Higher Education Regulatory Approach

Lord Wallace of Saltaire Excerpts

Tuesday 21st January 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

My Lords, on this side of the House we very much welcome the decision of Government to commence the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act, but we deeply regret the delay, the changes the Government propose to make and the extent of the continuing uncertainty and delay over several parts of the Act.

One of the areas of inconsistency and confusion that the Government have introduced relates to complaints. The Government have chosen to create two different routes for complaint: via the Office for Students for academics and via the OIA for students. I would be grateful if the Minister could explain the rationale for separating them. Would it not be simpler to abandon the jurisdiction of the OIA and give all its powers to the newly empowered OfS? Can the Minister explain what the Government think will happen if—as is perfectly possible—standards of protection diverge in some way and one group is given stronger protection than another? What happens if a member of staff complains to the OfS and a student complains to the OIA on the same case?

Sticking with complaints, the Government have said that they will amend the law governing the operation of the OfS complaints scheme so that it is not obliged to consider every complaint. However, the Act already says that the OfS can dismiss a complaint on the basis that it is either frivolous or vexatious. I would be grateful if the Minister could explain why this is necessary. What will be the threshold for the complaints the OfS will consider? Will there be an appeals mechanism if the OfS does not judge that a complaint meets its threshold?

The Government have also created a specific gap in relation to student unions. The Secretary of State said that she fully expects

“student unions to protect lawful free speech, whether they agree with the views expressed or not”.—[Official Report, Commons, 15/1/25; col. 380.]

But the Government have said that they want to remove the provisions about student unions. Many of the worst and most egregious cases of cancellation, affecting a number of Members of your Lordships’ House, have involved student unions.

Given that the Government both accept the existence of a free-speech problem on campuses and the need for increased standards of protection, does exempting student unions from the scope of the Act not leave a serious gap in effective protection? Going forward, how do they expect to deal with cases where a cancellation, which would have been unlawful if done by a university or college, is done by a student union?

We are also in the dark about timing. The Government have said that they intend to bring into force various parts of the Act and seek to amend and then bring into force others. Can the Minister set out for the House the timescale for both processes? When will the statutory instrument bringing into force those sections which the Government will not seek to amend be laid before Parliament? When will the commencement date of those sections be? When will the Government seek to make the amendments they have proposed and when will they seek to bring those new sections into force? The start of the 2025-26 academic year seems a natural implementation point, but everyone involved in this area needs maximum certainty, so it would be helpful if the Minister could commit now, or commit to making a statement as soon as possible, setting out that timeline.

In the other place, the Secretary of State said that her decision to seek to repeal the tort clause was made to save universities and colleges expense by avoiding the risk of litigation. Can the Minister confirm that such a risk necessarily exists, even if the form of that risk takes the threat of actions for judicial review rather than civil litigation? Will she agree that, along with action under the complaints scheme, universities and colleges that disregard their duties under the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act could face public law legal action, and that they must not see the removal of the tort clause as an excuse to drag their feet or ignore their legal responsibilities?

On foreign influence registration, we were very disappointed to see the removal of the monitoring of overseas funding changed, not only with what felt like very unfortunate timing but when the documents from the Free Speech Union judicial review have been revealed, which indicate that the potential impacts on English higher education institutions operating in China played a role in that decision. Can the Minister reassure the House that those decisions were not made with the Chancellor’s recent trip to China in mind?

I acknowledge the courage and energy of those academics who have campaigned to get this law enacted, including Dr Edward Skidelsky, who co-ordinated the letter of over 650 academics, Professor David Abulafia, Professor Alice Sullivan and Professor Abhishek Saha, as well as the women’s rights groups, including Sex Matters, led by the tireless Helen Joyce, the powerful legal interventions, including from Akua Reindorf KC and Dr Julius Grower, and the many groups that have campaigned on this issue.

At the end of this, we are left with more questions. If you were the governor of a university or responsible for managing these issues, what would you be doing now? How long are you going to have to wait until the position is clear? As so often has been the case since the election, why are the Government undoing something that had received full parliamentary scrutiny without a plan for what to put in its place? I suspect that I shall receive a long letter with answers from the Minister, but I live in hope for some answers now.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)]

My Lords, Liberal Democrats welcome this Statement, but for entirely different reasons from those that noble Lords have just heard from the Conservative Front Bench. This provision removes parts of the Act that we opposed during its passage through Parliament, and we welcome that; we were not persuaded that the Act as such was necessary. It was driven by the right-wing culture war against the “liberal elite”, with the Conservatives taking their cue from the Republican right and Fox News as, sadly, they so often have done in recent years.

The Act contradicted Conservative and Liberal principles of respect for autonomous bodies and limits to government regulation and state interference. The costs of litigation imposed on cash-strapped universities threatened to be heavy. The burdens on student unions were likely to be beyond their capacity to manage. The proposed duplication of complaints schemes was badly designed. The requirements for accepting outside speakers virtually unconditionally potentially opened the door to Holocaust deniers, as well as to extremists of the right and left.

A number of universities clearly made mistakes in responding to student attempts to cancel academics and visiting speakers with whom they disagreed. I recall at least one vice-chancellor admitting in a private conversation the mistakes that he had made in responding to conflicting pressures. But it is not the first time that university administrations have made mistakes in responding to student protests—this is not new. I have been on both sides of student protests and staff responses since the 1960s, with changing political crises and student generations protesting on South African apartheid, Vietnam, civil rights and race inequalities, fossil fuel investments and tuition fees.

Previous British Governments had wisely left it largely to universities as autonomous bodies to moderate intolerant demands and teach their students—and some of their staff—to disagree well and respect those with different opinions. Some of today’s student radicals have been determinedly intolerant in defending identity politics, but many on the right have also become determinedly intolerant in their anti-woke crusade.

The question of foreign funding is also difficult and delicate—but also not new. During my time at the London School of Economics, we had an embarrassing controversy over a large Middle East donation, but we later accepted a larger donation from another Middle Eastern ruler, after whom one of the LSE’s buildings is now named. There are potential problems about undue financial dependence on funding from any foreign state, especially if it is a non-democratic state. Can the Minister explain further what the reference in the Statement means when it refers to taking

“more time to consider implementation of the overseas funding measures”?

What sort of consultation with the HE sector is intended, and how long might it take?

The Act as passed was disproportionate in responding to incidents that had failed to respect freedom of speech. It was also disproportionate in the regulatory and financial burdens that it imposed on universities and student unions. I hope that the Minister will reassert that freedom of speech is a principle to be cherished, recognising how difficult that can sometimes be—and it is not a weapon to be used in a Trumpian “war against woke”.

[The Minister of State, Department for Education (Baroness Smith of Malvern) (Lab)]

I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, and the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, for their responses to the Statement. I am glad that the noble Baroness welcomed the decisions made by the Government, which, when I addressed the House previously in response to an Urgent Question on this issue, I emphasised would be informed by careful consideration of a difficult and challenging issue. I believe that that is what the Government have undertaken to do.

I also share the noble Baroness’s admiration for those academics, many of whom I have spoken to as part of the consultation that we have done on this, in identifying the challenges in this really difficult area and the need for some of the protections offered by the legislation. I share with them a view that there should be an absolute commitment, which this Government have, to freedom of speech and academic freedom. It was, of course, a Labour Government who first enshrined freedom of expression in law through the Human Rights Act and suggested that higher education must be a space for robust discussion, intellectual rigour and exposure to new ideas. If you go to university, you must be prepared to have your views challenged, to hear contrary opinions and uncomfortable truths, to be prepared to argue for your own beliefs, and to accept that others may hold beliefs that you disagree with. Academics must be allowed to test the truth of the ideas that shape society and participate in a free exchange of ideas, including where that causes shock and discomfort.

The noble Lord is right that those are long-standing principles. However, while they have been long standing and not negotiable, this is a difficult and contested area that has not always had the senior or thoughtful engagement that it needs from university leaders, as the noble Lord concedes. That must change. That is why we gave careful thought to which elements of the legislation were appropriate to be commenced, which areas we thought needed repeal and which needed amendment.

On the complaints system, I was struck by the number of people who argued for the need for a form of redress and by those higher education institutions which argued about the burdensome nature of the tort and the ability for anybody potentially to take complaints under the previous legislation. It was asked why we should distinguish between students and staff. The OIA already has responsibility for considering student complaints and considers some complaints about freedom of speech. It will be much clearer for students to know where to go for any complaints. I am confident that the OIA and the OfS will work closely on complaints that come to them at the same time, as the noble Baroness outlined.

On the change to the complaints system, I have a strong expectation that one of the requirements to consider a complaint will be that it has gone properly through new internal processes that universities either are setting up or will set up. It is therefore appropriate that the responsibility on the OfS for the complaints system should be a power, not a duty, thereby enabling it to choose that the complaints which get to it have the strongest thematic and sector-wide implications.

We have decided not to commence provisions that would impose new duties on student unions, which are neither equipped nor funded to navigate a complex regulatory environment, with all the potential legal and regulatory costs that will entail. Student unions are already regulated by the Charity Commission, and we fully expect them to protect freedom of speech and the higher education providers within which they operate to support their student unions to do so. That is an appropriate balance to ensure that student unions come within the ambit of the spirit of what is happening here.

On whether a JR will pose the same threat of legal action as the tort, a judicial review does not bring with it the threat of damages in most cases, unlike a civil claim. That threat, linked to the tort, caused higher education providers concern about the burdensome nature of the tort and caused them to instruct lawyers earlier. Frankly, we decided that we would rather see tight resources in higher education going to support students and staff rather than to instruct and fund lawyers.

On the point about foreign influence and overseas measures, I thought more of the noble Baroness than to trot out the slur that the timing of this had been influenced by the Chancellor’s visit. She knows that this has been under consideration for much longer than that. This Government are committed to ensuring that our world-leading universities remain free from foreign interference. Providers should expect the OfS to take regulatory action if they allow foreign Governments to interfere in free speech or academic freedom, and it can already request information from providers about overseas arrangements. We are working at pace on the implementation of the foreign influence registration scheme, which will apply to universities across the UK, but we also want to ensure that, as we work carefully on this, we keep open options around the commencement of the overseas funding measures. We will return with more information about our decision on that.

On the timing of the legislation, as the noble Baroness asked, we will come forward with more information in a policy paper on the details of how our proposals will be implemented and legislated for. That will include more information about timing.