Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Bill
Public Bill Committee, 13 September 2021.
Examination of Witnesses
Christopher Chope (Conservative, Christchurch)
Good afternoon. We will now hear oral evidence from Professor Eric Kaufmann, professor of politics at Birkbeck College, University of London, and Professor Matthew Goodwin, professor of politics and international relations at the University of Kent.
Matt Western (Labour, Warwick and Leamington)
Good afternoon to you both. Thank you for joining us today, and for your submissions. I have several questions to start with. Academic freedom is much referred to, and I have always viewed it as something of a privilege. Perhaps you could describe your definition, and why it has such an important statusQ181 .
Christopher Chope (Conservative, Christchurch)
I am afraid the acoustics in this room are very poor. Do you think that you could speak up as though you were addressing a hall of 500 students?
Matt Western (Labour, Warwick and Leamington)
Q Is that something that you earn as an academic?
Matt Western (Labour, Warwick and Leamington)
Q This question is for Professor Kaufmann. About 50 years ago, during the Red Lion Square disorders, Warwick University student Kevin Gately was sadly killed in trouble between fascists and a group called Liberation. He was the first person to die in public disorder for 55 years. Does the legislation protect our students of today and tomorrow, to avoid those sorts of confrontations in future?
Matt Western (Labour, Warwick and Leamington)
Q That protest was about no-platforming, so I think it is related to the legislation—I am not raising a random thing with you. Do you see in the Bill consequences for the future of free speech and hate speech on our campuses?
Matt Western (Labour, Warwick and Leamington)
Q Professor Goodwin, we have heard a lot about self-censoring. I am not an academic or a scholar of Freud, but he suggested that we all self-censor all the time, so what is the issue here?
Matt Western (Labour, Warwick and Leamington)
Q Do you not think that we are all outliers in one way or another?
Matt Western (Labour, Warwick and Leamington)
Q You have talked of the fear of many left-wing academics of normalisation, whereby giving a platform to fascists and the like would normalise their views. Whether or not their views become normalised, would you be prepared to see an overt fascist speak on your campus and, if so, how do you think that would square with university management’s myriad duties to student welfare and social cohesion?
Matt Western (Labour, Warwick and Leamington)
Q Professor Kaufmann, I will put a question to you, if I may. In the Policy Exchange report that you co-authored, a very negligible number of academics were ready to support a dismissal campaign; according to my notes, the figure was 12.5%. If so few are willing to support such campaigns, are right-leaning academics’ fears about cancel culture not just a backlash reaction to a general left-leaning academy?
Matt Western (Labour, Warwick and Leamington)
Q I have a final question for Professor Kaufmann. Why is it that, as you made clear in your October 2020 article for UnHerd, active mobilisation by representative Government is necessary to reverse critical race theory’s grip on elite institutions? Is not a softer approach more desirable?
Matt Western (Labour, Warwick and Leamington)
Yes.
Michelle Donelan (Conservative, Chippenham)
Q Thank you both for coming in. Professor Kaufmann, in the Policy Exchange paper you co-authored you recommended a statutory tort. I wanted to ask you why you think that that is so important, and how you think it will work in conjunction with the Office for Students complaints scheme.
Michelle Donelan (Conservative, Chippenham)
Q This is a question for both of you. How do you think that we can best ensure an atmosphere on campus that allows difficult and controversial topics to be discussed while maintaining an inclusive environment?
Michelle Donelan (Conservative, Chippenham)
Q Professor Kaufmann, did you want to come in on that?
Michelle Donelan (Conservative, Chippenham)
Q My last question is to both of you. What is the biggest threat, as you perceive it, to freedom of speech in our universities?
Christopher Chope (Conservative, Christchurch)
More than half of the time allocated has already been used up. I hope that colleagues will make their questions very brief, in the hope of encouraging succinct answers.
Kevan Jones (Labour, North Durham)
Professor Kaufmann, you used the words “chilling effect” and “tip of the iceberg”. We heard this the other day from other witnesses. Getting your head around the idea of self-censorship is like having blancmange in your hands. Frankly, there is no firm evidence for it. My problem with the Bill is that it is a very un-Conservative piece of legislation. It is about involving the state directly in the running of universities. You mentioned the director for freedom of speech, and that may be fine, under the present Conservative Government, but, as I said last week—Q
Christopher Chope (Conservative, Christchurch)
I am going to interrupt, because we are not taking evidence from you. We are trying to invite the witnesses to express their views.
Kevan Jones (Labour, North Durham)
As you cannot challenge the director, if you had an authoritarian Government, that could potentially be very difficult. The other point, to Professor Goodwin, is on employment: the Bill will not stop academics being sacked. Surely there should be something in the Bill, or some change in terms of employment law, to give protection to those individuals you talked about? Finally, Professor Kaufmann, on the tort issue: does the Bill not open universities up to a huge amount of litigation? For example, the United Front—a front for the Chinese Communist party—operates widely on our campuses today; will it not use the Bill as a mechanism to ensure that it gets across its ideas and arguments, while being possibly well-funded by the Chinese Communist party and Chinese Government? Is there not a danger of giving weapons to our opponents, and doing the opposite of what we are trying to achieve?
Kevan Jones (Labour, North Durham)
Q Also McCarthyism, which was the reverse of that.
Fiona Bruce (Conservative, Congleton)
Thank you, gentlemen, for coming today. The Bill speaks of freedom of speech in relation to students as well as staff; however, academic freedom in the Bill is defined in relation only Q to academic staff. Should that definition also include students? I am thinking not only that academic freedom is important generally for anyone at a university, but that some students, such as doctoral students, may also be tutoring.
Fiona Bruce (Conservative, Congleton)
Thank you. That gives me time for a second question, if I may, Sir Christopher.
Christopher Chope (Conservative, Christchurch)
Very quickly.
Fiona Bruce (Conservative, Congleton)
Q You reflected on the implications of exercising academic freedom. I think Professor Goodwin hinted on the loss of posts by some colleagues. I would be interested if you could reflect a little more on that, because it is a very important issue. Should a right to apply to the employment tribunal be included in the Bill? You said that going to an external entity is important.
Emma Hardy (Labour, Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle)
I am going to ask the witnesses to be as brief as possible, because there are hundreds of things that I would like to ask, but I will try to limit them to just a couple. Professor Kaufmann, in your written evidenceQ , you stated:
“Only in this manner can academics have the confidence that they are protected from ideological opponents who wish to punish them for their views.”
I support you in wanting to protect academics from ideological opponents. How can we ensure the independence of the director of freedom of speech? Interestingly, further on in your written evidence, you refer to an ombudsman system in other countries. How can we ensure the independence of the director of freedom of speech to prevent “ideological opponents” who wish to punish academics?
Emma Hardy (Labour, Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle)
Q Sorry, I am going to quickly interrupt. To enforce the letter of the law, should the director be legally trained? Should they be a legal expert if their duty is to enforce the letter of the law?
Emma Hardy (Labour, Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle)
Q But they would have to make decisions on where freedom of speech falls between the Equality Act 2010, this piece of legislation and of course the Counter-terrorism and Security Act 2015. Would you not therefore presume that they should have at least some knowledge of the law if they make rulings?
Emma Hardy (Labour, Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle)
Q So you would expect them to be surrounded by lawyers who could give them legal advice in their role?
Emma Hardy (Labour, Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle)
Q Provided by the Office for Students to accompany the director?
Emma Hardy (Labour, Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle)
Q You foresee the director making decisions in alignment with what a court would decide, not within a court, so they make legal decisions, but not within a court. Is that correct?
Emma Hardy (Labour, Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle)
It is hugely expensive.
Christopher Chope (Conservative, Christchurch)
Emma, would you please allow some academic freedom to this witness? You may disagree with what he says, but you must allow him to answer your question.
Emma Hardy (Labour, Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle)
Q I will. I would just ask you to be as precise as possible.
Emma Hardy (Labour, Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle)
You are talking about how this director of freedom will have some knowledge of the law but will not be a lawyer, and will make law-based decisions but not in a court. How should they obtain this position, then, to ensure this academic freedom and prevent ideological opponents from being punished?
Emma Hardy (Labour, Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle)
Q I agree, but how would you foresee them obtaining this? Who is going to appoint them? How are they going to reach this position? As we know, this position is the first time that a higher education regulator will have the power to intervene in student unions. This is a massive expansion of the state’s powers over universities. Who gets to choose who this person is?
Emma Hardy (Labour, Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle)
Q Would you expect the Government of the day to be involved in appointing the director of free speech?
Christopher Chope (Conservative, Christchurch)
I am going to stop this now and ask Gareth Bacon to ask a question, because we have only three minutes left.
Gareth Bacon (Conservative, Orpington)
Q Thank you very much, Sir Christopher. This is to Professor Goodwin. I graduated from the University of Kent 25 years ago, and my experiences in Canterbury are very different from what you have described. Do you agree that in a free and democratic society, the best way to deal with views you disagree with or, indeed, find repugnant is to be able to openly challenge them, debate them, and expose their weaknesses in an open debate?
Gareth Bacon (Conservative, Orpington)
Q My final question—I am conscious of time—is to both witnesses, if I may. Both of you, in common with academics who gave evidence last week, have talked about the chilling effect that is going through academia. If the Government were to drop this Bill and take no action, what do you foresee being the long to medium-term, five to 10-year consequences?
Christopher Chope (Conservative, Christchurch)
Thank you very much indeed, both of you. We now have to move on to the next session. If any colleagues have complaints about the length of time allocated, I am told that they must be referred to the Whips, as they were the people who dictated that there should be such limited time to hear your expert evidence.
Examination of Witness
Christopher Chope (Conservative, Christchurch)
Mr Katwala, please could you introduce yourself for the record?
Christopher Chope (Conservative, Christchurch)
We have until 4.45 pm, so I hope that questions will be brief.
Matt Western (Labour, Warwick and Leamington)
Q Thank you, Mr Katwala, for joining us today. I want to ask you a few questions. You have put on record your concern about this Bill opening up universities and student unions to being sued an unlimited number of times by people such as David Irving. Could you expand on those concerns?
Matt Western (Labour, Warwick and Leamington)
Q Briefly, what sort of impact do you think this is going to have on student unions?
Matt Western (Labour, Warwick and Leamington)
Q You said you can imagine cases of hypothetically cancelled speakers claiming or pursuing hypothetically lost fees. Will you explain that further, and what amendments would you like to be made to the legislation in order to combat it?
Matt Western (Labour, Warwick and Leamington)
Q Could that include reputational damage?
Matt Western (Labour, Warwick and Leamington)
Q I am interested in your view of how this will interface with the proposed online harms Bill. Do you have any thoughts on that?
Matt Western (Labour, Warwick and Leamington)
Q You heard the previous session. There was a lot of talk from the previous two witnesses about self-censoring and so on. Do you share those concerns, or do you think, as I was perhaps suggesting, that we all self-censor to a certain extent? As we heard from a witness last week, that is just the way of the world—you get on with it and you make your case.
Michelle Donelan (Conservative, Chippenham)
Q Your recent research suggests that more divisive voices and controversial issues are often amplified online. Do you agree that that influences how freely the majority of people feel able to express themselves?
Michelle Donelan (Conservative, Chippenham)
Q I will ask just one more question, because I know that a number of Members want to come in. Do you agree that it is important to create an atmosphere on our campuses whereby difficult issues can be openly discussed, to create the critical thinkers of tomorrow?
Lloyd Russell-Moyle (Labour/Co-operative, Brighton, Kemptown)
Thank you very much for your evidence. I should declare my interests, as I have done in previous sessions—Sussex University, the University of Bradford and the University and College Union.Q
Is there a problem that expanding this to student unions might have detrimental effects? Student unions traditionally allow students to self-organise ginger groups, different political groups and so forth. If you require the Conservative club to enforce academic freedom, does not that make a mockery of having a club of Conservatives in which they can talk and debate issues among themselves?
Lloyd Russell-Moyle (Labour/Co-operative, Brighton, Kemptown)
Q Our last witness, Matthew Goodwin, said that he wants the Bill to stop people making a mockery of academics. Last week, Dr Ahmed said that he wanted the Bill to allow him and his colleagues to be able mock religion and different people’s ideas, and Trevor Phillips said that he wants the Bill to stop people calling him racist on campus. Is this a Bill in which everyone has put their desires but which does not actually fulfil any of them?
Lloyd Russell-Moyle (Labour/Co-operative, Brighton, Kemptown)
Q Exactly.
Finally, I want to talk about self-censorship. According to Facebook, 71% of its users self-censor. The UCU study says that only 35% of academics self-censor, and the King’s study says that, among right-wing academics, the figure is only 32%. Would that be evidence that, actually, right-wing academics are the least likely to self-censor and there is no problem?
Lloyd Russell-Moyle (Labour/Co-operative, Brighton, Kemptown)
Q Finally, what you have just explained seems laudable and admirable, and what I want every university to be doing. Just so we are clear: are you saying that providing a legal tort process could actually undermine the ability to get people around to have a decent conversation, because they will be running to the courts?
John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)
You do not work at a universityQ and you are a journalist by background, are you not?
John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)
Q The previous witness said that no one who had not worked in a university could quite understand both the climate of fear and the culture of silence that prevails in many universities. Do you think you are better placed to make a judgment about that than someone who works in a university or not?
John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)
Q In common with my colleagues, I have to declare my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests: I am an academic at Bolton University.
The point you are making is that some speech should be prohibited that is legally lawful. Who would arbitrate that? Would it be university authorities, Governments or the mass of students? Once you get into the territory that you are describing, which could lead to a liberal tyranny, as I am sure you appreciate, who is going to decide what is acceptable or unacceptable, if it is not the law?
John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)
Q I just want a straightforward answer, really. You are right, of course, that many things are offensive, rude or unsavoury. Indeed, some things are alarming, shocking and disturbing, but some things that are alarming, shocking and disturbing should be said because innovators have done that through the ages. Copernicus was alarming. Darwin was certainly alarming and shocking to many people—pretty shocking to me, actually. Having said all that, you have not really been clear about who determines what is lawful but prohibited. Is it the university?
John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)
Q Sorry to interrupt you, but I want to get to the bottom of this. The vice-chancellor in a particular university, or the university management, would determine what was unacceptable but lawful.
John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)
Q So it is the Government who determine it, not the vice-chancellor.
Kevan Jones (Labour, North Durham)
Q On that point, it is quite clear in the legislation who will decide: it will be the director of free speech, whose decisions are not even legally challengeable. To me, that is very clear.
I know that in the modern-day Conservative party there is a lot of political cross-dressing going on, but what I find quite frightening about the legislation is that one individual, or a future Government of any persuasion, will have a very Orwellian view of deciding what is and is not acceptable. That is a great departure from my usual understanding of what traditional Conservatives have argued for in this place over the years. Would you say that that one of the problems of this is that the final arbiter will be a political appointee?
Kevan Jones (Labour, North Durham)
Q I agree, but the danger in the legislation as it is written is about those individuals. My concern is more that foreign states that want to change the direction that we argued for on freedom of speech in this country will use this to challenge academic institutions, and will be allowed to.
I mentioned earlier the issue of the operation in our universities of the United Front of China. They will be able to take cases and argue them and no doubt they will be well financed. There is a danger that they will use it to get their own way through their very deep pockets.
Richard Holden (Conservative, North West Durham)
You have raised three interesting points at the margins. The entire point of the legislation is that there are things that are not in these extreme examples that are currently being challenged at universities. That is basically the evidence that we have received from the academics who have appeared before us in these evidence sessions.Q
In light of that, do you not think that any Government in a liberal democracy such as ours would find that those three specific issues––clashes with the Equality Act, those advocating against academic freedom and those with very extreme views that they try to cover with academic freedom––could easily be contained within that direction of free speech, thereby ensuring what we all want: the extension of free speech by the academics who tell us that they are mass self-censoring now, so that the professors who just appeared before us can be allowed their academic freedom? We are actually protecting the freedom of perfectly reasonable people, not people who are doing the things that you suggested. Do you see where I am coming from?
Richard Holden (Conservative, North West Durham)
Q I get where you are coming from. Where do you come down? Do you think this legislation is unnecessary and that we should just trust the academic institutions as they are now or do you think there is a place for the Government to do something in this space?
Richard Holden (Conservative, North West Durham)
Q I understand. You are ambivalent in a way about whether the legislation is the best way to go.
Richard Holden (Conservative, North West Durham)
Q Do you accept that there are risks from the other side at the moment of not pushing on with what we are doing?
Richard Holden (Conservative, North West Durham)
Q Finally, one of the things that Mr Jones and I tend to agree on is the concern around foreign states and foreign state actors. Although you are not an academic yourself, do you accept that there is a danger of academics in UK academic institutions not saying things because of the enormous financial impact that some of these foreign states, particularly the People’s Republic of China, have in the UK?
Richard Holden (Conservative, North West Durham)
Q Perhaps that is a reason, given the extra pressure facing the universities at the moment, to allow the legislation to come forward and for a Government body to help them in that very difficult potential situation.
Christopher Chope (Conservative, Christchurch)
I am sorry, but we have now reached the end of the time allocated for this session. Thank you very much, Mr Katwala, for your evidence and for the help you have given the Committee. We now move on to the next panel, please.
Christopher Chope (Conservative, Christchurch)
Q We now welcome Nicola Dandridge, who is the chief executive of the Office for Students. Will you tell us a bit about what that is? What is the Office for Students?
Matt Western (Labour, Warwick and Leamington)
Q Thank you for joining us today, Ms Dandridge. Just looking through the legislation, I have a few points to make. It does not seem to be particularly clear about the future relationship between the Office for Students and the Office of the Independent Adjudicator. Is that clear to you from the Bill? Perhaps you will explain how it could work.
Matt Western (Labour, Warwick and Leamington)
Q Can you imagine situations in which one body might go to the OIA and another to the OfS, and how that might be reconciled?
Matt Western (Labour, Warwick and Leamington)
Q You mentioned the director for freedom of speech and academic freedom and the appointment process. I guess I have certain concerns about how the chair of the OfS was appointed. How do you imagine—it is not clear from the Bill—the director for freedom of speech and academic freedom will be appointed? Should how that will come about be included in the Bill? As we have heard in previous sessions, there are concerns—across the House, depending on which Government are in place—so who should be involved in that appointment? I assume that you would want to be involved, for example. Maybe you should have the ultimate say. Do you have any thoughts about that, and should it be included in the Bill?
Matt Western (Labour, Warwick and Leamington)
Q Do you have any thoughts on the skills that that person might need?
Matt Western (Labour, Warwick and Leamington)
Q Have you had any conversations with the current chair or the DFE about what the scale of the department—it will not be just one individual; it will be the director of freedom of speech plus X people working within the department—will be, what the cost will be and how that will be funded? Would the OfS need an additional budget?
Secondly, do you have concerns about what will happen for universities and student unions? One of the points that came out from the BEIS report, which you may have seen, is what significant costs there will be for universities and student unions, which clearly, after the past 18 months, are really struggling financially anyway.
Michelle Donelan (Conservative, Chippenham)
Q Thank you for attending, Ms Dandridge. When considering the impact that the new director could have, we can look at the impact that the director for fair access and participation has had. Could you outline the positive impact that you think having somebody solely responsible for that area has had?
Michelle Donelan (Conservative, Chippenham)
Q What routes could students, staff and visiting speakers currently take if they wished to raise with the OfS a concern about a provider with regard to free speech?
Michelle Donelan (Conservative, Chippenham)
Q So as the body dedicated to students, in essence, would you say that you are constrained at the moment in assisting students with issues of free speech?
Emma Hardy (Labour, Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle)
Q Welcome—it is great to see you here. Coming back to the point that you made about the regulatory overlap between the OfS and the OIA, you said that we would need to have some sort of clarity and talk about that. Would you say that that clarity should be in the Bill—that it should explain who does what—or are you thinking more about guidance produced by the Department for Education? How can that work out so that everybody knows where to go and whom to go to?
Emma Hardy (Labour, Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle)
Q I know that the Office for Students has received two letters recently from the Secretary of State, directing you to reduce the regulatory burden on higher education providers. How does the Bill align with the Secretary of State’s stated aim to reduce the regulatory burden?
Felicity Buchan (Conservative, Kensington)
May I ask a simple question? Do you welcome the Bill?Q
Lloyd Russell-Moyle (Labour/Co-operative, Brighton, Kemptown)
Q The Bill would allow a complainant to bypass the Office for Students and go straight to the courts. Is that something you welcome—that there is an ability to run rings around each process—or should they be interrelated?
Lloyd Russell-Moyle (Labour/Co-operative, Brighton, Kemptown)
Q Currently, there is no requirement in the Bill to go through any internal or external process before you go to the courts.
Lloyd Russell-Moyle (Labour/Co-operative, Brighton, Kemptown)
Q Is that something that you think should be more explicit in the Bill—to require someone to have sought other dispute mechanisms first, like you do with other requirements, such as before you go to court for a judicial review?
Lloyd Russell-Moyle (Labour/Co-operative, Brighton, Kemptown)
Q Do you think it is right that the outcome and annual report made by the Office for Students would be privileged and, therefore, not open for judicial review or oversight?
Lloyd Russell-Moyle (Labour/Co-operative, Brighton, Kemptown)
Q But my understanding is that the report being privileged means that a complainant who might feel that it has not fairly reflected their views would not have recourse to judicial review. Do you think it right that a public body has that unusual level of privilege?
Lloyd Russell-Moyle (Labour/Co-operative, Brighton, Kemptown)
That is very helpful—thank you very much.
John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)
Q The witness immediately before you suggested that lawful speech on campus might be mitigated, restrained or even prohibited, and said that that job would perhaps fall to the Government or vice-chancellors. What is your view on that?
John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)
Q Presumably, with lawful free speech on campus assumed to be a given, it is important that its defence is not in the hands of particular vice-chancellors or university management but carried out by an independent third party on the grounds of consistency.
Fiona Bruce (Conservative, Congleton)
Q One students union has submitted to us:
“This bill addresses a non-problem”
—certainly at their student union and university. Do you agree?
Fiona Bruce (Conservative, Congleton)
Q Thank you. Would you also reflect on another statement made in that submission?
“Speakers”
—presumably at events—
“should be of the highest quality and have expertise in their field. Therefore, if speakers are known to have contradictory, erroneous or conspiratorial ideas on subjects for which they are speaking”,
our student union
“is obliged to discourage the spread of disinformation on its premises and within its societies.”
What are your reflections on that statement?
Fiona Bruce (Conservative, Congleton)
Q The context is a response to the Bill, under the heading “Thought leaders”.
Christopher Chope (Conservative, Christchurch)
There are no further questions, so I thank our witness very much for her contribution.
Examination of Witnesses
Judith Cummins (Labour, Bradford South)
We will now hear evidence from Professor Paul Layzell, principal of Royal Holloway, University of London, and chair of the Universities UK advisory group on free speech and academic freedom, and from Professor Jonathan Grant, professor of public policy at King’s College London, who is joining us remotely via Zoom. We have until 6 o’clock for this session.
I ask the witnesses to please introduce yourselves for the record. Professor Layzell, will you start?
Matt Western (Labour, Warwick and Leamington)
Thank you, and welcome to the Committee. We really appreciate you joining us today, Professor Layzell and Professor GrantQ257 .
Given all the pressures and issues that universities are facing, is this Bill a priority for the higher education- sector? I put that question to Professor Layzell first.
Matt Western (Labour, Warwick and Leamington)
Q Do you think a tighter code of practice and guidelines from the OfS, maybe along the lines of the Chicago principles, could have achieved what you have just described, or do you think it needed something like a tort and this legislation?
Matt Western (Labour, Warwick and Leamington)
Q There is a lot of colourful language used such as “icebergs” and “extreme crisis”. How do you think the views of students compare with those of wider society when it comes to freedom of speech?
Matt Western (Labour, Warwick and Leamington)
Q Professor Layzell, many people have voiced concerns regarding the legislation as drafted. We heard from a witness last week, a lawyer, who really feared where it would take us in terms of litigation, and what will happen on university campuses, in student unions and so on. In your experience, given your position, can universities really afford the scale of the burden of bureaucracy, and the potential financial cost, of some of the claims that might get dragged into from certain speakers?
Matt Western (Labour, Warwick and Leamington)
Q Do you think that academic freedom needs stronger definition?
Kevan Jones (Labour, North Durham)
The problem with the Bill as it is written is that there is no stipulation that, per your very sensible suggestion, people would have to go through the internal complaints process first, which is the usual thing for ombudsmen and anything else. If we are not careful, we could end up with people resorting straight to law if they want to make a political point. That is going to cost the universities a lot. In some cases, they will settle just to get rid of themQ .
Richard Holden (Conservative, North West Durham)
Professor Grant, I agree with your analysis that the bigger concern seems to be self-censorship, but we are a little unclear on the levels of evidence around this. Could you outline some of the evidence of self-censorship that you have seen? Is this something that affects you in your department at King’sQ ?
Richard Holden (Conservative, North West Durham)
Q But you do accept that legislation can help to lead that values change? Many academics have told us already today that the fact that this is being talked about in an open session in Parliament is helping lead to some of those conversations on campus.
Richard Holden (Conservative, North West Durham)
Q So at the moment your view on the legislation is a wait-and-see approach—perhaps slightly moved from being opposed to it?
Richard Holden (Conservative, North West Durham)
Q Your emphasis has been on the student and their feeling of academic freedom, which is something that we have not discussed in as much depth as we have for the academics themselves. Do you get the feeling that some of the academics you work with also feel that they have to self-censor in what they are doing, or is that more on the student side in your experience?
Michelle Donelan (Conservative, Chippenham)
Q The Committee has heard evidence from a number of people who have said that their individual academic freedom, or that of their colleagues and, potentially, their students, has been restricted. Do you both acknowledge that that demonstrates that restrictions on freedom of speech in our universities are actually happening and are not a rare phenomenon?
Michelle Donelan (Conservative, Chippenham)
Q I have just one more question. What more do you think universities could do to promote free speech?
Lloyd Russell-Moyle (Labour/Co-operative, Brighton, Kemptown)
Jonathan Grant, I am interested in this chilling effect. Did you do any baseline studies on what the chilling effect was in other areas? I ask that because I have done some cursory searching. It is difficult to find, but Facebook has done some internal research and says that 71% of its users, even online, will censor what they say in order to meet the desires of friends and colleagues. Therefore, if that figure of 71% is about accurate—we do not know, because this could be a ballpark figure—a quarter of students is much lower than wider society, so is that an example of how universities are actually much betterQ ?
Lloyd Russell-Moyle (Labour/Co-operative, Brighton, Kemptown)
Q Thank you, and I totally agree with your point. I went to a comprehensive school, but we had a compulsory debating society every lunchtime, and we were required to take points that we disagreed with, which built resilience. Maybe we need to look at that at secondary school level in our comprehensive system.
Paul, I want to ask you about who takes responsibility for these duties. The Bill is quite unusual in putting the duty on both the institution and the student union, whereas the Education Act 1994 puts the responsibility only on the institution to require the student union. Does that duality of responsibility clarify the issue or, given that most student unions are probably using university premises and university money, does it muddy the question of who will then be responsible for reporting on these issues?
Lloyd Russell-Moyle (Labour/Co-operative, Brighton, Kemptown)
Q Jonathan Grant mentioned the joint committee that has been set up at King’s. Would something in the Act requiring institutions and student unions to create joint committees to look at this and assess freedom of speech be a better way forward than just having an external regulator?
Lloyd Russell-Moyle (Labour/Co-operative, Brighton, Kemptown)
Q I have worked at both Sussex and Bradford in the past, so I understand that. Sometimes it seems that universities can be over-cautious, and act as small “c” conservatives about putting on events that might have risk attached. Will the Bill give universities more confidence about putting on events, or will it give them less confidence, because of the tort part, about initiating events?
Judith Cummins (Labour, Bradford South)
May I ask you to keep your answer brief, Professor Layzell, because two more members of the Committee have indicated that they want to speak?
David Simmonds (Conservative, Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner)
I want to push you on this point about the effectiveness of non-legislative measures and how we compare the norms in different environments. I am not entirely convinced that Facebook, which is essentially an unregulated environment, would have the same norms as you would find in a university and the world of academia. I am not entirely convinced by that analogy, although I understand the point. Both of you have mentioned training and things like anonymisation of promotion processes as a way of addressing the issue, but presumably if those things were entirely effective and consistent, we wouldn’t be hearing the evidence about people suffering this chilling effect. Would you like to reflect on the effectiveness of those existing measures and any lessons that we as a Committee might need to take on board from what appears to be inconsistency in the way they operate?Q
Emma Hardy (Labour, Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle)
Thank you for your evidence, which has been extremely interesting. I am going to ask similar questions to those I asked earlier about the director of freedom of speech. In the past few evidence sessions, we have heard varying opinions on who the director should be, how they should be appointed and what skills or knowledge they should have. In your evidence, you referred toQ
“the desirability of the preferred candidate having experience of either the higher education or legal sector.”
Why do you think that is desirable?
Emma Hardy (Labour, Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle)
I agree on complexity. In your evidence, you highlight where legislation must be taken into account: the public sector equality duty, the Equality Act 2010, the Counter-Terrorism and Security Act 2015, the Equality and Human Rights Commission, and so on. The University of Cambridge has argued for a gradated system of sanctions. Is that something that Universities UK would support?Q
Emma Hardy (Labour, Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle)
So if the director of free speech was making a judgment on something, they would have a range of sanctions available to them, rather than just going straight for a tort.
Emma Hardy (Labour, Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle)
In the Bill as it stands, there is no right to appeal the decision made by the director for freedom of speech. We have already heard that it could be a political appointment, as the chair of the Office for Students is right now. The director for freedom of speech is judge and jury over decisions over universities, and as it stands there is no right to appeal. Do you think that is right?Q
Judith Cummins (Labour, Bradford South)
If there are no further questions from Members, I thank the witnesses for their evidence.
Judith Cummins (Labour, Bradford South)
Q We will now hear oral evidence from Danny Stone MBE, director of the Antisemitism Policy Trust, and Hillary Gyebi-Ababio, vice-president for higher education at the National Union of Students. We have until 6.45 pm for this session. I ask the witnesses to introduce themselves for the record.
Matt Western (Labour, Warwick and Leamington)
Q Thank you both for coming along this evening, and for the evidence that you submitted in advance. May I ask a couple of questions of you, Hillary, first? Perhaps then I can turn to you, Danny. Just out of interest, Hillary, what are the current issues on campus among student unions? What are the priorities that you are facing?
Matt Western (Labour, Warwick and Leamington)
Q Student unions are feeding back to me that they are struggling financially. The past year and a half has been pretty tough. Incomes are right down, wherever they may be getting them from—some may be directly on campus, through facilities and so on. You may have seen that it is estimated that it will cost almost £800,000 a year for all SUs to sign off and distribute the codes of practice. How do you think that will go down with student unions? What impact will it have?
Matt Western (Labour, Warwick and Leamington)
Q We just heard from Professor Grant of King’s College London, who said that we have a very good system in place to address speech issues at events on campus. Do you find that currently it is working generally pretty well? Other than KCL, do you have any other examples where you know the process has been working?
Matt Western (Labour, Warwick and Leamington)
Q Do you have concerns about some of our smaller higher education institutes? It is very easy to think about the big names, because they are the ones that always come up in the media, but in my few months in this role, I have begun to realise the scale of HE institutions that are covered. How do you think this will affect the hundreds of smaller institutions?
Matt Western (Labour, Warwick and Leamington)
Q Thank you. Danny, can you give us an overview of the current landscape of our universities and campuses? I am interested to hear specifically about the situation with regard to antisemitism. Can you give a flavour on that?
Matt Western (Labour, Warwick and Leamington)
Q Finally, other legislation is quite clear in how it addresses and balances competing freedoms, but there is seemingly no such balance in this legislation. Can you expand on the importance of balancing competing freedoms on campus, particularly in a higher education setting?
Michelle Donelan (Conservative, Chippenham)
Q Danny, you have previously raised concerns about a lack of consistency in the duties on higher education providers, in that they do not apply to student unions—something that this Bill would correct. Do you think that it is important that we do that?
Michelle Donelan (Conservative, Chippenham)
Q Do you think Jewish students feel comfortable reporting incidents where they may have had their freedom of speech inhibited?
Michelle Donelan (Conservative, Chippenham)
Q Thank you. Hillary, in the past you have said that there is a freedom of speech problem on our campuses. Can you explain why you said that? Was it from personal experience?
Michelle Donelan (Conservative, Chippenham)
It is from one of the documents we have from a while ago.
Judith Cummins (Labour, Bradford South)
Order. There is a Division. The sitting will be suspended, and I shall resume the Chair in 15 minutes’ time, just before half-past six o’clock.
Judith Cummins (Labour, Bradford South)
We resume the sitting, which will now end at 7 pm.
Charlotte Nichols (Labour, Warrington North)
I will direct my questions to Mr Stone. Earlier, Professor Goodwin said in evidence that he would happily have invited someone from the BNP or the National Front to speak to students, if they were available. He also spoke about the need for academics to feel welcome, safe and secure, but that does not seem to apply to students, in particular those from minority groups, including Jewish students. Under the proposals in the Bill, the OfS will have a specific condition of registration relating to the promotion of freedom of speech. Should it also have a condition in relation to discriminationQ ?
Charlotte Nichols (Labour, Warrington North)
Q You referred to this earlier, so I am interested to know what you think that the Bill, if enacted, would mean for cases such as that of Professor David Miller at the University of Bristol? He has been widely condemned by the Union of Jewish Students, the Board of Deputies and more than 100 parliamentarians across both Houses of Parliament and all political parties regarding allegations of antisemitism. Would the Bill protect him?
Charlotte Nichols (Labour, Warrington North)
Q Hillary, is there anything you would like to add?
John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)
FurtherQ to the last point, speaking from a personal point of view and a NUS point of view, presumably you believe in freedom of speech in the sense that you believe in the freedom to disturb, to alarm, or even to shock or outrage.
John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)
Q Even if that makes people feel very uncomfortable?
John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)
Q Of course, you are right that freedom of speech is unqualified in the sense that both views need to be put and many opinions need to be shared. There should be no prohibition on that within the law, and the law does prohibit incitement to hatred, incitement to terrorism and various other things, as you know. However, within those lawful constraints, is the freedom to offend important to you?
John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)
Q Hang on, I want to be clear about this. I totally agree with you that there need to be plural opportunities for people to express their views. I may find those views entirely unacceptable, possibly shocking and maybe offensive, but I would defend people’s right to be able to express them. We have laws that protect against hatred, incitement to violence, incitement to terrorism and so on, so are we clear that what the Bill does is to allow pretty pervasive freedom of speech within the law, allowing all kinds of views to be articulated on campus? That is a good thing, surely.
John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)
Q Very briefly, Chair—I know others want to speak—let me be clear. I am relieved and delighted by what you said about the NUS’s position. So, the NUS is against no-platforming, it is against a list of proscribed speakers who can lawfully make their views known elsewhere, and it is basically in favour of a pretty permissive free speech policy across universities.
John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)
Q Are these lawful organisations? Are you saying that you are in favour, then, of prohibiting lawful free speech in certain circumstances?
Emma Hardy (Labour, Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle)
Q This is not just about free speech within the law. Conservative Members may not recall that the Minister wrote to universities asking them to adopt the definition of antisemitism. The Chair of the Education Committee has promoted, and asked universities to adopt, the definition of antisemitism. That definition is not law, so there are times when we want to restrict what people say that are not necessarily within the law. Do you want to comment on why adopting that definition is important, despite it not being law?
Judith Cummins (Labour, Bradford South)
I realise that these are very complex issues, but I ask Members and the panel to try to be succinct because we still have an awful lot of people who want to ask questions. I will try my level best to let everybody in.
Fiona Bruce (Conservative, Congleton)
Thank you both for coming today. Danny, you have given us some carefully collated data on antisemitism which has been very helpful, not just in relation to the Bill but more widely. What are your thoughts about faith-based views being expressed and how there may have been an impact on those in the university arena, including in terms of the chilling effect? The kind of views that I am talking about have perhaps not been mentioned in the witness sessions we have had so far, in which we have talked about the political spectrum of restrictions on freedom of speech. What about things like a biblical view of creation, pro-life views or a faith perspective on the meaning of marriage—or indeed having a faith at all? Could you comment on how those areas have been affected by the issues that we have been discussing?Q
Fiona Bruce (Conservative, Congleton)
I would not expect you to.
Fiona Bruce (Conservative, Congleton)
Q That is all right. Hillary, do you have any comments on students being freely able to express that kind of view within the university environment?
Fiona Bruce (Conservative, Congleton)
Q Thank you. A further short question, if I may. We have asked witnesses about the impact that they think not having the Bill would have on the university environment in 10 years’ time. One witness said that there could be a monoculture or a lack of development of critical thinkers. I am really interested in what your impression is of the effect on wider society of not having the Bill, in 10 years’ time when all the students who have experienced that environment are in positions of responsibility.
Lloyd Russell-Moyle (Labour/Co-operative, Brighton, Kemptown)
Q To follow up on that, I remember that when I was a student at the University of Bradford, I hosted a speaking tour of Zionist refuseniks—people who were proud Israelis and Zionists, but at the time were refusing to fight in the Israel Defence Forces. I remember the paperwork and bureaucracy required to host those young people from Israel at university, and to get them to speak about their experiences and how they, very importantly, were not anti-Israeli and anti-Zionist, but had disagreements on certain policies. It almost meant that some of the objectives did not happen. Is there a danger with some of this, particularly around tort, that universities will require even more paperwork and more thresholds that might mean that people such as myself in Bradford, who had a countervailing view at the time, might end up saying, “I can’t be bothered to host that speaking tour”?
Lloyd Russell-Moyle (Labour/Co-operative, Brighton, Kemptown)
Q I was on a panel at one event where there was—I do not think he is even a professor—the Miller chap from Bristol, and I remember that at the end of the event I said I think what has been said here is a load of rubbish—I think I was more fruity in my language. I told my office at the time to write a letter to him to say that I would not sit on any more panels and would not host any events with him. Is there a danger that if I were an institution and then wrote to Mr Miller with that, I would open myself up for tort liability, because I would be effectively saying, “I don’t want to host your views anymore”? I can do that as an MP, but as a university I would be potentially liable to be sued.
Lloyd Russell-Moyle (Labour/Co-operative, Brighton, Kemptown)
Q Hillary, you always get—and it is fantastic—some contrary students in student unions, who want to rock the boat. That is basically the point of a student union, under the Education Act 1994 and case law—v. Brady and others, for example. But is there a difficulty with this, particularly, that there might be a reverse chilling effect, and that rather than allowing students to invite whomever they want and then doing as Danny says and seeing whether there can be a process to ensure that things are followed, some student unions just go down the course of saying, “You can’t invite in anyone, because we don’t want to breach”—
Richard Holden (Conservative, North West Durham)
Q My first question is to Mr Stone. I just wanted to pick up on something that we got evidence on earlier, which was that about 20% of students are apparently feeling unable to express their views in the classroom. I just wondered whether there were any specifics around Jewish students, given what you had said about the UJS having difficulty with people coming on campus.
Richard Holden (Conservative, North West Durham)
Q Did you study under Professor Matthew Goodwin when you were at Birkbeck for your master’s programme?
Richard Holden (Conservative, North West Durham)
Q He raised a particular concern around academic freedom and the lack of voices from certain points of the political establishment. Do you find that that is also an issue that Jewish academics face?
Richard Holden (Conservative, North West Durham)
Q Miss Gyebi-Ababio, we had evidence from Kathleen Stock, from the University of Sussex, about her concerns around academic freedom. One of the things that you mentioned earlier was that you want to believe in and champion freedom of speech, and that is what the NUS does. Would that extend as far as people like Kathleen Stock, who push gender-critical thinking?
Richard Holden (Conservative, North West Durham)
Q One of the issues that has been raised, rather than this direct cancelling of events, which Mr Stone has spoken to, is also the self-censorship: people not inviting people, and that sort of thing. I believe you are here on behalf of the NUS, at least in some part. I just wanted to raise something—a term called TERFs, or trans-exclusionary radical feminists. I am just looking at the NUS website now, from June this year, and it says, basically, that “the gender-critical perspective” is essentially “trying to rebrand” people who are “just…hateful bigots”. Do you agree with that?
Judith Cummins (Labour, Bradford South)
I am sorry to interrupt, but I am afraid we are running out of time, and we have one more question to take. It will have to be the last question of the day.
Judith Cummins (Labour, Bradford South)
Okay. I call David Simmonds.
David Simmonds (Conservative, Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner)
Q I thank Danny for his comments about the usefulness of the IHRA definition. A brief question for Hillary: you said in a number of your responses that there are a lot of things in the Bill that need to be closely scrutinised; luckily, the purpose of this Committee is to ensure that scrutiny. Can you say specifically which points in the Bill the NUS wishes to express a view about, and how you feel the Bill should change in the light of the NUS’s point of view?
Judith Cummins (Labour, Bradford South)
Order. I am afraid that brings us to the end of the time allocated for the Committee to ask questions of this panel. I thank the witnesses on behalf of the Committee for their evidence. I invite any member of the Committee who wishes to register an interest to do so now.
John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)
As I did previously, I refer to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests relating to my role at the University of Bolton.
Richard Holden (Conservative, North West Durham)
I declare an interest as the vice-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on Durham University.
David Simmonds (Conservative, Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner)
I am an honorary fellow of Birkbeck College.
John McDonnell (Labour, Hayes and Harlington)
Ditto.
Lloyd Russell-Moyle (Labour/Co-operative, Brighton, Kemptown)
As I mentioned in the previous sitting, I am a trustee at the University of Bradford union, I receive money from the University of Sussex to provide educational opportunities to its students, and I have received support from the University and College Union.
Matt Western (Labour, Warwick and Leamington)
My wife works at a higher education provider.