My Lords, this group of amendments relates to impartial research funding. Amendment 34 in the name of my noble friend Lord Moylan would introduce a new duty to require higher education providers to take reasonable steps not to refuse to grant funds for research because of a recipient’s lawful principles or political opinions.
Amendments 45 and 46, also tabled by my noble friend, seek to make clear, first, in respect of donations and sponsorship to registered higher education providers and, secondly, in respect of funding through UK Research and Innovation, that the donor, grantor or provider may never restrict the freedom of speech of those working under the funding. Amendment 53 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Sikka, is about the awards of grants for academic research.
7.30 pm
It is right to be concerned about the provision of research grants and that the process of giving such awards should not be open to abuse in the way that the amendments suggest. However, the Bill already requires in the main duty at new Section A1(1) that higher education providers must take reasonably practicable steps, having particular regard to the importance of freedom of speech, to secure freedom of speech within
the law for members, staff and students. This duty includes securing academic freedom. The Bill also states in proposed new Section A1(11) that
“references to freedom of speech include the freedom to express ideas, beliefs and views without suffering adverse consequences”.
“Adverse consequences” would clearly include the refusal of a grant of funds for academic research. Equally, if a donor or grantor insisted on certain conditions that would restrict freedom of speech for the funding they give, the provider should not accept it. If they did, they would potentially be in breach of their registration conditions.
As drafted, these provisions therefore already require a provider to take reasonably practicable steps to ensure that research grants are not refused because of the recipient’s stated lawful principles or political opinions. A member, staff member or student should be able to express their lawful ideas, beliefs and views without suffering adverse consequences; the provider must take reasonably practicable steps to ensure this.
It is clear that higher education providers should not interfere with academic freedom by imposing, or seeking to impose, a political or ideological viewpoint on the teaching, research or other activities of individual academics, either across the whole university or at the department, faculty or other level. Nor should providers seek to influence the academic freedom of staff by interfering with academic research by making conditions on grant funding applications. The duties in this Bill safeguard against these eventualities. Indeed, the Bill protects academic staff in higher education so that they are free to research and teach on subjects that may test the boundaries without this damaging their prospects of promotion or getting a job at another university.
Finally, my noble friend Lord Willetts posed a question about interdepartmental working within government. I can absolutely assure him that UKRI and the Office for Students work closely together all the time. Indeed, approval for the policy that underpins this Bill was subject to cross-government agreement.
I trust that those noble Lords who have proposed amendments in this group are reassured by this explanation, which makes it clear, I hope, that the Bill already covers impartial research funding as required.