Higher Education Regulatory Approach

3.16 pm

With permission, I shall make a statement on the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act 2023. In July 2024 I paused further commencement of the Act in response to concerns raised by a cross-section of voices. I took that decision because it is vital that we get this right. Our universities are one of this country’s greatest strengths, and I know Members across the House share my pride in a truly world-leading sector. At the centre of that excellence sit academic freedom and freedom of speech. The ability of our academics to explore and express new ideas through teaching and research is precious and we must protect it. These fundamental freedoms are more important—much more important—than the wishes of some students not to be offended. University is a place for ideas to be exposed and debated, to be tried and tested. For young people, it is a space for horizons to be broadened, perspectives to be challenged and ideas to be examined. It is not a place for students to shut down any view with which they disagree. Here is our starting point: academic freedom matters and freedom of speech matters, and we will preserve those two pillars of national strength, but we will proceed in a way that actually works. That is why we have carried out extensive engagement covering all corners of the debate: academics, universities, students; those for the Act and those against. All voices were heard. I was especially keen to consider the views of minority groups, to learn how the Act might affect them, particularly given the shocking rise in antisemitism on campus. Standing here in this great Chamber of debate, I remain resolute about the importance of free speech, but our engagement on the Act has raised concerns that any responsible Government must take seriously. What was being proposed simply did not rise to the challenge: unworkable duties on student unions, a tort clogging up the court system, and the Office for Students obliged to consider a vast number of complex complaints. There are also serious concerns over the Act’s potential impact on the welfare of minority groups. Many are worried that it could lead to increased harassment and discrimination on campus, and that the Act could push providers to overlook their safety. I share their concerns. I reiterate that I am appalled by the rise in antisemitism on campus. In my view, rising antisemitism is best tackled through education, which is why I have confirmed £7 million in funding to tackle antisemitism in schools, colleges and universities. I have reached a way forward that I believe is effective and proportionate, delivering an Act that is fair and workable. My decisions, subject to agreement from Parliament, will ensure that our higher education sector and the Office for Students continue to protect academic freedom and freedom of speech while ensuring the safety of minority groups. I propose implementing key elements of the Act and returning others to Parliament for decisions on their amendment or repeal. I propose shortly commencing the following requirements currently in the Act: the duties on higher education providers to take reasonably practicable steps to secure and promote freedom of speech within the law; the duty on higher education providers to put in place a code of conduct on freedom of speech; and the ban on non-disclosure agreements for staff and students at higher education providers in cases of bullying, harassment and sexual misconduct. I also plan to commence the duties on the OfS to promote freedom of speech and the power to give advice and share best practice. I will retain the director for free speech and academic freedom role, and I am pleased that Dr Ahmed will be staying on. I have complete confidence in Dr Ahmed. However, in my view, it is not right for this position to be a political appointee. The director should, of course, hold a deep belief in free speech and academic freedom, but their independence matters, and therefore their appointment must be free from any suspicion of political bias. Sir David Behan’s review of the OfS, commenced under the previous Government, recommended we reconsider how all OfS executive and board appointments should be made. I will decide on that shortly. While there is much in the Act that is valuable, there are provisions that I do not believe to be proportionate or necessary, and which will drain resources from providers and distract from the other important issues they face. It is therefore my intention to return to Parliament to seek the repeal of two provisions. The first is the duties on student unions in the Act. Student unions are neither equipped nor funded to navigate such a complex regulatory environment, and they are already regulated by the Charity Commission. However, I fully expect student unions to protect lawful free speech, whether they agree with the views expressed or not. I also expect HE providers to work closely with them to ensure that that happens and to act decisively to ensure their student unions comply with their free speech code of conduct. The second provision I will seek to repeal is the tort. I have heard the views in favour of the tort, and understand the arguments being made. However, it would create costly litigation that would risk diverting resources away from students at a time when university finances are already strained. Members can be assured that the remaining routes of redress have plenty of teeth—the Office for Students will have powers to take tough regulatory action where universities and colleges do not meet their duties. Ultimately, an Act needs to be workable for its teeth to bite. How would Conservative Members rather our universities spend their time and resources: by lawyering up, or by focusing on high-quality teaching and groundbreaking research? In fact, the fear of litigation could hurt rather than help free speech, as universities may decide against inviting challenging speakers to avoid ending up in court, and nobody wants that. I have a message for vice-chancellors who fail to take this seriously: protect free speech on your campuses or face the consequences. For too long, too many universities have been too relaxed about these issues, and too few took them seriously enough—and that must change. There are other elements of the Act that I am planning to retain, but, with parliamentary agreement, to amend. I propose keeping a complaints scheme in place with the OfS. It is an important route of redress for anyone whose academic freedom or free speech has not been protected, and there must be a route for righting wrongs. However, it must be proportionate: the OfS should have the power to consider complaints, rather than a duty to assess every single complaint it receives, including those that are poorly put together or nonsensical. This way, the OfS will be freed up to prioritise the most serious complaints. I also want to remove the confusing duplication of complaints schemes for students. The Office of the Independent Adjudicator can already consider student complaints on free speech, and will continue to do so. The OfS complaints scheme will focus on complaints from staff, external speakers and university members. I will also amend the OfS’s mandatory condition of registration to give it flexibility in how it applies this condition to different types of providers. The OfS should have room to determine the best way to regulate on a case-by-case basis. That is the only way to deliver a sensible system that actually works. Finally, I will take more time to consider implementation of the overseas funding measures. I remain fully committed to tackling cases of interference by overseas Governments, and the wider measures in the Act will further strengthen our protections. However, I want to ensure that any new reporting requirements for providers add value without being overly burdensome. We continue to work at pace with the sector on the wider implementation of the foreign influence registration scheme. My officials are working across Government and with the sector to review our response, and I will confirm my final decision in due course. I intend to draft a policy paper to set out these proposals in more detail and will return to the House when it is ready. Where I am returning matters to Parliament, I will keep them under review in the meantime. Our universities are leading lights of learning. They are spaces for vigorous discussion where people of all ages, faiths and backgrounds can come together to debate new ideas. I call on universities to promote a culture of disagreeing well. There is already excellent work going on across the sector, but we must see more. Let me be clear that students have a duty as well: to embody that spirit of debate that makes our universities great, and not to simply try to cancel any views with which they disagree. This Government will secure freedom of speech in legislation that is practical, proportionate and workable, but legislation alone will never be enough. Freedom of speech is not easy. It is not just a right, but a responsibility. If we want a culture of debate that is robust yet respectful, challenging yet considerate, and strong yet civil, we must all do our part to nurture it. The freedom of speech Act provides a legal framework, but it is up to all of us every day to build a culture of truly free speech. I commend this statement to the House.

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

15:26:00

I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of her statement. The Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act 2023 was passed by Parliament prior to the election. By the end of the Act’s passage through both Houses, the Labour party had agreed in principle with the need for it; indeed, there are positive signals coming from those on the Front Bench today. However, immediately after the election, Government sources said the Act was a Tory “hate speech charter”, and paused its implementation. I ask the Secretary of State: what has changed? Does she still stand by her characterisation of the Act? It should have been obvious straightaway to anyone with even a basic sympathy for the norms of liberal education that pausing the Act was a mistake. It should have been clear again, when more than 650 academics signed a letter to The Times decrying the decision, that pausing the Act was a mistake, but the Secretary of State still did not budge from her position. It should have been undeniable that the Government had made the wrong choice when, acting together, no less than seven Nobel prize winners and a Fields medallist later added their names to that letter, but still Labour was happy to roll out the old tropes about hate speech. Literary luminaries like Sir Stephen Fry, Tom Holland and Ian McEwan were forced to intervene. Those with natural sympathies for the Secretary of State’s own political positions were compelled to tell her that she was wrong. It is only now, after all that humiliation, that she has finally changed her footing. I pay tribute to the academics who led that fightback outside Parliament. Much like they have done with academies in the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill, this Government take a wrecking ball to policy without a thought for the consequences. They are much more interested in virtue signalling than in what is right for the country, more interested in listening to student union advisers than to women hounded out of their jobs. Since the Secretary of State decided to pause the legislation, gender-critical women, among others, have, in the process of vindicating their rights, racked up enormous legal fees that have caused some to remortgage their houses. Professor Jo Phoenix said publicly that if the Act had been enforced, it would have saved her from that very ordeal. Will the Secretary of State now apologise to those who have suffered because of her inaction? We have upcoming legal action in the judicial review brought by the Free Speech Union against the Government’s decision. Considering that a concern about expense was one of the reasons given by the Government to justify their decision, how much has that litigation cost to defend? What is the financial cost of the Secretary of State’s inaction? How much taxpayer money has been spent on a partisan play-up-to-your-own-gallery move that is about to fall flat of its face in the court? Did the Secretary of State receive legal advice before she made her decision to suspend the Act? Will she release it, so that Members can see the basis on which she acted? If she did not, how can she possibly claim to have acted responsibly in this matter? Despite the Secretary of State’s statement, we now have confusion about what is actually happening. It seems that the Government cannot even do a much-needed U-turn properly. Without the tort, what consequences will universities face if they do not protect free speech? Why is the Secretary of State unable to set out a clear decision on overseas funding? Why is six months not enough time? Can she spell out the changes the Government are thinking about making to the overseas funding measure? Can she confirm that none of those were discussed during the Chancellor’s recent visit to China? Can she confirm that there were no deals done to amend that section? That is very important. It is extremely poor timing at best and invidious at worst to consider changes to the overseas funding element of the Act so soon after that trip to China. It was always obvious that the Education Secretary made a mistake in pausing the Act, but rather than commencing a little more of the Act to try to cover up the mistaken delay, she needs to get up and perform the U-turn in full. The Act contains much-needed protections and she must not abolish them just because they came from the Conservative side of the House. Finally, while we are at it, the Secretary of State should perform a U-turn on academy freedoms too. The Government must not take six months to realise their mistake on that one.

What we inherited from the previous Government was not a genuine attempt to solve a genuine problem; it was a mess designed to put party ahead of country. We saw a misplaced fascination with headlines for themselves, rather than a serious attempt to safeguard freedom of speech and academic freedom. It is precisely because this Government care about academic freedom and freedom of speech that we are determined to get this right, unlike the Conservative party. We are not content to leave it to vice-chancellors, who have done too little for too long. Universities must be places of robust discussion, where students’ views are challenged and academic freedom is central. One of my many predecessors in the previous Government, the former Member for Chippenham, was unable to set out how the then Government’s proposals would prevent Holocaust deniers coming on to campus. Let me be clear: Holocaust denial has no place on campus or anywhere else in our society. The legislation would have emboldened Holocaust denial, and showed a shameful disregard for the welfare of Jewish students. On the legal proceedings the right hon. Lady mentions, she was a member of the previous Government and knows very well that I am unable to comment on any aspect of that. I said I would consider all options. I have done precisely that and have returned to the House, as I intended, to provide an update. If Conservative Members want to know what a U-turn on free speech looks like, I suggest they turn their attention to Liz Truss, who for so long extolled the virtues of free speech and is now on some bizarre quest to cancel the Prime Minister for saying that she and the Conservative party crashed the economy. Freedom of speech cuts both ways. What a bunch of snowflakes!

I call the Chair of the Select Committee.

I thank the Secretary of State for confirming the Government’s approach to the implementation of the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act 2023, and I welcome the clarity that she has provided today. The implementation of the Act will present some challenges for universities and for students. The Secretary of State will know that there can sometimes be a fine line between free speech and hate speech, and between statements of views and opinions and incitement or encouragement to violence or intimidation in the real world. Can she assure the House that she will ensure that universities and students are absolutely clear about the limits to free speech, which are already enshrined in law, and that support will be provided on the interpretation of that when it is needed? Professor Shitij Kapur, vice-chancellor and president of King’s College London, has said: “Universities are not there to function as a Speakers’ Corner where anyone can stand up and express an opinion not necessarily supported by facts. If academic freedom is to mean anything, it must be accompanied by the academic obligation for ideas and claims to be accompanied by evidence and reason. Proponents have an obligation to engage and respond to those questioning their assertions and conduct that debate and discourse in a civil manner.” How will the Secretary of State ensure—particularly as the erosion of fact-checking and moderation on social media is taking place before our very eyes—that the implementation of the Act results in a high quality of evidence-based discourse conducted in a culture of civility?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her questions and her approach, and I look forward to discussing these issues with the Select Committee in due course should its members so wish. My hon. Friend’s point about disagreement is important. Free speech should be robust and we should be able to express our views, but all of us, especially those in public life, have a duty to ensure that we do so in a way that is responsible. As for the tort—this is at the heart of the issue that she has identified—I was concerned that the potential impact of legal proceedings and the financial consequences for providers of breaching their duties under the Act might have led to some providers unduly prioritising free speech that is hateful or degrading over the interests of those who feel harassed and intimidated. These issues can be finely balanced. We will provide further clarity through the Office for Students, but let me make it clear that academic freedom and freedom of speech are crucial tenets of our country’s history.

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of her statement. The Liberal Democrats fully support free speech, which, as several Members have pointed out, is at the heart of academic freedom, but it was clear from the start that this piece of legislation was not based on evidence, was not proportionate, and was fundamentally flawed. We welcomed the pausing of its implementation last year, and I welcome now the acknowledgement of its flaws and the Secretary of State’s move to repeal the provisions on the tort and on student unions in particular. I must, however, press her on the fundamental question of why the Act is necessary. Higher education institutions already operate within a legal framework to ensure that freedom of speech within the law is secured for academic staff, students, employees and visiting speakers, and universities have already taken action to improve their policies and processes relating to freedom of speech. Universities UK, which represents over 140 universities, has reissued and expanded its guidance in this area, as well as having regular discussions with university leaders to support them with these challenges. Would the Secretary of State consider taking a more meaningful step to ensure that students are safe, welcome and protected at universities by giving higher education institutions a statutory duty of care for their students? The Secretary of State also referred to the well-documented fears of minority groups, particularly those in Jewish communities, that the Act in its previous form would allow a platform for extremist views, and she mentioned Holocaust denial. We had some indication of this in her statement, but will she provide more details of her plans to protect those from minority groups and communities on our university campuses?

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising those questions. I will start where we agree, and then move on to where I might disagree with him. I agree that freedom of speech and academic freedom are essential, but, sadly, we have seen too many examples of their not being upheld in the way that they should be by universities. The right hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Laura Trott) raised a number of cases in which we have seen unacceptable practice, and some individuals have had to seek recourse through employment law when it should have been possible for them to seek redress sooner. That is precisely what we are seeking to deal with in ensuring that the Office for Students is able to focus on the most serious cases without being caught up in complex cases that could be less well founded or even nonsensical. I want to be clear that we have engaged with people with a range of views on these topics, including those who hold gender-critical views, those who were in favour of the legislation and those who had concerns. That careful process of engagement with the sector, stakeholders and people with a range of views has enabled me to come to the House today and set out our approach.

I call Mark Sewards, a member of the Education Committee.

I welcome the Secretary of State’s statement. It is good to see that our universities will no longer be a battleground in which political parties seek to make headlines—unsuccessfully, I might add. Does she agree that now that she has taken decisive action on this issue, it is time to talk about the financial situation facing many of our universities, which threatens their very existence? We know that students are paying far more for far less at university, and we need to end that ridiculous cycle.

I agree with my hon. Friend that, across the board, there are big challenges in the university sector. That is why I took the difficult but necessary decision last year to increase the fees that they are able to charge. This year, we will engage in reform right across the sector to provide the long-term financial sustainability that is required. As my hon. Friend recognises, we on the Government Benches are clear that our universities are a central part of our local and regional economies, and a beacon of excellence around the world. That is why so many students from around the globe seek to come to our world-leading universities.

I call Dr Caroline Johnson, a member of the Education Committee.

I respect the Secretary of State’s wish to ensure that she has considered the Act thoroughly. I regret that it has taken her so long to come to the conclusion that free speech is important, but I am glad that she has decided to bring into force many of the measures in the Act, which was introduced by the Conservatives. However, she has chosen to exclude student unions from the legislation. Can she say a bit more about how they will be held to account if they fail to keep in line with her desire to promote free speech?

On the timescale, this is a complex area, but in a little over six months we have consulted a wide range of stakeholders and considered all views, which is why I am able to return to the House today to update Members. The hon. Lady is right to say that we have decided not to commence provisions that will impose new duties on student unions. That is because some smaller providers have only a handful of members and do not have the resource or funding necessary to handle such claims, and they are already regulated by the Charity Commission. However, we fully expect student unions to protect freedom of speech, and providers to ensure that their student unions do so as well.

I welcome the careful and considered approach that the Secretary of State has taken to this issue; it stands in stark contrast to when the Act was first brought forward. I refer the shadow Secretary of State, and indeed the House, to my comments in Hansard on 13 May 2021, when the previous Secretary of State explicitly confirmed on Radio 4 that Holocaust denial would be protected speech. In that vein, does my right hon. Friend share the concern of groups such as the Union of Jewish Students and the Antisemitism Policy Trust that the draft guidelines produced by the Office for Students risked undermining existing good practice in tackling antisemitism? Will she give an assurance that the OfS will meet Jewish representative organisations to ensure that such mistakes cannot be repeated?

I am confident that the OfS, as the regulator, and its director for freedom of speech will seek to engage with a range of views, including those of Jewish students and community organisations, as they take forward this important work. That is certainly something that I have done to understand the concerns and the potential impact on minority students, including Jewish students, at a time when we all sadly know that antisemitism on our campuses and streets has been rising. As a country, we must do everything in our power to tackle that.

This screeching U-turn is welcome and I hope that, as the shadow Secretary of State says, it heralds a new period of humility and further change by the Government. The Secretary of State said that universities must protect free speech or “face the consequences”, but as far as I can see, she has removed those consequences. Could she please lay them out for us?

I know that the right hon. Gentleman is probably used to his party engaging in these discussions on quite difficult and sensitive issues in a rather reckless and irresponsible way, but we on these Benches take our time to do this seriously and properly to make sure that we get it right, because this is such an important area. He will have heard from my speech—I will set out further detail—the requirements that will be in place through registration conditions, the fact that the Office for Students will be able to impose penalties on institutions, and the requirements that we expect of all higher education providers. My message to vice-chancellors and institutions today is that they need to do more, and they need to do it better.

I call Select Committee member Darren Paffey.

I thank my right hon. Friend for her statement and for the measured, practical and common-sense approach that it takes, which is in sharp contrast to what we are hearing on the Opposition Benches at the moment. Although we will always defend their right to their opinions, a right to their own facts is rather regrettable and their revisionism is quite astounding. I know at first hand the value of a university education. It is about having our views challenged. It is about critical thinking based on evidence and facts and having our horizons opened. Does the Minister agree that this foundation and the measures announced today are the right way to secure academic freedom in the future?

My hon. Friend, through his background in higher education, knows all too well how essential it is that young people and students from a range of different backgrounds are exposed to views that they might not previously have heard or that they might find difficult or challenging. That is what a university education is all about, and that is what we are determined to secure and protect through the statement that I am making today.

We have substantial business to get through today before the House rises, so if questions are short I can get everybody in; if they are not, people are going to be disappointed.

I thank the Secretary of State for coming to the House and setting out the revised position of the Government. I am particularly concerned about the removal of the tort, because it effectively removes the real consequences for people who disregard free speech and the consequences that could be imposed on an institution or organisation. If that is going to be the case, can she set out to the House what resources will be dedicated to the director of free speech? Let us hope this is not just a one-person fig leaf. How many people are going to be working for them? What resource will there be to ensure that free speech is protected?

I am grateful to the former Secretary of State for his question. He will appreciate that this will be an independent regulator, and that there is a limit to what I can set out on their behalf. On the key issue of the tort, there will be consequences, even following the removal of the tort, for those providers who do not fulfil their duties under the Act. The OfS can already regulate providers in relation to free speech. It will be able to take regulatory action where there are breaches of the duties under the Act, including monetary penalties if needed, and the complaints scheme will enable the OfS to make recommendations to providers that they will be expected to follow. Existing routes of redress through judicial reviews and employment tribunals will remain open, but we want the OfS to focus on making sure that there is a system in place that is workable so that complaints can be dealt with swiftly.

I thank the Secretary of State for this statement. I think freedom of speech is really important, but it should be done in an environment of shared respect, as it is most of the time in this place. I welcome this pragmatic approach to the process. Will she confirm that the previous unworkable legislation would have added additional financial stress to institutions?

It is important that any legislation in this area is fair, proportionate and workable, and that is what we have sought to achieve through the wider engagement and consultation that has taken place since July, when I paused commencement. It is vital that we get it right. It is incredibly important, and today we have given clarity to the sector around expectations into the future.

I welcome the words from the Secretary of State around freedom of speech today—she knows that I have asked about this in the House previously—and I also welcome the partial U-turn. Will she join me, though, in thanking the academics who have really put pressure on the Government to get to this position, and also the work of the Free Speech Union? Will she encourage all academic institutions to sign up to the Chicago principles? Can she give us a brief timeline on when the foreign influence registration scheme could come forward? Finally, I will be setting up the all-party parliamentary group on freedom of speech in the coming weeks. Will the Secretary of State agree to come along and speak to us about this at some point?

I am afraid I did not quite catch the very last part of the right hon. Gentleman’s questions, but I will happily look in Hansard and return to him on that point.

I think he just wants to hear a yes to attending a meeting.

I am afraid I am not going to do that without having reviewed exactly what the right hon. Gentleman said, Madam Deputy Speaker. I know him quite well. The Department for Education and the Home Office are looking jointly at some of these areas, and I want to be clear that national security is our No. 1 priority as a Government. I am grateful to all those who have engaged in good faith with the Department in this conversation. They hold a wide range of views: there are those who are for the Act and those who are against, as well as those with views somewhere in the middle and those with some new ones. I am grateful for their contributions to this discussion. I hope they can all see that we have taken this seriously and that we now have a workable plan to ensure that freedom of speech and academic freedom in our institutions are protected into the future.

Frank Field was a very good friend of mine. He believed deeply in seeking out disagreement with other people for a richer conversation, and in the importance of listening in good faith to arguments made in good faith. Does my right hon. Friend agree that we should see that spirit across university campuses? How will her measures ensure that that is a reality?

I think we can all learn from Frank Field, who brought wisdom to a range of areas. We can all reflect on the need to keep our views under constant review to ensure that we challenge ourselves. The chance to be educated, whether at school, college or university, is a crucial part of challenging ourselves and understanding the world in all its many forms. These measures will allow university students to have precisely that experience.

I thank the Secretary of State for her statement. I particularly welcome the emphasis on reducing burdens for universities, which will mean a lot to smaller institutions such as the smaller research-intensive institutions like Reading University in my constituency. Will she commit the Department to continuing to work with smaller research-intensive institutions?

Yes. One of the many brilliant aspects of our country’s higher education sector is its diversity—smaller institutions, larger ones and those that bring a wealth of difference, having evolved and changed in different ways. We will continue to listen to and work with providers and institutions of all shapes and sizes across our country.

I congratulate the shadow Secretary of State on the sheer audacity of coming to this place and pretending that hers is the party of free speech. It was her party that introduced the Transparency of Lobbying, Non-Party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Act 2014, the single largest restriction on free speech in the charity and voluntary sector, purely because the sector was saying things the then Government did not want to hear. I encourage the Secretary of State to ignore the whines and the whinges, the gripes and the groans, of the Conservative party and carry on with what she is doing, because she is absolutely right. Universities are where people can challenge new ideas and hear things with which they may disagree. What advice is she giving to universities about the support they put in place so that students can explore these new ideas and have their own views challenged in a way that is safe and secure?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right that freedom of speech cuts both ways, and Conservative Members would sometimes do well to reflect on that, too. Sometimes, students can be exposed to views they find challenging or difficult, especially younger students who are newly away from home, and it is right that we put in place the right support. Institutions have invested a lot in mental health support and other provision. I think this also underlines the need to turn around the provision in the national health service, because I am concerned about the extent to which providers are having to put in place additional support, above and beyond what should be a statutory requirement for every person in our country.

I thank the Secretary of State for her statement, and I particularly welcome the funding for tackling antisemitism on campus, which is a well-documented problem. When the original guidance on the Act was published, it took an approach to free speech that did not take account of the limitations on freedom of expression for minority groups that arise from hate speech. As chair of the all-party parliamentary group against antisemitism, I am particularly concerned about the risk of giving that hate implicit protection and amplification on campuses. Can the Secretary of State assure me and minority community representatives who have raised this issue with us that any future guidance will more carefully outline the importance of expression for all, including minority groups that are sometimes crowded out by loud, hateful voices?

I will ensure that my hon. Friend’s point is taken up. Many have raised very serious concerns about antisemitism on campus and its impact on Jewish students, and I can see no good reason why any university would invite a Holocaust denier on to campus to deny the overwhelming evidence. Holocaust denial is an appalling form of antisemitism. Yesterday, I joined the Holocaust Educational Trust in Parliament to make sure that, as we come to the 80th anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz-Birkenau, we redouble our efforts to fight hatred and prejudice, including antisemitism, wherever we find it in our country.

I declare an interest, not only as someone who has worked in the sector, but as a member of the freedom of expression organisation English PEN, which condemned the approach of the previous Government because it felt it would restrict academic freedom. Further, my constituent, who is a well-regarded economist, lost his job after publishing research into the impact of migration on coalfield communities. Will the Secretary of State assure my constituent that this Government are committed to academic freedom and to ensuring the stability of academic institutions?

I give my hon. Friend that assurance. That is also why, as one of the measures that I intend to return to, we must look again at the board and executive appointments to the Office for Students. It is right that concerns have been raised that there could be the suspicion of political interference given that, rather unusually for that kind of appointment, it involves a political appointee. People might regard that as fine if they agree with the views of the Government of the day, but I do not think that is a good principle on which we enshrine in law very important positions that are central to how we uphold academic freedom and freedom of speech in this country.

I thank the Secretary of State for her statement and particularly in regard to the removal of the tort from the existing legislation. That will allow our universities to ensure that funds get spent on students and not on complex legal issues. As the Secretary of State has said repeatedly today, the Government take the need to expose students to a wide range of issues seriously. As a former academic, may I ask my right hon. Friend whether she agrees with me that our universities must remain centres of robust, rigorous debate always?

Yes, that is crucial. We know that the chance to study at university is life changing for so many students. That is of course the case for younger students—those who have what might be considered the more traditional experience of going to university at 18—but it is also about having the chance throughout life to return to education and training. That is what I have seen across so many institutions in our country. They put in place fantastic opportunities for upskilling and retraining later on in life, as people think again about how they want to go about things. I praise those institutions’ fantastic work in driving growth and innovation, and in the months to come, we will work with them to ensure they can do more.

May I invite the Secretary of State to respond to the following statement that was shared by the Union of Jewish Students while she was on her feet? “We support the changes brought forward by the Secretary of State. She has listened to the concerns we and others raised and has taken action. The result is that the Act will now be less likely to damage efforts to tackle anti-Jewish racism on campus. That should be welcomed by everyone.”

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for sharing those comments. I pay tribute to the Union of Jewish Students for the amazing work it does every day to support Jewish students on campus and to ensure that their voices are heard, including at the highest levels of Government. I give my commitment to UJS that I will continue to work with it and other student groups to make sure their voice is always heard. We as a Government are resolutely behind them in the fight against antisemitism in our country.

For the final question, I call Dr Scott Arthur.

As someone who was an academic until about 5 am on 5 July last year, I thank the Secretary of State for her statement and for the leadership she has shown on this issue. I will ask a question in the context of my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I am proud of all the universities in Edinburgh and how they attract students from all over the world, but last year when I visited the Edinburgh Hebrew Congregation, which is the main synagogue in Edinburgh, I was ashamed to hear of the intimidation that Jewish students were facing in university. I was pleased to hear that universities are taking that seriously and I know that the Edinburgh Interfaith Association is too. Freedom of speech is an important right, but that should never extend to bigotry and hate. Does the Secretary of State agree that students should be free to practise their faith, always, and able to display their faith publicly, no matter what it is, without fear of intimidation?

That is absolutely essential. The same is true for Jewish students and others from minority groups as they go about their business at school and college. Sadly, I have heard too many examples of abuse and intimidation of the sort that my hon. Friend describes. Universities must be robust places of intellectual challenge and rigour; there is no good reason why students should feel intimidated or harassed in a place where they should find comfort, challenge and support.