Laws protecting free speech at universities will be revived without a controversial clause that gives complainants extra powers to seek compensation, the government announced on Wednesday. The Times has the story.
Student unions will also no longer be covered by the act but ministers warned students not to cancel speakers and told vice-chancellors not to be complacent about free speech on campus.
The Times revealed last month that a watered-down version of the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act would be introduced this month after a backlash from critics, just weeks before the government was due to face a judicial review.
The original act was shelved within days of Bridget Phillipson becoming education secretary, just before its powers were about to come into force. The previous government brought in the act to strengthen existing laws by putting a duty on universities and student unions to protect and actively promote free speech.
The Tories accused the government of U-turns over the act — and also over teacher pay, after Phillipson told MPs earlier in the day there would be no cap on state school salaries. Its schools bill aims to bring academies under the same pay and conditions regulations as council-run schools leading to fears that academies would have to restrict pay. But the education secretary said on Wednesday morning that the bill would create a floor but not a ceiling on teacher salaries, to enable “healthy competition and innovation to improve all schools”.
The original free speech act would have introduced a “statutory tort”, allowing civil claims for damages against universities or student unions, leaving institutions liable to being sued by aggrieved parties who claimed their free speech had been blocked, and also facing vexatious complaints. Phillipson said it would have led to universities wasting money on lawyers rather than on education.
The government has also ditched part of the act that would have encompassed student unions, saying this would force them to take on expensive and complex legal responsibilities.
Phillipson told the Commons on Wednesday that the act would proceed in a “way that actually works”. The previous version would put unworkable duties on student unions and clog up the courts system, she said.
The act created a new role of director of free speech within the Office for Students (OfS), the independent regulator of higher education in England, giving it the power to deal with complaints and penalise universities or student unions for breaches, and the Cambridge philosopher Arif Ahmed was given the job by the previous government. He has kept a low profile since the general election and Phillipson said he had agreed to stay on with her full support, but that such appointments should not be political.
Phillipson told vice-chancellors they could no longer be complacent about free speech and warned students not to try to cancel views with which they disagreed.
Adam Tickell, vice-chancellor of the University of Birmingham, said: “The statutory tort would have been an expensive burden and there is no evidence it would have enhanced free speech. The underlying principle that universities need to be places where difficult and challenging ideas can be expressed without fear or favour is to be welcomed.”
The act’s introduction pre-empts a judicial review against its suspension, brought by the Free Speech Union, due to be held at the end of this month. There was an outcry from academics and high-profile campaigners against the act being paused. A letter to the Times, signed by hundreds of supporters, said that academics and students had been hounded, censured, silenced or even sacked over the past 20 years for expressing legal opinions.
The Office for Students will have the power to investigate complaints over breaches of free speech from academics, external speakers and members of universities and all universities will be required to have robust codes of practice on free speech. Penalties include fines, compensation or suspension of registration by the OfS.
However Laura Trott, the shadow education secretary, said the act was toothless without the tort and accused the government of a U-turn as it had previously branded the act a “Tory hate charter”.
She told the Commons the government was “virtue signalling”, adding: “Without the tort, what are the consequences that universities will face if they don’t protect free speech?”
Trott also challenged the government for pausing parts of the act that would increase transparency around foreign funding and influence. The Department for Education said it was putting this on hold, to ensure it did not overlap with another new scheme being implemented — the Foreign Influence Registration Scheme — and place unnecessary burdens on universities.
It said the OfS already had powers to deal with issues related to suspected foreign interference and funding, and the DfE would consider whether these powers require strengthening as part of a review.
Trott asked whether the measure was discussed during Rachel Reeves’s visit to China and whether any deals were done to amend the clause.
Worth reading in full.
