The Minister of State, Department for Education ( of Malvern) (Lab)
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”.
12.09pm
(Con)
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?
of Malvern (Lab)
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.
Lord (LD)
My Lords, I remind the House that the story in today's Telegraph
about the inability of the Cambridge University Conservative
Association to have 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—
Noble Lords
Question!
Lord (LD)
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?
(Lab)
My Lords, I remind the House that this is a repeat of an Urgent
Question and is therefore time limited to 10 minutes.
of Malvern (Lab)
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.
(CB)
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.
of Malvern (Lab)
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.
(Non-Afl)
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.
of Malvern (Lab)
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.
(Con)
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.
of Malvern (Lab)
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.
of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)
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.
of Malvern (Lab)
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.
(Con)
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?
of Malvern (Lab)
No, I do not, which is why I did not use that expression.
(Con)
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?
of Malvern (Lab)
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.
