the requirements, the importance of previous
experience and the need to appoint someone with previous
understanding of legislation and law, and the fact that the
process needs to be impartial. When we appoint the new chair of
Ofsted, we do so not on the basis of whom the Prime Minister of
the day particularly likes, but on the basis of whether that
person has the competencies that the job requires, and that is
the point of our amendment. If such a person is to be appointed,
we need the best person for the job, not the person who is most
popular with the current Prime Minister.
My hon. Friend made some telling and constructive contributions
in Committee, and I entirely agree with her. If we want the best
from any system of higher education and its regulation,
competencies must be at the heart of that.
Have a look through the job description for the director for
freedom of speech, Madam Deputy Speaker. Four or five specified
qualities are sought. It is worth a read, and indeed I am
thinking of possibly putting in for the job. What is most
surprising of all—this arose both in the Bill Committee and
during our witness sessions, as my hon. Friend and others will
doubtless recall—is that despite the overriding impression that,
given the sensitivity and importance involved and given how
delicate some of these cases will become, legal experience would
be a necessity, there is no requirement for that legal expertise.
We must make the process involved in any public appointment much
more robust, but that applies particularly to the appointment to
a position as sensitive and delicate as overseeing freedom of
speech on our campuses.
(Chingford and Woodford
Green) (Con)
The hon. Gentleman just came out with the throwaway line that he
was thinking of applying for the job. Well, good luck to him, but
do his own words not rule him out? If he is a member or supporter
of any political party, he is by definition no longer impartial.
I find that a ludicrous statement, by the way, as I would happily
see members of the Labour party chair things because I would
consider that they would be impartial, but the hon. Gentleman
obviously does not.
Of course it was a throwaway line, but the job does pay £100,000.
Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman has a second job, but I do not,
unlike so many on the Government Benches who may have second
jobs. It goes without saying, in my book, that that person should
resign if he or she is a member of a political party—that a
person in such a sensitive role should be seen to be unalloyed by
association, because perception is so important in this context.
Of course I made that remark in jest, but it does seem to be a
staggering amount of money that the Government are throwing at
this post.
6.15pm
Let me now move on. The sector expects those leading the Office
for Students to be credible. If we really are to have a director
for free speech, a person tasked with the job of settling
contentious cases, it is in all our interests for that person to
have a broad understanding of the sector, the legal framework
around free speech to which I have referred, and the sector’s
regulatory framework, but those elements are apparently not
included in this job description. Such considerations would endow
the director with greater legitimacy and authority, especially if
he or she is to command the confidence of the Select Committee
and both Houses. In short, new clause 4 is a common-sense
amendment prioritising independence, accountability, and
authority over top-down, partisan decision making.
Amendment 17, also tabled in my name, touches on one of the
central tenets of the Bill, namely academic freedom. This can
clearly be a fluid concept that has different meanings for
different people in different contexts. Before I speak to that
amendment, however, I want to address Government amendments 1, 2
and 16, which would remove the words
“and within their field of expertise”
from the definition of academic freedom. Although, both on Second
Reading and in Committee, we expressed our concerns and those of
the sector about how the Bill in its current form would in fact
curtail academic freedom, only now have the Government moved on
this. It is a shame that it took them just shy of 400 days to sit
up and take note. Perhaps that demonstrates not just the disdain
that Ministers show to academics and teaching staff, but their
failure to appreciate the nature of our rightly admired,
polymathic academic environment. Amendment 17, however, gives
Ministers and the Conservative party an opportunity to
demonstrate the extent of their support for academics.
Labour’s second amendment is partly inspired by part VI of the
UNESCO definition of academic freedom. In the UNESCO definition,
the concept of academic freedom is broken down into five parts:
freedom of teaching and discussion, freedom to research and
publish the results thereof, freedom for higher education
teaching staff to express their opinion about the institution or
system in which they work, freedom from institutional censorship,
and freedom to participate in professional or representative
academic bodies.
Let me briefly address the issue of research. Evidence submitted
to the Public Bill Committee, notably by Professor Stephen
Whittle, highlighted instances in which some universities have
blocked research that they deemed too controversial. While such
cases are few and far between—partly owing to the
Government-encouraged marketisation of the sector and the
promotion of students as customers—I see no reason why the
research interests of academics should not be protected under the
definition of academic freedom. That said, academics are
employees of higher education providers, institutions that will
always require an academic to deliver teaching and research that
satisfy the needs of students.
It is also important to link academic freedom to internationally
recognised standards, given the Government’s stated desire to rip
up the Human Rights Act. Before the Minister tabled an amendment
to remove the words
“and within their field of expertise”,
coupled with plans to repeal the Human Rights Act, that would
have left academics less protected than those in Europe. Nothing
can be more important in this Bill than the scope of academic
freedom, and that is why Labour’s amendment is so vital.
Protecting academic freedom goes beyond partisan political lines,
as it provides a solid basis on which academics feel secure
enough to test and challenge perceived wisdom. I urge
Conservative Members to consider the interests of academics, and
to support our amendment this evening.
I now want to turn to amendment 18, which recognises that in many
cases where freedom of speech is called into question there are
competing freedoms at play. It would therefore require the
director to consider the right of students to feel safe, along
with other legal duties of the provider when reaching a decision
about a particular case. The Minister herself acknowledged on
Radio 4 that the Bill emboldens holocaust deniers and other
purveyors of hate speech by giving them the power to make
vexatious complaints against universities. Invariably, there are
competing interests at stake when speakers are invited on to our
campuses.
Freedom of speech is not a trump card. Students also have a right
not to be harassed, a right not to be subjected to hate speech
and, perhaps most importantly, a right to protest. The right for
students to feel safe on campus sometimes requires greater
protection than that afforded to them under the Equality Act,
especially in instances of reprehensible but lawful speech, such
as holocaust denial. Professor Stephen Whittle from Manchester
Metropolitan University acknowledged as much in the Bill
Committee, recognising that the Equality Act would afford
protection only if the speech were directly addressed to the
complainant. That is important because front groups such as Hizb
ut-Tahrir, which is not a proscribed organisation but which often
espouses antisemitic views, could come on to campus under the
guise of freedom of speech. That point was not lost on the
director of the Antisemitism Policy Trust, Danny Stone, who views
it as a “real concern”. In such cases, the right of students—in
this example, Jewish students—to feel safe on campus clearly must
be considered. The Minister’s approach to the sensitive issues
reported in the press overlooks those competing freedoms. It is
perhaps a symptom of the Government’s singular desire to
“create political and cultural dividing lines mainly for”—
their—
“advantage”.
Those are not my words but those of the right hon. Member for
Hereford and South Herefordshire ().
I want to turn briefly to new clause 5. It would introduce a
sunset clause to the Bill, ensuring that it expired after three
years, and provides for clauses to be removed if they are not
working. The new clause does not deny the importance of freedom
of speech or academic freedom, or our commitment on this side of
the House to both. It addresses the flimsy evidence base
underpinning the Bill. Last week at the Higher Education Policy
Institute annual conference, the Minister struggled to provide
concrete evidence to show that there was a freedom of speech
crisis in our universities, other than anecdotes and what she
believed to be true.
You were not even there.
I read every word. I read them with interest.
Only last week, the HEPI student academic experience survey
revealed that a majority of students—64%—either agreed or agreed
strongly with the statement:
“I feel comfortable expressing my viewpoint, even if my peers do
not agree with me”.
Only 14% disagreed.
(Liverpool, Riverside)
(Lab)
Does my hon. Friend agree that the legislation is totally
unnecessary and divisive, with little evidence to support the
Government’s position that there has been a rise in intolerance
and a creeping culture of censorship? The Office for Students’
own data showed that out of 10,000 events with external speakers,
only six were cancelled.
I thank my hon. Friend for her contribution. Yes, there are
issues out there, but that is about the scale of it. That is what
has been uncovered in the surveys and analysis done by the Office
for Students and by others. The scale is being exaggerated by the
Government in order to make this legislation. It would be
nonsensical to ignore shifting attitudes, and new clause 5 would
allow for well-informed public policy guided by evidence rather
than by Ministers’ latest lightning rod of choice.
Our amendments 19 and 20 would ensure that non-disclosure
agreements or confidentiality agreements between those listed in
the Bill and higher education providers did not inhibit freedom
of speech, save where it was expressly agreed to between the
parties to protect intellectual property. I will defer to my hon.
Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley, with whom I have
tabled amendment 19, to explore that further. She is a tireless
campaigner on the issue and I commend her work in bringing it to
the House’s attention on Report. I hope that the Minister, who
has previously stated her commitment to stamp out that practice,
will take on board our suggestions.
Finally, I would like to take this opportunity to push the
Minister on some of the finer points of the Government
amendments. The illegal invasion of Ukraine by Russia has rightly
thrown a spotlight on the source of foreign investment and money
in our public institutions. The misguided “golden era” ushered in
by and in 2015, in which foreign
nation states acquired substantial control over key parts of our
national infrastructure, must come to an end.
The Government’s new clause 2 is much preferable to new clause 1,
tabled by Conservative Back Benchers, particularly on the
risk-based approach of the Government’s suggestion, but I have
some concerns about new clause 2’s practical effect. The Minister
suggests that it is her stated aim to reduce the data burden in
the higher education sector. It is for that reason that I am
interested in ascertaining how the new clause will be both
proportionate and balanced. For example, the threshold at which
providers have to report foreign donations is set to be
determined by the Secretary of State in regulations, so it is
disappointing that once again the Minister seemingly chose to
brief it to The Times that the threshold would be set at
£75,000—as she mentioned earlier—rather than allow the House to
have a meaningful debate on what is appropriate. This is not on
the face of the Bill. Interestingly, when we contrast this to the
reporting threshold in the United States, which is $250,000—just
over the equivalent of £200,000—the Government seem at risk of
disincentivising foreign investment by implementing additional
bureaucratic burdens.
I am also concerned about the scope of new clause 2, and I would
be grateful if the Minister could expand a bit more on what is
meant by “constituent institutions.” How much direct control does
a higher education provider need to have over a constituent
institution for it to fall under the remit of the new clause? For
example, would Cambridge University Press be covered? My hon.
Friend the Member for Cambridge () referred to that earlier.
Relatedly, some of the requirements in the new clause are quite
technical and may require fine judgment. It is likely that the
value of non-monetary benefits—human capital and access to data,
for example—will be difficult to ascertain. Could the Minister
therefore detail what steps she is taking to ensure that
universities are supported in determining the value of the
partnerships they sign?
The Government’s proposal hands the responsibility for the new
clause to the director for freedom of speech, making the
director’s appointment all the more important. This adds further
justification to our new clause 4, and I hope that Conservative
MPs will consider that when they go through the Lobby later.
Given that the regulator has limited prior experience of dealing
with research partnerships or commercial arrangements, what
additional resources will be provided to the OfS to handle this
new responsibility?
Labour has tabled some important amendments in the same manner
and spirit as we did in Committee. Let us remember that we
debated a staggering 80-plus amendments in Committee at that
time—it is a 19-page report—and now we have these few. Such a
number would seem to underline just what a big dog’s breakfast
the legislation is, and I am sure that those in the other place
will spend many an hour realising what poor quality red meat lies
at the bottom of it.
I am grateful to be called to speak so early, Madam Deputy
Speaker. I want to focus my comments on new clause 3, tabled by
my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton () and signed by myself and
others. The issue that I wish to touch on is the behaviour of
some universities with regard to funding from countries that have
the exact opposite view from ours on how freedom of speech should
work. It was suggested earlier that we should be very careful
about trying to insert ourselves into the funding of
universities, but I think to the contrary to some degree, and I
shall raise a case relating to that. I believe that when money is
accepted from countries whose purpose is to undermine the nature
of how we live our lives—including in regards to freedom of
speech—that helps to pervert the processes of the institutions
and universities.
One important question is whether there is a weakness in the Bill
in one particular area, and that is to do with the Confucius
Institute. I do not apologise for naming that particular
organisation, because countries such as Germany, the United
States and others that are quite close to us have already decided
that that institute is not based around learning and academia and
that it is in fact set up for an ulterior purpose, which is
essentially to bully Chinese students in particular, but even
other students, and to report back on the behaviour of many
Chinese students studying in British universities. This has been
evidenced in a number of countries. I would therefore have liked
to see the UK Government, in line with this amendment and
national security, take the power to stop such organisations
where there is clear and compelling evidence that their purpose
is not the stated purpose of delivering Chinese language and
cultural instruction but enabling the Chinese Government to
understand who is saying the right things and who is saying the
wrong things.
To that extent, the Confucius institutes have even inserted
themselves into schools. Many Confucius institutes have developed
strong ties with local schools, and their provision of language
assistance is seen as a very high-value contribution. It starts
early now, and it extends.
6.30pm
(Birmingham, Yardley)
(Lab)
The right hon. Gentleman is educating me. I have similar concerns
in my constituency and across Birmingham. In recent weeks and
months we have seen a huge resettlement of people from Hong Kong,
and I want children to feel completely and utterly safe in their
school environment.
The hon. Lady is right that a lot of Hong Kong citizens have come
to the UK, and I embrace them all. I set up the
Inter-Parliamentary Alliance on China, which has co-chairs on the
left and right from 25 countries and many other members from
Parliaments around the world, all of whom agree that the
Confucius institutes pose a genuine threat. The fear factor means
that many students of Chinese origin will not take part in
debates because they genuinely fear the repercussions for
themselves and their families when they go home. We cannot
overestimate the power of organisations that represent a
Government as intolerant and dictatorial as the Chinese
Government. The UK Government have been slow to act on what is
now clear evidence.
My right hon. Friend the Minister said the Bill will deal with
the situation, and that the Office for Students will be able to
take action where necessary, but I would like the Government to
reserve that power to themselves as they understand the security
issues in this narrow but very particular area.
(East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con)
My right hon. Friend slightly understates the position in
universities. He will be aware that Chinese students now account
for some £2 billion of revenue for British universities, nine of
which, mostly in the Russell Group, get 20% of their revenue from
Chinese students.
There is now clear evidence that, through 30 Confucius institutes
and beyond, undue influence is being exercised by Chinese
students at the behest of China’s communist Government. The CGTN
television station, which was fortunately taken off air by Ofcom,
targeted British universities and offered students the chance to
win thousands of pounds by becoming pro-Beijing social media
influencers. Chinese students turned out to overturn freedom of
speech and other motions in student union debates at China’s
behest. Dangerous stuff is happening under our nose. We need
complete transparency about exactly what is happening, and we
need legislation to make sure it does not continue as it is.
I completely agree with my hon. Friend. He and I are both members
of IPAC, and we have seen all this ourselves. Colleagues on both
sides of the House are involved in IPAC, and there is compelling
evidence of the Chinese Government’s growing influence on British
academia through various organisations. Many do not recognise it.
We have had meetings with Russell Group universities and
individual colleges—I will address one in particular—in which we
have explained this. Many had not really thought about it but, on
reflection, realised there was a problem and that they had to
start diversifying. One or two arrogantly refused point blank to
admit or even accept the situation.
Jesus College, Cambridge has been incredibly deliberate and
arrogant, which is why the Government need to go further. The
Jesus College Global Issues Dialogue Centre received a grant of
£200,000 from the Chinese state in 2018 through its National
Development and Reform Commission. The Jesus College China Centre
also has close financial and organisational links with the
Cambridge China Development Trust, which is funded by the Chinese
state. The CCDT donated £80,000 to the Jesus College China Centre
over three years, and they share the same director. CCDT funding
has been used to fund the Jesus College China Centre’s
doctorships, scholarships, administrative support and
seminars.
Jesus College received £155,000 of funding from Huawei in 2018.
We have banned Huawei from our telecoms system because it is a
security risk, yet it has set up a huge centre in and around
Cambridge. For what purpose? To get in through the back door.
The GIDC’s white paper on global technology governance claimed an
equivalence between the Chinese Government’s mass online
censorship regime and the UK Government’s attempts to eradicate
child abuse online—that is the key. The same paper falsely
claimed that Huawei had freely shared all its intellectual
property on 5G technology, leading the college to be accused of
“reputation laundering.”
To those who say that money does not have an impact, I say, “Oh
yes it does.” When money is repeatedly on offer, it tends to bend
institutions towards the idea of having that extra money. I
understand their concerns and their need for financial support,
but the Government need to take this seriously.
The Chinese Government are committing genocide and using slave
labour to produce goods in Xinjiang, and technology derived from
UK universities is being used to spy on those slave labour camps.
China is also using slave labour in Tibet, and it is imposing
itself and locking up peaceful democracy campaigners in Hong
Kong.
We rightly talk of free speech and the importance of our young
people developing an instinct for argument, debate and balance,
but these are lost to China and Chinese students, who are fearful
when they come here. I accept that the Government think they have
this covered, but I wish they would look again.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton
enormously on tabling new clause 3. If the Bill is not tightened
up to that degree, many of us on the left and the right of
politics will ensure in the other place that these abuses cannot
happen. The lives of Chinese students and Chinese people more
widely remain our responsibility. If freedom of speech is the
subject of our debate, we should cry for how damaged and
destroyed it is elsewhere.
It is an honour to follow the right hon. Member for Chingford and
Woodford Green ( ). I fear that Cambridge
University will not come out well from my speech either.
The debate is about freedom of speech on campus. My hon. Friend
the Member for Liverpool, Riverside () pointed to six
cancellations—in my view, that is six too many—but I am going to
talk about the silencing in non-disclosure agreements, which
thousands of people are suffering from.
We know that the data on violence and abuse, and certainly on
sexual violence, is a tiny fraction of the reality, but even that
data shows that millions of pounds are being spent on this issue.
The amendment tabled in my name and that of my hon. Friend and
near neighbour the Member for Warwick and Leamington (), would stop young men and
women—including university staff—being prevented from speaking
about their experiences on campus. That is what this is all
about, isn’t it? It is about people being able to talk about
their lives, experiences, beliefs and freedoms on campus.
Currently, we are all sitting by while that section of the
community, who may have been raped on campus, bullied, harassed
or racially abused, can be silenced by that very institution and
cannot speak about it at all. I am going to talk about those
people.
Horrendous examples of silencing have been reported in the press.
Brave women have spoken out even though they know the risks.
According to one student, her university imposed a “blanket
gagging order” on her after she alleged she was violently raped
by another undergraduate. The victim claimed she was warned she
would be expelled if she went to the press to report this
violence or to talk about the college procedures. That gives you
a clue as to where some of these people are from, because I said
the word “college”; most other universities do not say that. The
non-disclosure agreement was imposed. Apparently, the college had
tried
“desperately to convince her not to complain”
and she had
“lost count of the members of staff who tried to silence, scare,
threaten and undermine”
her.
According to an investigation by the magazine Elle, a student
alleged she was sexually assaulted and then endured terrible
treatment from the university relating to her claim of violence.
Post-graduation, she complained to the university about how it
had handled her situation. She was eventually offered £1,000
compensation, without any admission of wrongdoing, and with a
non-disclosure agreement to prevent her from talking about it.
The student, exhausted by her experiences, signed the NDA.
Dr Lewis
rose—
rose—
It does not seem very feminist, but I will give way to the right
hon. Gentleman.
Dr Lewis
I have not heard of this case before. Did the student not go to
the police? If she did, what happened?
I almost wish for the right hon. Gentleman’s sake that I had
taken the other intervention. Has he seen the figures on police
rape recording and reporting? In the first instance that I was
talking about, the individual absolutely went to the police. Of
the 66,000 women—I am speaking only about women now; there will
have been more—who came forward and said that they had been raped
last year, a charge will have been faced in about 600 of those
cases; and then look at the number of convictions. Are we
expecting our institutions, our workplaces, our university
institutions not to have a role to play in supporting people when
that has happened? As I am sure the right hon. Gentleman know,
the balance of probability has a different relation to civil law
than criminal law, so the idea that if a woman did not go the
police she should not be allowed to complain to her institution
is not one that I recognise and it is not one that this House
recognised when we set up an independent complaints system.
However, what often gets said to women when they come forward to
their employer, to their institution, is, “Why didn’t you tell
the police?”
6.45pm
I rise to urge the hon. Lady to name the institutions, because
this Bill is about freedom of choice and of speech. I know that
if I were a 17 or 18-year-old girl choosing university again, I
would actively choose not to attend colleges or universities
where I knew they might force an NDA on me if I was raped.
I will absolutely come on to naming some of those institutions.
As I said, this was found by Elle magazine, which is collecting
this data, unlike the Government at the moment. The article said
the student claimed this arrangement felt
“worse than the assault—Dealing with this abuse of power was far
more traumatic. It was emotionally exhausting and
humiliating.”
Earlier this year, the Expresstook a day off from talking about
Princess Diana and its investigation revealed that more than
3,500 cases of assault were reported in 78 institutions in the UK
in the last five years. The figure consists of confirmed cases of
sexual violence and disclosures made by both staff and students
pending investigation. The 135 freedom of information requests
sent to every university in the UK also revealed that many do not
record figures of sexual assaults, so the overall number is
likely to be much higher. So it is, “Just don’t record it and
then it doesn’t happen.”
In 2020, a BBC investigation found that over 300 NDAs were used
by universities in student complaints between 2016 and 2020, and
that almost a third of all universities in England had used such
deals in these circumstances. The probe discovered that
universities had paid out £1.3 million on these deals, although
the true scale is thought to be much larger. The campaign Can’t
Buy My Silence was started by the brilliant and formidable Zelda
Perkins, once an assistant to Harvey Weinstein and someone who
had an NDA imposed on her related to his crimes, and Professor
Julie Macfarlane. Their campaign has survivors’ testimony
reporting that NDAs had gagged them from speaking of their
experiences with family or loved ones, or even their therapists.
I pay tribute to them and the work they are doing alongside the
Minister, whom I know speaks to them. However, like me, they
agree that legislation is necessary to tackle this.
So far, 66 universities have signed the Government’s pledge. I
made this speech on Second Reading and since then the Government
added “looking at non-disclosure agreements” into the violence
against women and girls strategy, which was published late at the
end of last year. I stand here in complete respect for the
Minister. She has sought to do what she can to improve the
situation. She has worked with the campaigns that I have talked
about to get universities signing pledges. She is working with
the Office for Students to look at regulation and at what needs
to happen if these things are breached. Every Member of
Parliament will have had to try to get a regulator to do
something about their bad cases, and we are here with
universities signing “pledges”. I do not know how we are going to
know whether they are breaking their pledge if people have been
gagged.
So far, 66 universities have signed the Government’s pledge. That
is great, but why haven’t the others? I encourage every
university to do this. There are over 130 universities in the UK.
What about those students? What about their right to speak out?
As the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton () pointed out, she would want
to hear about this. I am not going to list all the universities
that have not signed it, but here are some: the University of
Cambridge, King’s College London, the London School of Economics,
the University of Wolverhampton and the University of Sunderland.
That is just to name a few. Perhaps it is taking time and perhaps
they are getting around to it. I very much encourage them to do
it.
Just to show the House what I am talking about, I have an example
here of one of these NDAs. This is the kind of thing that
students are asked to do. It is not necessarily called a
non-disclosure agreement, and that is a way out of this; the
right hon. Member for Basingstoke (Dame ) and I often challenge
organisations when they say they do not have NDAs, because we
have them in our inboxes and they call them something else. They
will call them a “confidentiality agreement”. In lots of cases in
universities we have seen the growth of “no contact
arrangements”.
I will read this agreement out—this is from the university. It
says, “We recognise the sensitive nature of the allegation
involved. In consideration of our duty of care to both parties,
we have therefore concluded that in the interest of both parties
a non-contact arrangement is required.” This young woman who had
been raped was told, exactly as the person accused of raping her
was told, that she had to stay out of certain places; she could
not go to certain things at certain times. She was told that she,
“Is not to enter the building”, that her, “Fob access will be
disabled” and that she is, “Not to enter the building unless for
tutorials and classes notified in advance.” She is told, “Fob
access will be disabled unless we have had advance
notification”—this is a rape victim being told that she has to
report to a guard so that she can go to her classes. She is also
told, “You are asked not to make any information about these
allegations, the police investigation or the safeguarding
arrangements that we have made available on any form of public
media”—so she should not talk about this document. Finally, she
is told, “Evidence of repeated breaches of this arrangement
and/or a serious breach of conditions—entering an embargoed
building or publishing material in the press—will result in your
expulsion.” That is from one of the finest universities in the
world.
This is about people’s silence, but not just their silence; it is
about their movement, their freedom and every element of their
freedom of expression being stopped. Yet there is nothing in the
Bill about freedom of speech, freedom of expression or freedom to
study. There is nothing that the Government are proposing to do
or to put in legislation. I simply do not understand why they
would not have taken this opportunity to do something.
I met the Minister last week and, as I said, I do not doubt her
total and utter commitment. Incidentally, she said earlier that
“legislation of this nature can spur culture change.” Yet she
told me last week that legislation is not always the
answer—[Interruption.] I will take the intervention, by all
means. No? Okay. She also explained to me that the Office for
Students is looking at regulation to, for example, take away the
status of a university if it is guilty of a breach. I
responded—and I say again—that the idea that a rape victim who
has signed a non-disclosure agreement will take down Cambridge
University is the stuff of cinematic hopeful glory. I will
believe that when I see it, which everybody in this building
knows will be never. Why would we want to push universities and
victims into that position? Why would we not legislate to stop
the use of non-disclosure agreements?
(Hayes and Harlington)
(Lab)
I do not want to spoil the flow of my hon. Friend’s incredibly
eloquent speech, but non-disclosure agreements not only apply to
students but are used extensively with staff. When we have
discussed this issue before, the argument has been that there is
sufficient employment law to deal with these matters. There
clearly is not, because it does not reflect the balance of forces
between employer and employee and the delays that take place.
Surely we must legislate to scrap NDAs altogether, and the first
step could be the inclusion of my hon. Friend’s amendment in the
Bill.
I absolutely agree, and the amendment clearly covers staff being
able to talk about their experiences. The Minister cited a member
of staff who felt compelled to leave their employment because of
what the Minister rightly pointed out was bullying. Had that
member of staff signed a non-disclosure agreement, the Minister
would never have been able to talk about them, and nor would that
particular employee of that particular university. We would not
even know what had happened. Had a non-disclosure agreement been
signed in that case, which was, I believe, at the University of
Sussex, the Minister would not have had her helpful example.
I took part in a debate on the television the other day about
freedom of speech. A Government Member of Parliament, who I like
and respect, turned to me and said, “The thing is, Jess, that no
one can be forced to sign a non-disclosure agreement”—I just said
my own name. Is that allowed? I don’t have to refer to myself as
the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley?
Dr Lewis
It was a quote.
Yes, that’s right.
That Government Member said, “You can’t be forced to sign”, but
that is to totally misunderstand the power imbalance. Someone
might have worked hard and be the first in their family to go to
university. They might have studied and done everything they
could, because they wanted to go and make something of
themselves. They might get into an institution that they are
proud to say they are from. The fact that they could be raped on
that campus by another student and complain, but then be
threatened that they will be expelled if they speak out points to
an enormous power imbalance. It is something that this House
should legislate on for the sake of freedom of speech.
I welcome the Minister saying that she will take the proposals
away, listen and perhaps do something in the House of Lords later
in the process, but under this Bill, without our amendments, if a
woman or a man, whether staff or student, is raped on campus,
that person’s freedom of speech will be completely and utterly
denied on campus and outside, and we would do nothing about it.
Freedom of speech surely has to mean freedom of speech for
all.
Benjamin Disraeli said:
“Upon the education of the people…the fate of this country
depends.”
That greatest of Conservative Prime Ministers went on to say:
“A university should be a place of life, of liberty and of
learning.”
However, if the flame of liberty is to burn brightly, and if the
university sector is to be a beacon of learning, we must face up
to the fact that, in many of our universities, freedom of speech
is in jeopardy, censorship is happening as we speak tonight, and
academics and students feel intimidated by that censorship.
We know that from the evidence that the Bill Committee heard from
academics on the frontline of that struggle. The shadow Minister,
the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington (), quoted Professor Arif
Ahmed, who was clear that there is a series of means by which
universities restrict and limit freedom of speech. He said:
“what I mean is universities placing formal obstacles in the way
of people saying things that are perfectly legal.”––[Official
Report, Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Public Bill
Committee, 7 September 2021; c. 13, Q22.]
He went on to say, quoting the Universities and Colleges Union
survey of 2017, that
“35% of academics self-censor”––[Official Report, Higher
Education (Freedom of Speech) Public Bill Committee, 7 September
2021; c. 16, Q27.]
because they are nervous about saying what they truly believe;
the number of students doing so is probably even greater. The
truth is that there is a tyrannical minority in universities,
among the academic staff and in the student body, who do not
believe that universities are places of light, liberty and
learning; instead, they think that universities should limit free
speech.
I find it hard to understand why Opposition Members such as the
hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (), whom I respect greatly, and
the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington, with whom I have—I
was going to say “collaborated”, but that makes me sound rather
like a fifth columnist—co-operated in this place on many
subjects, oppose a Bill designed to reinforce precisely the
freedoms that are essential to an open society. I thought about
that and cogitated on how it could be that such decent and
honourable people—I include the hon. Member for Cambridge () as well—could do this.
In doing so, I should draw the attention of the House to my entry
in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests in respect of
higher education, as I did perpetually and—some people
felt—relentlessly during the previous stages of our consideration
of the Bill. By the way, I stimulated a number of others to do
the same, and I have no doubt that they will want to chip in on a
similar basis this evening.
The conclusion I drew, having thought about it, was that those
decent people on the Labour Benches who certainly believe in free
speech and the exchange of honestly held opinion find that hard
to reconcile with a zeitgeist that is preoccupied with a fear of
causing offence. We are perpetually told now that because we must
not make people feel uncomfortable, we must not offend them. We
in this House know, do we not, that the ability to alarm is
closely associated with the ability to inspire, that the ability
to disturb is intrinsically linked with the ability to enthral,
and that even the capacity to shock is necessary in the
development and exposure of new ideas and fresh thinking?
rose—
Having said such nice things about the hon. Lady, it would be
extremely impolite of me not to give way.
7.00pm
I say to the right hon. Member that, as Bill Committees go, it
was a very enjoyable one. I thank him for being one of the few
Conservative Members who listens to the contributions. On the
point he is making, it is not about disagreeing with this idea of
shocking people or of having different opinions; the fundamental
problem, as I have said repeatedly, is how this piece of
legislation interacts with existing legislation already in place.
How does this interact with equality legislation? How does this
interact with other existing pieces of legislation? My concern is
further developed when I see the person who is making the
decision on how these different pieces of legislation interact
with each other. It is, as has been mentioned—and this is the
reason for new clause 4—somebody appointed by the Prime Minister
of the day, which then leads to all those issues around
impartiality of process. We have a situation here where we have a
piece of legislation that almost buts up against existing
equality legislation, but it is not quite clear how their
processes will rub together, yet there is no specification that
the person making the decisions has to have legal experience or
knowledge; they are instead a political appointment. That is
where we have the difficulty—it is not with freedom of speech,
but with the legislation itself.
At the risk of putting our professional association in jeopardy,
I say to the hon. Lady that I agree with her. I agree that the
Government need to look at the equality legislation. I note the
Attorney General’s recent comments that, as well as unpicking the
Human Rights Act 1998, which we certainly should do without
delay, we need to revisit the Equality Act 2010 and the rest of
the long tail of Blairism. The hon. Lady is right that some of
that unfortunate legislation on the statute book is inhibiting
much of the very good work that the Government are trying to do.
In particular, she is right—this was raised in Committee by me
and others—that the Government need to be very clear that this
legislation can be squared with other statute and, so the means
by which it might be challenged.
I think it might also be worth the Government having a look at
the recent legislation that they have already passed on the
Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 and the issues
around protest and free speech. We could end up with a situation
where free speech is the preserve of students who attend
university, but those outside university will have their free
speech limited unless they are very, very quiet and do not
protest too loudly. We could end up with more conflict, with one
part of the Government saying one thing in terms of restricting
protest, and another part of the Government saying something else
about supporting free speech. It is fair to say that having this
Bill along with existing and proposed legislation will create a
muddle.
We are dealing with a complex subject. Free speech by its very
nature means people saying all kinds of things in all kinds of
ways about all kinds of subjects. The hon. Lady is right that
there will be tensions to be settled, which is precisely why the
Government have put in place mechanisms to do that. They are
going to appoint, as was said earlier, an office with
responsibility for ensuring that this Bill’s intentions and
provisions are applied consistently. The Government acknowledge
the difficulties that she has highlighted, which is precisely why
they are putting in place a person and team to do exactly
that.
rose—
I can see that my right hon. Friend is about to make an erudite
intervention.
Dr Lewis
You can always hope, Mr Deputy Speaker.
Does my right hon. Friend not feel as I do that the interventions
that he has just taken show that perhaps the diminutions on free
speech have already spread into other areas of legislation rather
further than he and I would like them to have done?
I agree entirely, which is precisely why this Bill is so welcome,
but it needs to be part of a bigger programme of work by the
Government to do what I described earlier, which is to unpick
some of the legacy of the dark days of Blairism and the impact
that that has had on all kinds of aspects of our wellbeing. My
hon. Friend is right. This Bill is significant, but modest, so
let it be the beginning of a crusade to establish freedom as the
default position across all our legislative considerations in
exactly the way—with erudition and diligence, matched by
experience—that my right hon. Friend illustrates.
Free speech is complex and, in the words of the hon. Member for
Warwick and Leamington, may be seen as an abstraction, but if it
is an abstraction, it is one that is essential for the wellbeing
of our free society, for it is at the very heart of what an open
society is all about. The ability to say things which, as I said
earlier, alarm, disturb, or even shock, and hear things with
which we disagree is the very nature of what good universities
are all about. I fear that that is jeopardised by some of the
thinking that permeates universities, particularly university
leaders and managers. For example, Professor Ahmed also spoke
of
“issues to do with race, with transgender, and with Israel and
Palestine on which they were simply unwilling to say what they
thought”––[Official Report, Higher Education (Freedom of Speech)
Public Bill Committee, 7 September 2021; c. 13, Q22.]
people fear the consequences of doing so. It is not just those
issues, although those are notable among the list of things that
people now regard as beyond the scope of free and open
debate.
(Penistone and Stocksbridge)
(Con)
My right hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. Does he not
agree that much of the controversy surrounding this Bill comes
from a conflation of physical safety with emotional and
intellectual safety? Although students should have the right to
be physically safe on campus, there is no right to feel safe and,
as he rightly says, universities are the place where we should
feel emotionally and intellectually challenged and, perhaps,
unsafe at times.
Burke said, as you well know, Mr Deputy Speaker:
“He that struggles with us strengthens our nerves, and sharpens
our skill. Our antagonist is our helper.”
Part of developing intellectually and personally, particularly
for young people at university—we should not assume that only
young people go to university—is exactly that. It is being
stimulated, sometimes being excited, sometimes being challenged
and, yes, sometimes being offended. I am often offended in this
Chamber by all kinds of things, and not always things that I hear
from those on the Opposition Benches.
Even if the right hon. Gentleman is offended, he is never
offensive, so I always enjoy debating with him. On the issue of
the need to challenge and to shock, there is always a line to be
drawn somewhere. In Committee we talked about the offensiveness
of holocaust denial. Okay, there is not a physical threat from
holocaust denial, but I think that we would all agree that it is
very offensive and it is therefore very hurtful. A line will
always have to be drawn when it comes to free speech, but we have
the difficulty, which I keep going back to, of who makes the
decision on where that line is drawn—what experience do they
have, what criteria is set, what is their knowledge, and what is
their understanding of the subject. Having the right person at
the top is important. I am sure that the right hon. Member will
accept that, yes, someone might want to offend, to shock or to
stimulate discussion, but there is always a point at which we
say, “No, that is not intellectual stimulation. That is just
offensive and rude and not part of an intellectual debate at
university.”
Yes, but the problem is that that line moves with the times, with
fad and fashion, with what I described earlier as the zeitgeist.
Perhaps the most chilling example of that is the case of Kathleen
Stock. The hon. Lady will remember that Kathleen Stock gave
evidence to the Bill Committee of which she was part. Within a
few weeks, Kathleen Stock was driven out of her job as a
distinguished professor at the University of Sussex by the mob, a
group of students who pursued her and intimidated her and her
family.
Kathleen Stock received scant support from many of her academic
colleagues, although latterly the university authorities claimed
they were supportive, and she was so affected and so damaged by
all that that she ended up leaving the job she loved. I thought
how chilling and ironic that she should have been one of the
people who came to us, as Members of this House, to a Bill
Committee debating this Bill, and yet just weeks later found
herself a victim of the very problem she highlighted and
emphasised in her evidence.
I will move fairly rapidly on to the amendments that stand in my
name, Mr Deputy Speaker, because otherwise you will claim that I
am making a Second Reading speech—and with some just cause.
Dr Lewis
rose—
But before I do so, I will happily give way to my right hon.
Friend.
Dr Lewis
My right hon. Friend is so kind. He has just given a terrible
example at the extreme end of the spectrum of intimidation and
restriction on free speech, but does he share my concern about
the paranoid issuing of so-called trigger warnings or alerts,
which are meant to protect students from hearing anything that
they might find in the least discomfiting or disturbing? How does
that prepare them for going out into the real world, where they
are, whether they like it or not, going to hear things that are
not to their liking? They will be under-prepared for that
terrible ordeal.
Almost every part of the canon of our great literature now seems
to come with a health warning. From “Moby-Dick” to “Jane Eyre”,
we are told that books are desperately dangerous for young people
to read. That this is happening in schools and, amazingly, in
universities is almost beyond belief. Snow has turned to ice:
they are no longer snowflakes, they are in deep freeze, those
people who dare not even read Austen, the Brontës or George
Eliot—of those three, I strongly recommend George Eliot, by the
way, but let us move on before I get into any more literary
considerations.
No, no—Austen!
I thought my right hon. Friend was going to challenge my literary
knowledge, but let us move to the amendments.
The Government have moved a considerable way since we debated the
matter in Committee, and I congratulate and thank my right hon.
Friend the Minister for Universities for her earlier words and
especially for what she has done. She listened carefully in
Committee. Often, when Ministers in Committee say, “I’ll take
that away and think about it.”, we know they are going through
the motions, but not this Minister, any more than I did when I
was a Minister.
I think it is important that Bills metamorphosise through
scrutiny and that Governments listen to argument—including
arguments from those on the Opposition Benches, by the way. When
I was a Minister, I would often go back to my civil servants and
say, “Well, what the shadow Minister said seemed to make a lot of
sense to me. Why aren’t we doing that?”. That is a very effective
way for Ministers to challenge their own officials when they hear
cogent and sensible arguments put from all parts of the House.
That is precisely what this Minister did, and the Government
amendments, on which I will not comment in any detail, reflect
her consideration of the strong arguments that we used to
strengthen this Bill, which she has now done in a number of
respects.
7.15pm
Having said that, I want the Minister to go further. She will
have seen the new clauses and the amendment in my name, and I
will deal with them very briefly. The first deals with the matter
of staff beyond those who are full-time employees of the
university. That point was made by hon. Members across the House,
because the character of employment at universities has changed.
Very often, universities now employ temporary staff, visiting
staff and so on, and it is important that everyone associated
with the university is protected by the provisions of this
legislation. The purpose of new clause 6 is to include,
“any academic staff (however engaged or employed), honorary,
visiting and emeritus academic members”,
and providers of academic expertise.
New clause 7 and amendment 21 deal with exactly the point that
the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle raised:
the relationship between this legislation and the Equality Act.
We received assurances from the Minister about that in Committee,
and I have made further representations to her since then. Of
course, I have no doubt that the upper House, the other place,
will return to those matters, but the hon. Lady is right that it
is important from a legislative perspective that the Bill works
with other statute and that its provisions are not successfully
challenged by recourse to other laws. I hope the Minister might
say a word or two more about that in respect of the new clause
and amendment in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member
for Ipswich ().
In summary, I believe this Bill is an appropriate, apposite and
sensible response to growing concerns in universities about free
speech being inhibited. I am disappointed with the Opposition—I
say that with some distress—that they voted against Second
Reading. I thought they would not as I thought they would try to
improve and amend it. They were caught on the horns of a dilemma,
because in Committee they did just that, and again today I see
amendments, some of which I have some sympathy with, in the name
of the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington and others. Their
amendments are designed to improve the Bill, yet simultaneously
they deny that there is a problem.
The hon. Member for Houghton and Sunderland South () has said that we should
not “pick fights with students”. If we have to pick a fight with
the tyrants among students, then so be it; there are people among
student bodies who do not believe in freedom in the way that most
people in this Chamber do, who want to see that freedom
restricted and inhibited. I am worried that the hon. Lady has
described an emphasis on free speech as a distraction. How can
the advocacy of freedom, how can the pursuit of open debate ever
be a distraction? The Government will not be distracted, and
neither will Conservative Members in our campaign to ensure that,
in the words of Disraeli and Cardinal Newman, universities remain
places of “light, liberty and learning”.
(Hereford and South
Herefordshire) (Con)
I rise to speak to new clause 1, which stands in my name and in
the names of my colleagues, my right hon. and learned Friend the
Member for South Swindon (Sir ) and my right hon. Friends
the Members for Harlow () and for Ashford (). I thank Professor John
Heathershaw and his colleagues at the University of Exeter for
their input.
This Bill is a very serious one, and the issue I raise of
transparency in our universities is a very serious one. It has
been much publicised of late in the newspapers in relation to
some very distinguished and famous universities that have been
alluded to already in this House, and rightly so. It is often
misunderstood or underappreciated in the higher education sector
how important the issue of undue influence and non-transparency
is to the reputation of that sector, which is one of the crown
jewels of our country both economically and culturally.
Universities exercise a wider influence not only over the young
people whom they educate, but more widely in our public life, yet
no standard approach has existed to date for handling foreign
donations. No single standard has been created to allow donations
to be made transparent, to be made public and to be properly
tracked, and, therefore, for students and other donors and the
public at large to understand whether there are pressures of a
financial nature, and if so what pressures there may be, on the
institutions with which they may have to deal.
Instead of this panoply of different approaches and different
thresholds, and this lack of transparency and culture of
non-disclosure, it is important that the Bill addresses those
matters and brings some order to the situation. That is what my
new clause and the other new clauses, which I am delighted to see
have been tabled in a similar spirit, are designed to address. In
my case, the measure is aimed not at any specific country or
individuals, but generally so that there should be a wide
understanding of the lack of transparency and a wider solution to
it. I take my hat off, metaphorically, to the Minister, her
Secretary of State and her officials, because the Government have
substantially accepted my new clause, and indeed—dare I
say?—arguably even improved it in relation, for example, to
politically exposed persons. I thank her and other Ministers for
the very constructive attitude that she and they have taken in
relation to this important issue.
I will make a couple of small points in passing because this is
still a live matter and officials will wish to think about the
implementing regulations. The first is about the enlarged role
for the Office for Students and the need for it to be given a
role that it can dispatch rapidly and effectively as well as
impartially. More widely, I note the essential importance of the
higher education sector and of our universities being zealous in
themselves, as institutions, in preserving freedom of speech and
the culture of a deeper freedom of speech that, as so many
Members have said, they have sought to defend in their treatment
of students and colleagues. That remains vital.
I am delighted to support the Government amendment and withdraw
my new clause 1 as a result.
I rise to speak to new clause 3, but I wish first to welcome the
significant work done by my right hon. Friend the Member for
Hereford and South Herefordshire (), which has had an implication
for that which I sought to achieve, and to touch briefly on new
clause 19, tabled by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley
(), with which I have enormous
sympathy. When you are an alumnus of a university, you have a
great ability, you would hope, to influence it, so I place on
record that if Fitzwilliam College, Cambridge is using NDAs, it
can expect this not to be the last it will hear of it. I will
work with the hon. Lady to call it out if it is doing it, but I
am sure that there is absolutely no way that the place that gave
me an incredible three years would be doing that.
New clause 3 was tabled to solve a series of problems that we
face in our education system. We exist in a state of hybrid
warfare where we do not necessarily know that we are at war.
Indeed, more often than not our enemies do not tell us that we
are at war—the most effective manner to attack us. In this war
they use every possible lever of influence to attack us. It is
naive, sadly, but our universities are failing to accept that
they are being weaponised and used against us in a state of
hybrid warfare. The Chinese Communist party is at war with us,
because between now and 2050 it expects there to be a war between
two world orders—theirs and ours, ours being the one that
believes in the rule of democracy and standing up for freedom of
speech, which this Bill so focuses on. We might not realise that
we are at war, but we are, and for decades now we have failed to
recognise that. It is not enough to say, “Bad Chinese Communist
party—stop doing what you are doing in trying to achieve your
goals and the continuance of your power.” We have to take the
fight to it in terms of standing up for what we believe in,
standing up for our world order, and, most importantly, building
resilience within our system.
That is what my new clause focuses on doing—tackling the
unintentional ignorance, or potentially wilful deceit, of those
who do not recognise the seriousness with which our education
system is under attack. Everyone plays a role in protecting
freedom of speech. That is why I am so grateful to the very many
colleagues who over the past few days have spoken in support of
the new clause and given support on the issue across the House. I
also thank the Department for Education, and particularly the
Minister, who has been in constant dialogue with me and has
adopted the ambitions of the new clause completely. I know that
in coming months we will work together to make sure that we build
the resilience that is needed in the education system.
My new clause particularly seeks to focus on Confucius
institutes, which play an enormous role in the teaching of
Mandarin and all that comes with learning that language—cultural
understanding, historical understanding, debates about the
present day, and debates about the entire concept of the country
and how it feels, breathes, lives and sees itself. We have 30
Confucius institutes in this country. Nowhere else in the world
has anywhere near 30. One might ask why Scotland has the highest
number of Confucius institutes in the entire world. There is a
reason why the Chinese Communist party has chosen to infiltrate
Scottish education and to try to force its own narrative within
those areas. More concerningly, almost all UK Government spending
on Mandarin language teaching in schools, which is £27 million
from 2015 to 2024, goes through Confucius institutes.
Our students and our kids—our under-18s—are being taught Mandarin
by Confucius institutes, which are an arm of the Chinese state.
Confucius institutes are supervised by the Chinese Communist
party through the Ministry of Education. They are not allowed to
hire teachers unless they have been vetted by the Chinese
Communist party. I have recently discovered that Edinburgh
University’s Confucius institute has representatives of the
Chinese Government’s embassy on its board. This is absolutely
outright political intervention. Teachers are not allowed to
cover issues such as Taiwan or Tibet, which are apparently
sensitive. This is deeply concerning. Lancaster University and
Edge Hill University rely on CIs to provide teaching for
undergraduates. We cannot allow a hostile power to capture our
education provision. That is why we need transparency.
I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Hereford and South
Herefordshire because his new clause has allowed us to bring in
the requirement to report when universities take in foreign
funding. These safeguards bring us into line with the US, Germany
and the Netherlands, all of which discourage their universities
from using Confucius institutes or introduce mandatory financial
disclosures, because British students deserve a choice. They
should not be forced to learn a language through the prism and
narrative of a genocidal regime. That is all we are trying to do.
We are not anti-China; we are trying to create resilience within
our system. I am pleased that the Government are taking action
and that under their amendments universities and student unions
will be required to register funding arrangements. The Office for
Students will have the power to force universities to provide
alternative Mandarin education or to terminate Confucius
institutes’ contracts.
I congratulate my hon. Friend on her new clause. I understand
that the Government have moved on the matter, and I congratulate
my right hon. Friend the Minister. However, does my hon. Friend
agree that there is one other element to this, which is that if
the Government are in possession of clear evidence that there is
a threat to the security of the state through interventions by
things such as the Confucius institutes, they should retain the
power for the Secretary of State to deal with that directly
without necessarily going to the Office for Students?
I thank my right hon. Friend, who has been enormously supportive
of the new clause. I agree. I would have preferred to see these
powers sit with the Secretary of State, but the Government are
not willing to give on that. However, they have made it clear—I
challenged the Minister in her opening remarks and she confirmed
this—that the Secretary of State for Education will have the
ability to direct the Office for Students if required.
I would argue that it is impossible for Confucius institutes to
operate in this country without undermining our national
security. They are an instrument of the Chinese Government and
their propaganda wing with one sole goal. It is therefore
critical that the Secretary of State directs the OfS where
needed, and I urge him to regularly review its progress. I
believe that the message going out from this House today is
clear—that we have the power to terminate hostile states’
programmes and we must protect academic freedom.
On next steps, this is about not just building resilience but
offering alternatives. As China’s role on the world stage grows,
we have an amazing emerging pool of talent of Chinese speakers
and China experts. We must provide alternative opportunities for
the learning of Mandarin. I can think of no better way to do that
than through our friends in Taiwan, whose track record in
providing language courses is exemplary. They already work with
our Foreign Office and intelligence services in providing these
language lessons. We must also fund Mandarin education.
I thank the Minister for working with me to adopt these measures
and for safeguarding academic freedom. My new clause provides a
duty on financial disclosures, and it offers an alternative in
the ability to terminate Confucius institutes and the power of
the Secretary of State to direct, but I will not press it to a
vote. We should be proud of British universities and proud to
stand up for liberty and academic freedom. Without academic
freedom, there is no open dialogue; without dialogue, there can
only be division. It is important we use this Bill as the first
step in sending a clear message to the entire education sector
and the Chinese Communist party that we will not give them a back
door to undermine our country and our national security through
our universities.
7.30pm
(Penistone and Stocksbridge)
(Con)
Unlike all the other speakers in this debate, I was not on the
Bill Committee, which is a shame, because it sounds like it was
very lively, and I have not tabled my own amendment. I rise
instead to speak in support of Government amendments 1 to 4, 6 to
10 and 16. I am absolutely delighted that this Higher Education
(Freedom of Speech) Bill was carried over from the last
Parliament.
We have heard today that over the past few years, there has been
a growing and concerning trend to stifle free speech on UK
university campuses. Since this Bill was published last year, we
have seen: the attempt to shut down and harass the Israeli
ambassador at Cambridge University; the vicious and, as we have
heard, ultimately successful campaign to remove Professor
Kathleen Stock from her post at Sussex; and, just last month, the
efforts of an angry mob to silence my right hon. Friend the
Secretary of State for Education at Warwick
University It is no wonder that he has prioritised the
return of the Bill.
(Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the hon. Lady for the stance she has taken in this House
and in every role of her life. She will probably be aware of a
petition signed by 15,000-plus organised by the Society for the
Protection of Unborn Children. It supports the Bill because it
gives its members the freedom that they do not have. She will be
aware of calls for pro-life students to be given a voice.
Pro-life students are often the recipients of that
discrimination. Does she agree that freedom of speech must be
upheld for all students, and especially those who take a pro-life
position and stance?
I absolutely agree with the hon. Gentleman. The belief that human
life starts at conception is a scientifically valid belief, and
one that I hold myself. Students and staff should absolutely be
protected in reflecting that view. He leads me on to my next
point, which is that for every high-profile case we have
discussed in the House today, many more never make the headlines.
Underneath these incidents lies a culture where students and
academics alike are becoming afraid to discuss and share their
views. Last October, the University and College Union published a
report showing that 35% of UK academics had undertaken
self-censorship for fear of negative repercussions, such as the
loss of privileges, demotion or even physical harm. The report’s
authors commented:
“Self-censorship at this level appears to make a mockery of any
pretence by universities of being paragons of free speech and…the
pursuit of knowledge and academic freedom.”
The evidence is clear: free speech and academic freedoms in our
universities are under threat, so I welcome the Government
amendments that will strengthen the Bill further. Amendments 1, 2
and 16 extend protections to academics by removing the express
limitation that academic freedom covers only matters within an
academic’s field of expertise. They are important: first, because
in many disciplines it would be hard to define exactly where the
boundaries of a particular field lie; and secondly, because it is
right to recognise that research and ideas do not exist in silos.
There are obvious crossovers, for example, between science and
ethics, politics and economics, philosophy and history. We need
our greatest minds to be free to write, to speak and to conduct
research in an unrestricted way for the benefit of our whole
society.
As ever, my hon. Friend is making a compelling case. University
authorities are often either complicit in this, or in denial. The
Bill will send a signal to them that it is simply not good enough
to brush the attacks on freedom under the carpet. I hope that she
will press the Government to go still further, as I have done, in
ensuring that the Bill has all the provisions needed to ensure
that freedom is maintained.
My right hon. Friend is right: this Bill is an important marker
for universities, which will be forced to recognise that these
are not specific isolated issues, but that there is a culture
change that needs to be addressed across our whole country. We
are also seeing it in other countries in the world, particularly
America.
I support the amendments to remove the restriction on field of
expertise, and I also support Government amendments 3, 4 and 6 to
10, which will ensure that higher education providers cannot
require visiting speakers or hosting bodies to bear some or all
of the costs of security. This will prevent no-platforming by the
back door. As my right hon. Friend the Minister has already said,
if universities have a physical safety and security issue on
campus, they should urgently address the root of that.
On safety, amendment 18, in the name of the hon. Member for
Warwick and Leamington (), would compel the Office for
Students, when considering a free speech complaint, to be mindful
of the right of students to feel safe on university campuses. I
have no doubt that the amendment is well meant, and I listened
carefully to his arguments, but I fear that it would further
embed the culture and attitudes that have led to the chilling
effect on free speech and that have made this Bill necessary.
In the amendment, as on campus, we see the conflation of physical
safety with intellectual and emotional comfort. Students should
of course be physically safe, and higher education institutions
have a duty to follow health and safety law, like all other
organisations, but I suspect that is not what the amendment is
getting at. Universities should absolutely not be cultivating an
atmosphere on campus where students believe they are or should be
free from emotional and intellectual discomfort. Just as our
bodies must go through training, challenge and discomfort to
become physically fit, so our minds must experience challenge,
discomfort and sometimes even offence to become stronger, more
resilient and more wise.
In the recent book, “The Coddling of the American Mind”, the
authors describe “anti-fragility”, the idea that young people’s
brains must be exposed to challenges and stresses, or they will
fail to mature into strong and capable adults able to engage
productively with people and ideas that challenge their beliefs.
Nowhere is it more important to understand the concept of
anti-fragility than in our universities, where institutions are
cultivating minds that will become the thought leaders of
tomorrow. Since our universities act as an incubator for wider
public culture, we will fail to uphold freedom of debate in this
country if we fail to uphold it on campus.
Freedom of speech is the bedrock of democracy. As a recent New
York Times editorial put it:
“Ideas that go unchallenged by opposing views risk becoming weak
and brittle rather than being strengthened by tough
scrutiny.”
We saw the impact of that cancel culture in political and social
debate during covid, where damaging, un-evidenced, ineffective
and wasteful policies went unchallenged. If we value the kind of
rigorous debate that upholds democracy and ensures the best
policies are produced, we must not allow this concept creep of
the term “safety” on campus.
Despite levelling up, Brexit and enormous economic challenges,
this is possibly one of the most important Bills making its way
through Parliament, because our ability to unite and level up in
this country is threatened by the culture on campus. The starkest
division in British society—not only in voting behaviour, but in
social values—is between graduates and non-graduates. The trend
towards a homogenous worldview in our higher education
institutions is exacerbating this division. Instead, we need our
universities to be places where it is the norm for competing
ideas to co-exist and to be openly interrogated and challenged by
evidence.
I want to challenge the idea that university students will all be
walking like lemmings into the light unless we do something about
it. At my university, the right hon. , who was then a Labour MP, was
banned from the student union—I forget why. He was the only
person it banned, and I walked through that door past the plaque
banning him, and I am a Labour MP now. I think the students are
probably going to cope with some of this.
I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention. She gave a passionate
speech, and I fully support the many things she is doing to
uphold women’s rights, but this is needlessly being made a
left/right issue. Many of the incidents we have talked about
today are about those on the right being cancelled, but it is
much wider than that.
I have been cancelled many times.
I am very sorry to hear it. The hon. Lady absolutely should not
be. What I am trying to say is that this is a much wider issue
than the particular incidents that have made the headlines, and
some deeper culture changes need to take place. That will take
time, and we need to do a lot in schools as well.
I very much support the Bill. Hopefully it can narrow the divide
that we see in society. I very much support the Government
amendments, which will do a lot to protect freedom of speech.
With the leave of the House, I will speak on the non-Government
amendments. New clause 1 seeks to improve transparency,
especially in relation to foreign donations, and new clause 3
would place a duty on higher education providers as part of the
promote duty to report information about foreign language,
culture and exchange programmes and courses to the Office for
Students and the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State would
then be empowered to direct them to terminate the partnership or
offer an equivalent if there were concerns about freedom of
speech.
My hon. Friends are absolutely right to promote the importance of
transparency of overseas financial arrangements, and we agree,
which is why Government new clause 2 addresses those concerns.
New clause 2 also requires the reporting of funding from certain
overseas educational partnerships, including Confucius
institutes, which addresses new clause 1 and the first part of
new clause 3.
New clause 3 would have unintended consequences and place an
unnecessary burden on the sector. Under new clause 2, there would
be a financial threshold and countries such as NATO allies would
be exempt. New clause 3 has no exemptions, which would mean that
every single kind of partnership would be covered from the Turing
scheme and third-year language students studying abroad with
partner universities to important international research exchange
programmes. The burden on providers to deal with that information
would be disproportionate and would stifle the ability of our
world-class universities to work with global partners on
important research programmes.
The Government take the concern regarding foreign interference
extremely seriously, however, which is why we developed a
cross-Government programme of work to counter those threats, and
we are continuing to work with providers to help them to
understand the threats and respond. Government new clause 2 will
help us to do that, and the Office for Students could utilise a
range of enforcement powers to issue fines, close programmes such
as Confucius institutes, or mandate universities to offer
alternatives to students if that was necessary to secure free
speech. As I said, however, new clause 3 would have unintended
consequences.
Amendments 19 and 20 would provide that a non-disclosure or
confidentiality agreement with the governing body of a provider
did not mean that members, staff or students and visiting
speakers could not speak freely. I stress that I fully support
the spirit of this amendment; it is almost unimaginable to think
of anything worse than suffering sexual assault and then being
pressurised into being silent. I have been very vocal about the
fact that our universities should never use NDAs to silence
victims of sexual harassment, which is why I launched a pledge in
January to end the use of NDAs. Some 66 universities are now
signed up, 62 of which are in England, and three Oxford
colleges.
We have a long way to go, which is why I am constantly talking to
universities and working with Can’t Buy My Silence to call out
those who have as yet failed to sign the pledge, but I know that
a number will sign imminently. When it comes to the use of NDAs
and sexual assault, the higher education sector has an
opportunity to lead the way and show others what can be done.
We have also asked the Office for Students to impose a binding
condition of registration on universities to ensure that they
properly tackle sexual misconduct, which we intend to deal with
that sort of behaviour. This would have teeth and it would mean
that universities could be fined up to half a million pounds;
they could even lose their degree-awarding powers. The
ramifications would be big, and it would mean that the lawyers
who developed those NDAs would be breaching the registration
condition by doing so. We are the first Government who are
prepared to tackle this issue, and I shall continue discussing
with colleagues on both sides of the House all the ways in which
we can tackle sexual harassment in universities, because that
issue is very important to me and we will be doing more.
Amendment 17, which would widen the definition of academic
freedom, is not necessary, because all the proposed new
paragraphs are already covered by Government amendment 1, which
will remove the requirement for academic freedom to be within an
academic’s field of expertise. New clause 6 would add a new
definition of academic staff, which I outlined in my opening
speech.
New clause 7 and amendment 21 would change the definition of
harassment in the Equality Act 2010 and under the Bill. I fully
agree that there are occasions when universities have misapplied
the Equality Act and have relied on it to wrongly shut down
lawful free speech. There is both a subjective and an objective
element as to whether harassment has taken place, and that should
not be based on the views of just the complainant. Indeed, we saw
a case last week where the University of Essex had to amend its
policies following welcome pressure from the Free Speech Union. I
assure hon. Members that once the Bill has passed, the new
director of the Office for Students will ensure that providers
are complying with the Equality Act as it is written, rather than
overreaching.
I am grateful that my right hon. Friend is addressing the
amendment that stands in my name and that of my hon. Friend the
Member for Ipswich (). Part of the problem is that
universities are drawing up policies for dealing with complaints
about free speech and its protection that are themselves faulty;
they are often based on advice from individuals and organisations
that have a skewed view about the relationship between free
speech and the Equality Act. Will she look at those policies and
their sources, and the advice that universities are
receiving?
My right hon. Friend is correct. As I said, some universities
have misinterpreted the Equality Act, which is why comprehensive
guidance will be produced by the new director that will be the
main source that they should refer to, rather than external
agencies.
On the point about advice, we are dealing with what has obviously
become a contentious issue that often relies on subjective
judgments. The advice that universities will take will come from
the director for freedom of speech and academic freedom. Does it
not behove the House to ensure that that person has the absolute
confidence of those universities? New clause 4 simply says that
that person will not be associated with a political party and
will be appointed by an independent panel, and that a Select
Committee will have a role in confirming that appointment. That
will hopefully take the director who provides such sensitive
advice out of the political melee and give universities more
confidence in them.
If the right hon. Gentleman will allow me, I will get to that
point later; he may intervene again if he is not satisfied with
the response.
Amendment 18 would require the Office for Students, when
considering a complaint, to be mindful of the right of students
to feel safe on campus, and of other legal duties such as those
under the Equality Act 2010 and the Prevent duty. But the duty in
the Bill to take “reasonably practicable” steps to secure freedom
of speech and academic freedom will allow for relevant
considerations to be taken into account. In particular, it will
allow for other legal duties, such as those under the Equality
Act and the Prevent duty, to be considered.
“Reasonably practicable” is a commonly understood term used
across the statute book. It means that the relevant body can take
into account all the other legal duties on a case by case basis.
If another legal duty requires or gives rise to certain action,
it would not be reasonably practicable to override that. As for
the Office for Students, it will be required to take into account
all the relevant facts. It would not be appropriate to try to set
out all the considerations that it should take into account, so
the Government do not support the amendment.
New clause 4 concerns the appointment of the director for freedom
of speech and academic freedom to the board of the Office for
Students. It relates to the appointee giving a donation to a
political party, and it would require the appointment to be made
by an independent advisory panel. We have in this country a
robust public appointments process that, rightly, does not bar
people who are members of political parties from serving in such
roles.
The Commissioner for Public Appointments sets out that every year
numerous public appointments are made of individuals who declare
political activity, and in many years more appointees have
declared an affiliation to the Labour party than to the
Conservative party. This rule is such that, if applied generally,
it would have prevented individuals such as , and from serving.
On who will appoint the director, this will be carried out in the
same way that the other members of the Office for Students board
are appointed under the Higher Education and Research Act 2017—by
the Secretary of State—and this will of course be done in
accordance with the public appointments process. It would not be
consistent to treat the director under this Bill differently. The
Government therefore do not support this amendment.
As this now goes to the other place, could I just ask the
Minister to think again on that particular issue? This is an
incredibly contentious area, and it requires someone who is above
any form of suspicion of party political linkages. More
importantly, it requires someone who has the confidence of an
independent panel, but also, I believe, of one of our Select
Committees. I urge her to think again, at least about the
appointments process and the engagement of a confirmatory vote by
a Select Committee on this critically important post, which I
think is so important that the legislation will stand or fall on
this appointment.
I am a little taken aback by the comments of the right hon.
Member, who refers to the relationship between political parties
as suspicious—quite something given that we are all related to
political parties. The Government will not be thinking again on
that one.
New clause 5 would introduce a sunset clause, meaning that unless
a report is made to Parliament and regulations are made, the
legislation would expire three years after the date of enactment,
and it would give Ministers the power to discontinue provisions
in the Bill after one year. The fact that the Opposition have
tabled this amendment demonstrates very clearly that, whatever
they say, Labour Members do not support free speech. They have
consistently opposed the need for this Bill despite the very
clear evidence, and they now are seeking to dismantle it before
it has even started. The Government wholeheartedly oppose this
amendment, and we will never falter in our determination to
safeguard free speech.
With the assurances I have given, I hope Members will not press
their amendments to a vote, and I commend this Bill to the
House.
Question put and agreed to.
New clause 2 accordingly read a Second time, and added to the
Bill.
New Clause 4
Appointment of the Director for Freedom of Speech and Academic
Freedom
“(1) A person may not be appointed as the Director for Freedom of
Speech and Academic Freedom (‘Director’) if the person has at any
time within the last three years made a donation to a political
party registered under the Political Parties, Elections and
Referendums Act 2000.
(2) The person appointed as the Director may not whilst in office
make any donation to a political party registered under the
Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000.
(3) The appointment for the Director shall be made by an
independent advisory panel to be established by regulations made
by the Secretary of State.
(4) The appointment of the Director for Freedom of Speech and
Academic Freedom shall be subject to a confirmatory resolution of
the relevant Select Committee of the House of Commons.
(5) A statutory instrument containing regulations under
subsection (3) may not be made unless a draft of the instrument
has been laid before and approved by resolution of each House of
Parliament.”—(.)
This new clause would ensure that the Director of Freedom of
Speech and Academic Freedom has not and cannot whilst in office
donate to a political party and ensure they are only appointed
subject to confirmation of an independent advisory panel, the
Select Committee of the House of Commons and a resolution of each
House of Parliament.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
[Division 11
The House divided:
Ayes
150
Noes
282
Question accordingly negatived.
Held on 13 June 2022 at
7.52pm](/Commons/2022-06-13/division/6858FCEB-EDDD-4727-B513-CEF2F6D10669/CommonsChamber?outputType=Names)
Clause 1
Duties of registered higher education providers
Amendment made: 1, page 2, line 11, leave out “and within their
field of expertise”—(.)
This amendment removes the express limitation that academic
freedom covers only matters within an academic’s field of
expertise.
Amendment proposed: 17, page 2, line 14, at end insert—
“(c) to conduct research,
(d) to engage in intellectual inquiry and contribute to public
debate,
(e) to criticise any institution,
(f) to be affiliated to any institution, and
(g) to be a member of a trade union body,”—(.)
This amendment would widen the definition of academic
freedom.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
[Division 12
The House divided:
Ayes
152
Noes
284
Question accordingly negatived.
Held on 13 June 2022 at
8.06pm](/Commons/2022-06-13/division/CCEBAA82-6B57-42C0-85D2-EE1857E37DF5/CommonsChamber?outputType=Names)
Amendments made: 2, page 2, line 28, leave out
“and within their field of expertise”.
See explanatory statement for Amendment 1.
Amendment 3, page 2, line 29, at end insert—
‘(9A) In order to achieve the objective in subsection (2), the
governing body of a registered higher education provider must
secure that, apart from in exceptional circumstances, use of its
premises by any individual or body is not on terms that require
the individual or body to bear some or all of the costs of
security relating to their use of the premises.’
This amendment would place a new duty on governing bodies of
registered higher education providers to secure freedom of speech
for certain persons by requiring such providers to secure that
use of its premises is not conditional on requiring the person
wishing to use them to bear the costs of security - unless there
are exceptional circumstances.
Amendment 4, page 2, line 39, leave out “duty in section A1(1)”
and insert
“duties in section A1(1) and (9A)”
This amendment is consequential on the changes made by Amendments
3 and 6.
Amendment 5, page 2, line 46, after “provider” insert
“and any students’ union for students at the provider”.
The duties on registered higher education providers and
constituent colleges to secure freedom of speech extends to
taking steps as regards the activities of its students’ unions
(which will include JCRs and MCRs of colleges). Expanding the
matters which must be included in the code of practice is to
reinforce this.
Amendment 6, page 3, line 9, at end insert
“(which must include its criteria for determining whether there
are exceptional circumstances for the purposes of section
A1(9A)).”—(.)
This amendment requires the code of practice maintained by a
registered higher education provider to set out the provider’s
criteria for deciding whether there are “exceptional
circumstances” which will enable it to require a person wishing
to use its premises to bear the costs of security.
Clause 3
Duties of Student Unions
Amendments made: 7, page 4, line 36, at end insert—
‘(4A) In order to achieve the objective in subsection (2), a
students’ union for students at a registered higher education
provider that is eligible for financial support must secure that,
apart from in exceptional circumstances, use by any individual or
body of premises occupied by the students’ union is not on terms
that require the individual or body to bear some or all of the
costs of security relating to their use of the premises.’.
This amendment would place a new duty on certain students’ unions
to secure freedom of speech for certain persons by requiring the
students’ unions to secure that use of premises is not
conditional on requiring the person wishing to use them to bear
the costs of security - unless there are exceptional
circumstances.
Amendment 8, page 5, line 13, leave out “duty” and insert
“duties”.
This amendment is consequential on the changes made by Amendments
7 and 10.
Amendment 9, page 5, line 32, leave out
“duty in section A5 is”
and insert
“duties in section A5 are”.
This amendment is consequential on the changes made by Amendments
7 and 10.
Amendment 10, page 5, line 33, at end insert
“(which must include its criteria for determining whether there
are exceptional circumstances for the purposes of section
A5(4A)).”—(.)
This amendment requires the code of practice maintained by a
students’ union to set out the union’s criteria for deciding
whether there are “exceptional circumstances” which will enable
it to require a person wishing to use its premises to bear the
costs of security.
Clause 8
Complaints Scheme
Amendments made: 11, page 10, line 22, after “complaint”
insert
“which is referred under the scheme and not withdrawn”.
This amendment is to make it clear that the scheme can provide
for complaints to be withdrawn and that the OfS is not required
to make a decision about a withdrawn complaint.
Amendment 12, page 11, line 34, after “publication” insert “under
section 67A”.—(.)
This makes it clear which power the OfS is acting under when it
publishes information covered by this paragraph.
Clause 9
Director for Freedom of Speech and Academic Freedom
Amendment made: 13, page 12, leave out lines 17 to 21 and
insert—
“(b) its functions under sections 69A to 69E and Schedule
6A.”—(.)
This amendment gives the Director for Freedom of Speech and
Academic Function responsibility for oversight of the functions
conferred on the OfS by the proposed new clause relating to
overseas funding.
Clause 12
Commencement
Amendment made: 14, page 12, line 36, at end insert—
“(aa) section [overseas funding], so far as is necessary for
enabling the exercise on or after the day on which this Act is
passed of the powers to make regulations conferred by section 69D
of the Higher Education and Research Act 2017 (inserted by
section [overseas funding]);”—(.)
This amendment allows the regulation-making powers conferred by
the proposed new clause relating to overseas funding to come into
force on Royal Assent.
Schedule
Minor and Consequential Amendments
Amendments made: 15, page 14, line 23, at end insert—
‘4A (1) Section 67B (publication of decision to conduct or
terminate investigation) is amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (3), for “Section 67C does not apply”
substitute “Neither section 67C nor paragraph 13 of Schedule 6A
applies”.
(3) After subsection (3) insert—
(3A) In the application of this section to publication of a
decision under the scheme provided by virtue of Schedule 6A (free
speech complaints scheme)—
(a) references to an investigation (however expressed) are to a
review of a free speech complaint under the scheme;
(b) for the purposes of subsection (2)(a), the OfS terminates an
investigation without making a finding if it—
(a) (i) does not make a decision as to whether a free speech
complaint is justified because the complaint is withdrawn, or
(ii) dismisses a free speech complaint without considering its
merits;
(d) for the purposes of subsection (2)(b), the findings of an
investigation do not result in the OfS taking any further action
only where—
(i) the OfS decide that a complaint is wholly not justified,
or
(ii) the OfS decide that a complaint is justified (wholly or
partly) but do not make any recommendations about the person
about which the complaint is made.”
4B In section 67C (protection for defamation claims) after
subsection (2) insert—
“(3) This section does not apply to the publication of—
(a) a decision or recommendation made by the OfS under the scheme
provided by virtue of Schedule 6A, or
(b) a report under paragraph 12(1)(b) of that Schedule.
(See instead paragraph 13 of Schedule 6A.)’.
Section 67C of the Higher Education and Research Act 2017
(inserted by the Skills and Post-16 Education Act 2022) provides
for qualified privilege to defamation claims arising from
publication by the OfS of decisions etc. The free speech
complaints scheme inserted into the 2017 Act by the Bill provides
for absolute privilege for defamation claims arising from
publication of OfS decisions etc under the scheme. This amendment
modifies the application of section 67B so it is clear how it
applies in the context of the free speech complaints scheme and
removes the overlap between section 67C and the provisions of
Schedule 6A by providing that section 67C does not apply to
decisions etc under the free speech complaints scheme.
Amendment 16, page 16, line 25, leave out
“and within their field of expertise”.—(.)
See explanatory statement for Amendment 1.
Third Reading
8.17pm
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
I would like to take the opportunity to acknowledge all who have
contributed to the Bill’s passage. The nature of the problem and
the intensity of those opposed to academic freedom has made even
acknowledging the issue an incredibly brave act in many cases. I
thank the many right hon. and hon. Members who have raised the
issue and contributed to the discussion over the years. In
particular, my right hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and
The Deepings ( ) and my hon. Friends the Members
for Congleton () and for Penistone and
Stocksbridge () have played an important
part in scrutinising and strengthening the Bill. I thank my right
hon. Friends the Members for Hereford and South Herefordshire
(), for Harlow () and for Chingford and
Woodford Green ( ), my hon. Friend the
Member for Rutland and Melton () and others for raising the
important subject of international donations transparency. I also
thank the research institutes and think-tanks who have shone a
spotlight on the scale of the problem, such as Policy Exchange,
Legatum and the policy institute at King’s College London.
Together with the support of the Russell Group, Universities UK
and other sector organisations, we on the Government side have
been able not only to understand the scale of the problem but to
shape the solution.
I was personally moved by much of the oral evidence given in the
Public Bill Committee, so I struggle to understand how the
Opposition sat there, heard that and yet still failed to back
this robust action. Individual academics, such as Professor
Kathleen Stock, Professor Nigel Biggar and Dr Arif Ahmed, have
also played a fundamental role, raising awareness of the problem
and advocating for change, sometimes at significant cost to
themselves.
Members from across the House made valuable contributions during
the debate and during the passage of the Bill. Some, in fact,
highlighted areas of good practice in our universities. Despite
pressure to limit free speech, in April Reading University
vice-chancellor Robert Van de Noort published a strong,
principled defence of academic freedom and freedom of speech that
echoed many of the issues the Bill intends to address. The
University of Cambridge rightly rejected proposed guidelines that
all opinions must conform to the requirement of being
“respectful”. Frankly, that would have been absurd.
However, that type of good practice is not always representative
of the sector. As just one example, the high rates of
self-censorship that numerous surveys and studies have documented
show that the problem is widespread. The very nature of
self-censorship means that the actual rates are likely to be much
higher than reported. Students arriving at university today join
an environment where one in four of their peers believe physical
violence is justified to shut down views they deem to be hateful.
We see that some are too ready to levy the charge of “hateful” at
any view they disagree with. Staff are teaching at universities
at a time when 200 of their colleagues recently reported
receiving death threats and abuse with no support from their
universities.
The UK has become the only country in the top tier of
academically free countries to be significantly downgraded by the
Academic Freedom Index. We are now ranked 63rd in the world. This
is at a time when a university professor expressed lawful
opinions and ended up needing police protection to visit a
university campus. That is the culture that has been embedded in
too many of our universities. It is not about lawful, peaceful
protest, which of course should be celebrated; it is about a
culture in which a small number of students and academics believe
they have the right to act with impunity to harass, intimidate
and threaten those whose views they disagree with until they are
silenced and driven out. Again and again we have seen that
occurring, while university authorities stand by and do nothing.
No individual should have to fear for their personal safety, or
rely on the good will of their colleagues to go about their job
safely.
We will not let that continue, so we are taking action and
delivering on our manifesto commitment, unlike the Opposition who
continue to bury their heads in the sand. Madam Deputy Speaker,
indulge me for a moment. Let me remind Opposition Members of some
of the comments they have made during the passage of the Bill.
One said there was:
“no evidence…of a free speech crisis”. —[Official Report, 12 July
2021; Vol. 699, c. 114.]
Others said it was
“tackling a problem that does not really exist.”—[Official
Report, 12 July 2021; Vol. 699, c. 106.]
and that the legislation is “not necessary” and “manufacturing a
problem”. Even the shadow higher education Minister called this a
“virtually non-existent problem”. But I fail to believe that the
Opposition do not recognise the wealth of evidence that they,
too, have heard and seen. It is time that they were honest: they
are simply anti-free speech.
This Government will always stand up for free speech, which is
why our Bill confirms that it is not acceptable for students,
staff or visiting speakers to fear repercussions for exercising
their right to lawful freedom of speech and academic freedom. The
Bill will also ensure that individuals have routes to redress if
their rights are not secured due to breaches of the duties placed
on higher education providers and student unions. Under the
existing legislative framework, those clear routes of redress do
not exist. They are essential to ensure that freedom of speech
and academic freedom are protected to the fullest extent. The
Bill is about changing the wider culture on university campuses
so that everyone has an equal right to be heard and peacefully
challenged. That should be done with tolerance of different
opinions and in a constructive way. It does not grant any
protection to unlawful speech.
Whether some Members realise it or not, change is needed. As we
have seen historically on issues such as gender equality, race
discrimination and human rights, such cultural change occurs more
readily when backed up by appropriate legislation. At present, we
have a duty without proper means of enforcement. The Bill is
therefore a vital piece of legislation that will lead to the
cultural change necessary to tackle the issue at the core. I
therefore challenge the Opposition to show the world of higher
education that we value freedom of expression the same as we
value it here in this place, and to be on the right side of
history—the side that stands for free expression, free speech and
academic freedom. I commend the Bill to the House.
8.25pm
I extend my thanks to all those involved in the passage of the
Bill in Committee and on Second Reading, as well as this evening.
I join the Minister in thanking Government Members, as much as
those on the Labour Benches. I thank my hon. Friend the Member
for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (), my right hon. Friend the
Member for Hayes and Harlington (), my hon. Friend the Member
for Brighton, Kemptown (), my right hon. Friend
the Member for North Durham (Mr Jones), my hon. Friend the Member
for Denton and Reddish () and others. They made
constructive comments and contributions to the process in
Committee, and I place on record my thanks to them.
As we come to the end of the Commons stages of the Bill, just
under a mammoth 400 days since it was first introduced, it is
clear that it has been something of a distraction from what
really matters to the sector and students. We have just heard, in
the urgent question on the Government’s failure to address the
dreadful GDP figures, that the UK economy is in a dire position.
We are in the midst of the worst cost of living crisis since the
1970s. Three out of every four students are currently worried
about managing financially. One in four have less than £50 a
month to live on after rent and bills, and 5% of students are
using food banks to get by. On the doorstep in Wakefield, when I
was talking about some of these issues, someone said to me, “What
on earth has that got to do with the price of fish?” She is
right. What has this got to do with the price of fish? Put
simply, students are not exceptions to the rules of this crisis.
The challenges faced by students are a reflection of what is
going on in wider society, for sure. The Minister has responded
by uplifting student maintenance by just 2.3% this
year—2.3%—against a backdrop of an inflation rate pushing 10%,
while at the same time ignoring any of the reforms to student
maintenance proposed by the Augar review.
Meanwhile, the Government have imposed this piece of unnecessary
legislation on the House, expending 30 hours of parliamentary
time on this Bill, a Bill primarily searching for a problem—and I
will come on to the point of what we would do. Seemingly, despite
finding little time to tackle the cost of living crisis, the
Government can find time to protect antisemites and people who,
in the Ministers’ own words, are aiming to cause deep hurt and
offence. Never mind that the Joint Committee on Human Rights’
report into freedom of speech at university in 2018 found there
was
“no major crisis of free speech on campus”,
or that research conducted by the Office for Students found that
out of over 62,000 requests by students for external speaker
events in 2017-2018, only 0.01% were rejected by student unions
or university authorities. The Minister seems determined to
pursue divisive legislation to stoke culture wars for her own
political agenda. Last week, when she addressed the Higher
Education Policy Institute conference, she could not substantiate
her claims in support of the Bill.
The Government like to present themselves as defenders of freedom
of speech, but their actions tell us differently, including their
plans to arrest noisy protesters and limit others, to restrict
the right to vote through voter ID and their outright attacks on
the BBC and plans to privatise Channel 4. The Government are
interested in freedom of speech only if that speech is framed in
their own image. The Minister says that Labour’s position is
absurd. Free speech on our campus but no right to free speech on
our streets is utterly absurd. I need not remind the House that
Labour has always championed free speech. Indeed, it was a Labour
Government who introduced the law guaranteeing freedom of
expression.
The issue here is all about evidence, and the point I have just
made about the Minister. That is why Labour has deep reservations
about the unintended consequences of the Bill. Its top-down,
one-size-fits-all approach demonstrates the weakness at the heart
of the Government and their misplaced lack of trust in the
academic community. When that happens,
“Governments lose faith in academics to protect freedom of speech
and step in with legislation. It is what happened in 1986 and it
is what is happening again”.
Not my words, but those of one of the Minister’s esteemed
predecessors.
Conservative Members cry, “Well, what is Labour’s plan?” That is
easy. We believe in adopting best practice off the shelf whenever
we can. Our universities and the academics and teaching staff who
work within them are world leading. It is no surprise, therefore,
that there is a vast array of really good practice out there if
the Minister only chose to look—the Manchester guidelines, the
Chicago principles or Robert French’s independent review of
freedom of speech in Australian higher education, to name but
three. Countries around the world have similar issues, but the
point is how they go about addressing them. If the Minister were
really interested in promoting and protecting freedom of speech
and academic freedom, she would encourage this approach across
the sector. Such approaches would go a long way to fostering the
healthy culture of debate on campus we all want to see. Sometimes
institutions and student unions will get it wrong. That is the
nature of debates on the parameters of free speech, but it is a
small price worth paying for a collective, more consensual
approach to protecting freedom of speech on campus.
The Bill will expose universities and student unions to
potentially lengthy civil proceedings brought by anti-vaxxers,
holocaust deniers or hate preachers. Debates about freedom of
speech are complex enough without Ministers creating a legal
route open to abuse by vexatious claimants—suppression of debate
through what is termed and recognised as lawfare. Despite the
Minister repeatedly claiming that this new statutory tort would
be an important backstop, there is no reference to that in the
Bill. She has failed to put in place any mechanisms to prevent
providers, including the 165 further education colleges that fall
under the scope of the Bill or student unions, from falling
victim to costly litigation. Today the Institute for Fiscal
Studies has warned that Government spending on adult education
and apprenticeships in England will be 25% lower in 2025 than in
2010. I need not remind the House of how costly lawsuits are.
Every 1p spent by institutions defending such claims in the court
will be 1p less spent on the student experience, on hardship
funds, on new library facilities and on research and development.
Those potential legal costs are not even included in the £50
million the Minister’s Department estimates the Bill will cost
the sector over the next 10 years.
The public are desperate for the Government to focus on the
immediate and very real priorities—the cost of living crisis,
energy bills doubling in a year, 40% of households in energy
poverty, demand on food banks rocketing and the worst performing
economy in the G20 bar one. That country, Russia, is burdened by
massive international sanctions. The Government want to spend
precious time on pursuing this blatantly ideological legislation
that will do nothing for the great British public. It is
self-serving, and another demonstration of just how out of touch
the Government are. Change should come from the ground up rather
than the clunking fist of an embittered Government.
In terms of legislation, the Bill is about as big a Big Dog’s
breakfast as it is possible to get. As it progresses to the other
place, I very much look forward to many peers taking note of some
of our suggestions for improvement. Other than , I believe there will
be widespread opposition to the Bill from all parties and indeed
the Cross-Bench peers. Given that we have had almost 100
amendments in total to this Bill, and it is only 19 pages long,
they will have a lot of areas to choose from. Before it returns,
I very much hope that the Government will have started to treat
universities as a public good rather than a political
battlefield.
8.34pm
I will speak very briefly, making only three points in two
minutes.
First, it is disappointing that the Labour party is opposing the
Bill. By its nature, it is a party whose Members are elected to a
Parliament that has as its foundation the exchange of honestly
held opinions. Even at this late stage, I feel that Labour
Members might be persuaded to change their mind. I implore them
to do so, because it is entirely specious—as the hon. Member for
Warwick and Leamington (), who is a thoughtful person,
knows—to compare the cost of living with the price of freedom.
The price of freedom is the capacity to disarm, to disturb,
sometimes to make people feel uncomfortable and certainly to
challenge the status quo. That is the nature of academic
discourse, yet it is at risk.
Secondly, the evidence is clear. In Committee, Trevor Phillips
said that
“in the last three to five years we have seen example after
example of where university authorities have essentially
abdicated their responsibility to protect their own academics and
students.”––[Official Report, Higher Education (Freedom of
Speech) Public Bill Committee, 7 September 2021; c. 23, Q42.]
Professor Biggar said:
“My view is that the Bill would protect lawful free
speech.”––[Official Report, Higher Education (Freedom of Speech)
Public Bill Committee, 7 September 2021; c. 24, Q44.]
He went on to say why that was necessary. Professor Ahmed
said:
“With regard to self-censorship, my own experience has been that
it has changed drastically over the last 10 years…I know that
there are people who bite their tongues in the sense that they
will not object to certain things that are pointless and stupid,
simply because they are afraid of the consequences.”––[Official
Report, Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Public Bill
Committee, 7 September 2021; c. 15, Q26.]
The consequences for academics and students can be dire: they are
isolated, they are persecuted and in some cases, as we have
heard, they are even driven out of their job.
The Government have got this right, and the Opposition have got
it badly wrong. As Members of this House know, I am not a person
who thinks that a single party or a single side of the House has
a monopoly on wisdom, but on this particular occasion all the
wisdom lies with the Government Front Bench. I implore the hon.
Member for Warwick and Leamington and other Opposition Members to
change their mind, look to their conscience and defend freedom of
speech, as I know the Minister is doing and the Bill does.
8.36pm
It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for South
Holland and The Deepings ( ). Unfortunately, I could not
make a speech on Report because I was attending a meeting with
the Foreign Secretary about the Northern Ireland protocol, but I
want to contribute on Third Reading. I declare an interest as
chair of the all-party group on international freedom of religion
or belief.
The Bill is critical. I commend the Minister for how she has
delivered it and for her speech on Report, which I was able to
hear. The Government have delivered the very legislation that I,
personally, wish to see. I believe that my constituents and those
who write to me—my mailbag is very substantial—also wish to see
it. The Government have done a good job today; I am absolutely in
favour of the Bill.
I could give examples of Christian conferences not having their
dates renewed at universities, or of young Christian unions being
pigeonholed by activists into expressing an opinion based on
their sincerely held belief, only for it to be cited as hate
speech. That is ridiculous, and that is why the Government have
introduced legislation, which I very much welcome, to address the
matter. The Bill will make a difference and protect Christians
and other religious groups. I never thought that we would be in a
place where we needed to take these steps, but the fact is that
we have to, and the Government have done so.
A minority of people in influential places have been gift-wrapped
the ability to halt freedom of speech in our universities, which,
instead of being a place of open thought and debate, are now
closed to anything that is not of a certain agenda and
persuasion. I thank the Minister and our Government for the steps
that they have taken to bring the Bill to completion. The
Government have ensured that there will be no loopholes that
could be used by those who wish to exercise their freedom of
speech but who cannot afford others the same very basic right,
which the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings
referred to on Report and just now.
I am given to understand that reforming the Human Rights Act may
have led to the more restrictive definition of academic freedom
in the original wording of the Bill, which included a caveat that
academic freedom exists only within an academic’s field of
expertise. This was expressed to me in a briefing by Universities
UK. UUK has subsequently welcomed amendments 1, 2 and 16, which
remove the express limitation that academic freedom covers only
matters within an academic’s field of expertise, and I agree: a
teacher of mathematics should still be able to express his belief
about biology in a considerate and kind manner, should the need
arise. UUK understands that the Government intend to provide
guidance for universities in respect of the new duties in the
Bill. That is particularly significant given that duties can
often appear to overlap or sit in tension with one another. An
example is the Prevent duty, which has legal protection. The
Government have enshrined in the Bill protection for the people
whom I represent, and, indeed, for people throughout this great
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
I support the Bill in the hope that we will have freedom of
speech, freedom of religion or belief and the freedom to choose
no belief, if that is what people want, and that that will be
enshrined in our universities rather than this seemingly
insidious desire by a select few to shut down debate and oppose
anyone who cannot agree with their “enlightenment”. My goodness
me, what a poor world it would be if everyone were like that!
Jews deserve the right to practise their religion in so far as it
does not harm others, as do Muslims, Sikhs and Buddhists. They
deserve the right to express their beliefs—as they still do—in a
way that does not harm anyone. This is about respect, and I am
browned off with seeing so much disrespect for people.
We must also legislate, increasingly, to ensure that those who
wish to speak of Christ and His teachings have the right to do so
in the halls of their university student unions, and not just in
their churches or chapels.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.
