Universities: Freedom of Speech

10:40:00

(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State if she will make a statement on freedom of speech in universities.

It was a Labour Government who enshrined in law the right to freedom of expression, 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 26 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 wellbeing 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. Those officials and Ministers will continue to engage with stakeholders before any final decision is made.

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

This evening, a Member of this House was due to speak at an event at Cambridge University. That event will not go ahead as planned because of safety concerns. It is absolutely not for us to question operational decision making, but it absolutely is for us to question this Government about legislation and the effects—direct, indirect and chilling—of the decisions they have made since coming to office. Last year, the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act became law. In the end, having attracted cross-party support after extensive working with students and academics, it passed all its stages in Parliament and received Royal Assent. That Act is about protecting free speech on campus, including for visiting speakers, and it is about academic freedom to challenge conventional wisdom and put forward unpopular and controversial opinions. However, in July this year, the new Secretary of State decided—without any parliamentary debate—not to commence that Act. The Minister speaks about a wide range of stakeholders. Some 600 academics, including seven Nobel prize laureates, have written to the Secretary of State in support of the legislation. Does the Secretary of State really think that those academics would support that legislation if it was, as the Government put it, a Tory hate charter? Will she now agree to meet those academics, and will she please now do the right thing and commence the legislation that Parliament has passed?

This Government are absolutely committed to freedom of speech. The Secretary of State paused the further implementation of the Act to consider options and ensure we get the legislation right, and she will confirm as soon as possible the plans for the Act and long-term plans for the continuation of freedom of speech in higher education. The higher education sector, minority groups, and unions representing staff on campus have raised concerns about the Act, believing it to be disproportionate, burdensome and damaging to the welfare of students, and fear that sanctions could result in minority groups’ concerns being overlooked. MPs and peers raised a whole range of these concerns during the Bill’s passage. By stepping back from the legislation to reflect on which of the measures introduced are needed, the Government are taking a pragmatic approach to ensuring that higher education remains a space for constructive dialogue and a home for diverse opinions. It should not be a battleground for ideological clashes. We are considering the next steps. I take on board the shadow Secretary of State’s request for the Secretary of State to meet those he mentioned. She has held a range of meetings with all groups that have concerns and want a say in how this consideration continues. I am sure that she will have further meetings and I will pass on his specific request.

Universities and academic freedom are vital to the intellectual and economic health of this country. Free speech was mentioned in our manifesto earlier this year, but there was no mention of this particular decision, which was made 21 days after the Secretary of State took office. Sadly, I therefore find it difficult to support this decision, on that basis alone. Can the Minister tell me whether, when she talks about burdensome issues, she means the Chinese Government threatening to withdraw resources from our major universities, because I think that is at the bottom of the pressure that was unduly put on the Secretary of State?

I have heard my hon. Friend and recognise his point. However, I can absolutely reassure him that that was not a factor in making this decision. It is very much about ensuring that we take the time to consider options for the future of this Act and make sure that we get it right. It is because we believe in upholding freedom of expression and freedom of speech in our world-class higher education sector that we want to get this legislation right, and that is why we are considering the options. We will continue to listen to and meet all groups that have an interest in upholding freedom of speech. There are those who support measures in the Act and those who have concerns about measures in the Act. We will continue to consult and will report back on plans as soon as possible.

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

Freedom of speech is fundamentally about the freedom to inquire about and explore ideas, facts and data that are sometimes difficult and sometimes inconvenient, and it was the lack of facts and data, and even of much of an idea, that failed to convince the Liberal Democrats of the need for the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act. It was not based on evidence and it was not proportionate, and the Government’s decision to halt its implementation is welcome. However, we should take legitimate concerns seriously, and we should not ignore those that exist within Jewish communities, including in universities. What work is the Minister undertaking to ensure that Jewish staff and students feel safe and welcome in our communities, especially in our universities?

I welcome the hon. Gentleman’s comments and recognise much within them. The rise in antisemitic abuse on higher education campuses is deeply concerning, and this Government take it extremely seriously. We regularly meet Universities UK to discuss what support universities are offering to Jewish students on campus and how they are tackling antisemitic abuse. We also regularly meet the Union of Jewish Students, the University Jewish Chaplaincy and the Community Security Trust, and we will continue to do so to make sure that we get this right.

Can the Minister reflect on the dire inheritance in education, particularly in the higher education sector?

My hon. Friend raises an important point about the wider landscape and the challenges facing our higher education sector. Our universities are not just vital for upholding freedom of expression, freedom of speech, academic debate and rigour; they are also incredible seats of opportunity that must be unleashed up and down this country. We will continue to do everything we can to support economic growth, which we know is supported by higher education, and indeed by the whole of education. The Government are committed to that unleashing of opportunity.

The Secretary of State has said that she wants to listen to different views and the Minister has talked about the number of meetings that have taken place, so will she commit to meeting the delegation of senior Jewish academics led by Professor David Abulafia, who has already written requesting such a meeting?

The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. We are absolutely committed to consulting with a wide range of interests in order to get this legislation right, and I will certainly pass on his request to the Minister with responsibility for higher education, who leads on this work.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the real threat to academic freedom are cuts to academic subjects and job insecurity, two issues that the Conservative party ignored time and again when in government?

My hon. Friend raises an important point, and it goes back to what I said previously: this debate is very important. It is important that we have the right framework for freedom of expression and speech within our education system, and particularly that academic rigour that benefits from having the freedom to be challenged and to challenge views that should be heard and debated. She is also right that universities are the powerhouse to opportunity across the country, and we need to ensure that is unleashed in every part. I am a fellow north-east MP and we know how important our universities are in our region to unleashing that opportunity and we want to see that unleashed across the country.

Mr Speaker, I apologise for my hoarse voice—I have been silenced. The reason that this legislation was brought forward in the first place was that so many academics were fearful of being able to speak in those institutions. They did not believe they had the freedom to express ideas and views, and they were being silenced by other academics. That is why the legislation was brought forward. It is shocking that an Act of Parliament, passed by this House and given Royal Assent, is just to be cast aside without Members of Parliament first having an opportunity to vote on whether they agree with that. Will the hon. Lady therefore commit to giving this House a say on whether that will be allowed to happen?

I commend the right hon. Gentleman for his valiant efforts today to uphold his right to speak on this issue. I recognise the challenge of ensuring that we have taken the time to get this right, because we want to protect freedom of speech and we need to ensure that this legislation, and any legislation, assists in that and does not impede it. We also recognise and support the existing duty on higher education providers to support and secure lawful freedom of speech, as currently set out in the Education Act 1986. It remains in force for Office for Students registration conditions. He is right that we need to get this right; that needs to be upheld, and having this discussion today supports that push to ensure that freedom of speech is upheld. As the Act to which he referred passed through this House and was considered, and as it is now further considered, that sheds more light on the importance of upholding freedom of speech, and he has contributed to that again today.

In the week that we mark the dark anniversary of 7 October, may I say that I welcome this Government taking these measures to ensure the safety of Jewish students on campus? Does the Minister agree that this shows that this Government truly believe that, regardless of their religion, students should be able to get on with their studies without concern for their safety?

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend, and I think that the same principle applies through every aspect of education and childhood, and in every aspect of society too. As a Government, we stand with those upholding and securing those rights.

Our universities have to be an avenue where individuals can speak and be challenged. The reality is that there is nothing new to freedom of speech. I remember as a president of a students’ union constantly having to fight for the right for people to express their views, even when I totally disagreed with them. The sad reality is that Jewish students and Jewish academics feel threatened right now by antisemites—let us call them out for what they are—when they must be free to exercise freedom of speech. Will the Minister, in this consideration, make sure that those rights are upheld in whatever the Government come forward with?

I know that the hon. Gentleman works hard in this space. I do not disagree with a word he has said. Universities must be a space for robust discussion, and that is why we have paused the roll-out of the Act. He is right that antisemitism and Holocaust denial are abhorrent and there must be no space for them. That is why we have paused the legislation. We must ensure that we get the balance right between freedom of speech and upholding the right for minority groups and others to have their lawful right to freedom of expression, as they should.

Previous Conservative Education Ministers are on the record stating that this flawed legislation could allow those spreading hate and extremism to seek compensation under its measures. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is right that we look again at this issue in order to avoid those dangerous consequences?

My hon. Friend raises an important point, which is why we are currently talking to people with a range of views, including those supportive of the provisions in the Act. We are listening to the concerns of minority groups and others that the Act could encourage universities and colleges to overlook the safety and wellbeing of minorities because of a fear of complaints and costly legal action, pushing them towards allowing abhorrent hate speech. That is why we are considering this legislation. We need to get this right.

Can the Minister give us any specific examples of a scenario with which the Government were confronted by these people who have successfully lobbied for a pause, other than just speaking in general terms about the legislation being disproportionate?

I appreciate the right hon. Gentleman’s thoughtful question. I cannot give him a specific example today. The principle that we are working to is that we are looking in great detail at all aspects and all concerns that have been raised, as well as supportive comments, in relation to the Act and what it seeks to achieve. I will pass his question on to the Minister for higher education and skills and ask her to respond accordingly.

Student politics is often maligned in this place, and often rightly so. However, in 2006 I attended the conference of the National Union of Students and voted that Hizb ut-Tahrir should be no-platformed. It was the right thing to do. Clearly, the Conservatives agree, because in January this year they proscribed Hizb ut-Tahrir as a terrorist organisation. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Conservatives’ position is in fact a charter for Hizb ut-Tahrir, Holocaust deniers and vaccine deniers to wander our universities freely?

My hon. Friend expresses passionate views on this subject, which does incite passionate views, because it is a fundamental freedom that we must protect and uphold. That is why we are taking the time to ensure that we get this right and uphold lawful freedom of expression and freedom of speech in our higher education system, while not giving space for unlawful speech that goes beyond robust debate.

I recently attended universities in Birmingham and witnessed large protests in relation to the Palestinian issue attended by both people of faith and no faith, including Jewish students. They were protesting peacefully. While we accept that there has been a rise in antisemitism, there has also been a rise in Islamophobic hate at universities. Will the Minister confirm that whatever consultations take place, she will feed back a report on them to the House?

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his contribution. He is absolutely right. I will make that commitment, which I will pass on to the Minister for Skills and to the Secretary of State.

Before I was elected to this place, I was a university lecturer and a teacher. I worked hard—as did my colleagues—to ensure that in my lecture hall all views could be expressed, interrogated and debated, even those that I profoundly disagreed with. Does the Minister agree that when Opposition Members make unsubstantiated claims that students who express Tory views are marked down, it undermines—[Interruption.]

Order. I think that the hon. Members for West Suffolk (Nick Timothy) and for Broadland and Fakenham (Jerome Mayhew) are both trying to catch my eye. I assure you that that is not the way to do it.

Does the Minister agree that when Opposition Members make unsubstantiated claims that Tory students are being marked down, it undermines the brilliant hard work that our lecturers do to support their students?

My hon. Friend makes an important point. The Government will uphold freedom of speech and academic freedom on our university campuses. Robust debate and challenge to views helps students to grow in an education setting; creating culture wars does not. That is why we will work with academics, students, campaigners and all those with an interest in upholding freedom of speech in our higher education system to get this right.

Is freedom of speech not an absolute freedom and right? Will the Government not do something to bring vice-chancellors to account for their failures to deliver freedom of speech on university campuses? Fifty-five years ago, I was the victim of that when the vice-chancellor of the university that I was attending tried to prevent me, as chairman of the Conservative association, from inviting a then prominent Member of this House of Commons to the university campus. The vice-chancellor was eventually forced to stand down. I wrote what was then a lead letter in The Daily Telegraph, the vice-chancellor was shamed into changing his views and the visit took place. Does that not show that the key to this is having vice-chancellors who really believe in freedom of speech?

The hon. Gentleman has demonstrated well the existing duties on higher education providers to secure lawful freedom of speech and, indeed, the right of citizens to ensure that it is upheld. He makes an important point. That is why we are talking to people with a whole range of views on the issue to ensure that we get it right.

Under the Office for Students’ draft guidance, some universities have said they will have to revoke their adoption of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s definition of antisemitism for fear that it might contravene the legislation. Does my hon. Friend agree that that highlights why it is so important to get the legislation right and that it is right to be cautious about how we implement any such legislation?

My hon. Friend makes the point well. The Department is absolutely committed to upholding the IHRA definition as well as challenging and educating on issues that a range of hon. Members have raised today. We need to have a robust education system that informs and creates healthy debate on these issues, but it must also be lawful and protect the freedom of speech of those expressing lawful views.

Does the Minister believe that cancel culture and no-platforming are a problem? Does she believe they are getting worse? She has mentioned that this is important; why, then, will she not set out a concrete timetable for the introduction of this new legislation?

I appreciate the hon. Gentleman’s desire to see these changes. However, we want to take the time to get this right. We are absolutely committed to free speech—I have said that a number of times—and we want to take time to ensure that we protect it in the best way possible.

If the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act had been implemented, as would have happened under the last Government, to a timetable over the summer, the situation at the University of Cambridge probably would not have occurred, nor would the situation in Durham, in which the university debating society, the Durham Union Society, has been kept out of the students union fair. Would the hon. Lady reflect on the fact that this delay is having an impact on freedom of speech in universities across the country? I understand her concerns, but surely speed is of the essence if we are to ensure freedom of speech in our universities.

I respectfully disagree. Many concerns were expressed that unintended consequences of the Act would create a disproportionate burden, and that is why we have paused it—to step back and to reflect on whether the measures introduced by the Act are needed. We absolutely know that it is necessary to uphold freedom of speech. Provisions on freedom of expression still exist in legislation and will be upheld, and we need to make sure that we have the space to have a constructive dialogue on these issues rather than a battleground for ideological clashes. We are considering the next steps and will report in due course.

When the Minister considers whatever comes next after the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act, will she consider the business of foreign funding for international students, their scholarships and research institutes? In particular, will she ensure that no tests or conditions are imposed by other states on international scholarships, bursaries and funding for research institutes?

The hon. Gentleman tempts me into a much broader discussion on higher education. We recognise the challenges, but also the opportunities in this sector. I am sure the Minister for Skills will be listening to the hon. Gentleman’s concerns and considering them as part of the wider work on ensuring we support our higher and further education sectors in the best way, which is what they deserve.

Will the Minister outline how the Government will ensure that enshrining freedom of speech means enshrining freedom to believe and to express one’s beliefs without fear or favour? How will the Government ensure that students with deeply held faith or who hold true to biological science are entitled to discuss their beliefs on gender, ideology and indeed every facet of student life without fear or favour?

Yes, I give the hon. Gentleman that reassurance. It is for that reason that we are pausing and making sure that we get this legislation right. Freedom of speech and academic freedom are too important to approach in anything other than a considered, pragmatic and consensual way.

I appreciate the Minister’s constructive tone. She says that she does not want this to be a culture war issue. When the pause was announced by the Secretary of State, special advisers in her Department described the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act to the media as a Tory “hate speech charter”. Will the Minister disown those comments?

I have been very clear that we need to take a constructive approach and to listen to all views on this issue. We need to protect freedom of speech and academic expression, and that includes robust debate where necessary and challenging views that we may not want to hear. We are listening and we are determined to get this right.

The Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act is not a Government scheme that is being paused, but an Act of Parliament that has received Royal Assent. It is a very serious decision to stop that in its tracks, so it must have been based on serious evidence. Will the Minister set out that evidence? Given the need to defend freedom of speech is now, how long will the process take?

I agree that this is a serious issue, and it was a serious and important decision to make. We need to have the right foundations in place to secure free speech in the long term in higher education. We will consult all the groups with an interest in ensuring that we get this right. We are listening to those who are concerned about the Act and its implications. We are also listening to those who supported many of the measures in the Act and would like action to be taken to ensure freedom of speech in higher education. It is because of the seriousness of this issue that we have stepped back, to ensure that we take that pragmatic, long-term approach.