Freedom of Speech in Universities

Commons Urgent Question

12:07:00

My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat in the form of a Statement the Answer given by my honourable friend the Minister for School Standards to an Urgent Question in another place. The Statement is as follows: “It was a Labour Government who enshrined the right to freedom of expression in law, and it is a Labour Government who will again uphold freedom of speech and academic freedom on our university campuses—not through creating a culture war, but through working with academics, students and campaigners to get the legislation right. The Secretary of State wrote to colleagues and made a Written Statement on 24 July 2024 on her decision to pause further commencement of the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act 2023 in order to consider options. We have heard concerns from minority groups and others that that Act and its implementation may have unintended consequences and result in disproportionate burdens for universities and student unions. Many are concerned that it could push providers to overlook the safety and well-being of minority groups over fears of sanction and costly action. I want to provide the House with reassurance that this Government believe that higher education must be a space for robust discussion that exposes both students and academics to challenging ideas. The decision to pause the Act was made precisely because of the importance of getting this legislation right. The Secretary of State indicated in her Written Statement that she would confirm her long-term plans for the Act ‘as soon as possible’. Since then, officials and Ministers have engaged with a wide range of stakeholders on the future of the Act. This includes representatives of higher education providers and academics, including those from the Committee for Academic Freedom, Academics for Academic Freedom and the London Universities’ Council for Academic Freedom. They are continuing to engage with stakeholders before any final decision is made”.

12:09:00

My Lords, there are a lot of ironies in the Government’s decision to delay the implementation of the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act. First, it was done without any debate in Parliament and, secondly, it was not mentioned anywhere in the Government’s manifesto, despite the decision being taken within three weeks of the election. The failure to commence the legislation that this Parliament passed is resulting, every day, in freedom of speech and academic freedom in our universities being eroded, most recently with an elected MP being unable to speak at a university this evening. The reasons the Minister repeated relate to the impact on minority groups, so I ask her to confirm that she agrees with those leading lawyers and academics that the new Act does not provide any further protection for those wishing to express hate speech on campus, including Holocaust denial. Can she confirm that it does not change the law in that regard? Will she agree to meet with those Jewish academics who sought a meeting with the Secretary of State and who are calling for full implementation of the Act?

The noble Baroness probably understands that the speed with which the decision was made related to the timing of the commencement. It is right to be taking the time now and engaging in the way we are with those on various sides of the argument about the best way of proceeding on this issue. I have spoken to some of the legal experts that the noble Baroness cites with respect to hate speech and understand their points. The fact that there is debate about the impact of this piece of legislation is part of the problem that we seek to ameliorate through the options we are considering. What I know is real is the strong concern among minority groups that the reality of the impact of the legislation would be to allow on to campuses people whose views would be reprehensible and would potentially constitute hate speech. That is what has brought the fear about. But this is not, of course, the only reason. There has also been considerable concern from universities themselves and from unions representing university staff about the disproportionate burdens. On the Jewish academics, I have met a lot of people already and I am more than content to meet with that group as well.

My Lords, I remind the House that the story in today’s Telegraph about the inability of the Cambridge University Conservative Association to have Suella Braverman visit this evening says that it is on advice of the police, due to another MP’s visit to Cambridge, and not that of the university. I remind the House that we on these Benches were deeply doubtful about the Bill and the disproportionate burdens it would impose. Any decent conservative would believe in the autonomy of civil society and of academic institutions. This is not a new problem. The first lecture I ever gave as a university lecturer, in January 1968, had a large demonstration—because they thought the dean was giving it—against Vietnam and the then Labour Government. My wife and I, as undergraduates, had taken part in earlier demonstrations about South Africa, which the Daily Telegraph, of course, denounced at the time. We now have a culture war in the United States, in which Republicans are—

Question!

Okay. Does the Minister accept that the urgency of this is rather overstated at present, given the one report in the Telegraph this morning? Does she agree that it is absolutely right to reconsider a badly drafted Act, and that the autonomy of universities has to be respected?

My Lords, I remind the House that this is a repeat of an Urgent Question and is therefore time limited to 10 minutes.

I thank the noble Lord for his appreciation of our considered approach. I absolutely reiterate that I and the Government believe that there is an issue about freedom of speech and academic freedom on our campuses. It is of fundamental importance, which is why we need to get it right.

Will the Minister agree that uncertainty sometimes leads to bad decisions? I therefore urge her to take into account the fact that while the process is paused, universities may be uncertain about what is right and what they cannot do. Having that process done as speedily as possible to create that certainty would be helpful.

I hope that universities are absolutely certain about both the existing protections for freedom of speech in legislation and their responsibilities to create campuses in which academic freedom and freedom of speech can flourish. Elements of legislation may be necessary to enforce that, but there is no uncertainty in my mind that that is their responsibility and that is what they should do.

My Lords, I welcome the Government’s response, and I say that as a member of a minority and a Member of this House who has expressed concern about the defamation of minorities, which has led to hate crime and hate speech. Will the Government therefore continue on their path to damp down the culture war that was fanned by the party opposite when it was in office, and indeed by some Members of this House? Fanning the culture war impacts on the most vulnerable in our society, and freedom of speech comes with responsibility.

I agree with the noble Lord. The position of higher education, support for higher education and the embedding of freedom of speech and academic freedom within our universities are serious issues. This is a serious Government who are interested in finding the right solutions, rather than a political headline.

On freedom of speech, as a former academic, I detect—to put it firmly—a real stitch-up here between vice-chancellors and the Government. Really and truly, they just want an easy time of this and the Government have provided them the convenience of having that. This is not really an issue about freedom of speech because the Government do not believe in it in this context. This is more ideologically driven than anything else.

The noble Lord is wholly wrong. We strongly believe in freedom of speech and academic freedom. It was a Labour Government who enshrined freedom of expression in legislation. The discussions I have had have been not only with representatives of higher education but with advocates of this Act and of freedom of speech and academic freedom. I will continue to do that, and I will not be tempted into the sort of political grandstanding that the noble Lord is attempting to get me into.

Does the Minister agree that that grandstanding is abhorrent in this House, as is that kind of completely untrue allegation? That kind of misinformation and fake news, which is being perpetrated in so many ways, is causing the problems in the United Kingdom and elsewhere today.

I agree with my noble friend. Vice-chancellors say to me that theirs is a difficult job, made tougher by the previous Government’s failure to address the financial challenges that they faced and by their propensity to use universities and higher education as a political battleground, rather than supporting them in the way they need. The previous Government only made this worse, and we are determined not to go down that route.

Does the Minister think that seven Nobel Prize winners, one Fields medallist and 650 other academics are engaging in a culture war in calling for the implementation of the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act in full?

No, I do not, which is why I did not use that expression.

My Lords, does the Minister agree that an elected politician was cancelled from speaking at one of our leading universities— supposedly a beacon of free speech? Will she commit to implementing the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act as soon as possible?

As the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, made clear, there might be different views about the causes of the particular event to which the noble Baroness refers. For that reason, I shall not comment on the details of that case. I would say that as a student I have been a protestor and as a politician I have been on the receiving end of protests. This Monday at the University of Manchester, where I was speaking, I was interrupted by a protest, which was obviously not ideal. A careful balance needs to be made between the right to protest and the right of freedom of speech, and I think that these things are probably better dealt with in a calm and considered way than in headlines on the front of newspapers.