Asked by: Matt Western (Labour - Warwick and Leamington)
Question to the Department for Education:
To ask the Secretary of State for Education, what steps her Department is taking to help reduce levels of sexual assault on campuses.
Answered by Robert Halfon
University campuses should be safe and welcoming places for all students and staff. The government is committed to working with and through the regulator to encourage and support universities to take action to prevent sexual assault, and to ensure they have robust procedures in place to make the reporting and investigation of incidents as straightforward as possible.
To that end, the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act 2023 will ban the use of non-disclosure agreements in cases of sexual harassment and misconduct, and other forms of bullying and harassment. This provision will come into force in 2024.
Earlier this year, the Office for Students conducted a consultation to make mandatory measures that will, for the first time, require providers to address misconduct on campus. The results are expected this winter with new measures due in 2024.
The department was also proud to support the work, led by Universities UK, to develop and publish guidance for universities on how to prevent and tackle incidents of spiking.
Asked by: Matt Western (Labour - Warwick and Leamington)
Question to the Department for Education:
To ask the Secretary of State for Education, when her most recent meeting with the Office for Students was.
Answered by Robert Halfon
The Secretary of State met with Susan Lapworth, CEO of the Office for Students (OfS), and Lord Wharton, Chair of the OfS on 25 January 2023.
In my capacity as the Minister for Skills, Apprenticeships and Higher Education, I have also met with the CEO once, and Chair of the OfS twice, in 2023. My noble friend Baroness Barran has also met with the CEO once.
My Right hon. Friend, The Secretary of State for Education has not met with Arif Ahmed, Director of Free Speech and Academic Freedom of the OfS, since his appointment in June 2023. The Rt Hon Claire Coutinho MP, the previous Minister responsible for freedom of speech in the department, met with Arif Ahmed once in 2023 following his appointment.
Asked by: Matt Western (Labour - Warwick and Leamington)
Question to the Department for Education:
To ask the Secretary of State for Education, how many times she has met the Office for Students in 2023.
Answered by Robert Halfon
The Secretary of State met with Susan Lapworth, CEO of the Office for Students (OfS), and Lord Wharton, Chair of the OfS on 25 January 2023.
In my capacity as the Minister for Skills, Apprenticeships and Higher Education, I have also met with the CEO once, and Chair of the OfS twice, in 2023. My noble friend Baroness Barran has also met with the CEO once.
My Right hon. Friend, The Secretary of State for Education has not met with Arif Ahmed, Director of Free Speech and Academic Freedom of the OfS, since his appointment in June 2023. The Rt Hon Claire Coutinho MP, the previous Minister responsible for freedom of speech in the department, met with Arif Ahmed once in 2023 following his appointment.
Asked by: Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Conservative - Life peer)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask His Majesty's Government what assessment they have made of the implications for freedom of speech of (1) transparency orders, and (2) privacy injunctions, used in family courts, which may restrict named individuals from discussing the case with third parties including family and media outlets.
Answered by Lord Bellamy - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Ministry of Justice)
The Government recognises the importance of enabling the media to access family court proceedings to increase transparency in the Family Justice system while at the same time ensuring the privacy of vulnerable children and families going through court are protected.
Transparency Orders and privacy injunctions are made by the independent judiciary, taking all relevant factors, including freedom of speech, into consideration.
Transparency Orders are used by the court to set the parameters on what may or may not be reported in a particular case without amounting to contempt of court. The template Transparency Order, drafted by the judiciary, is cast in injunctive terms. If a Transparency Order is made in a case, then it is binding on members of the media to whom it applies. The Media Reporting Pilots in the family courts are being independently evaluated before any decisions are made on whether there should be changes to provision on media access to, and disclosure of information from family proceedings.
Asked by: Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Conservative - Life peer)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask His Majesty's Government what plans they have to review the use of transparency orders in family courts to prevent proceedings being open to media scrutiny, including (1) those made under the auspices of the Family Courts Transparency Pilots, and (2) those made in other general family court proceedings.
Answered by Lord Bellamy - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Ministry of Justice)
The Government recognises the importance of enabling the media to access family court proceedings to increase transparency in the Family Justice system while at the same time ensuring the privacy of vulnerable children and families going through court are protected.
Transparency Orders and privacy injunctions are made by the independent judiciary, taking all relevant factors, including freedom of speech, into consideration.
Transparency Orders are used by the court to set the parameters on what may or may not be reported in a particular case without amounting to contempt of court. The template Transparency Order, drafted by the judiciary, is cast in injunctive terms. If a Transparency Order is made in a case, then it is binding on members of the media to whom it applies. The Media Reporting Pilots in the family courts are being independently evaluated before any decisions are made on whether there should be changes to provision on media access to, and disclosure of information from family proceedings.
Asked by: Gregory Campbell (Democratic Unionist Party - East Londonderry)
Question to the Department for Education:
To ask the Secretary of State for Education, if she will make an assessment of the effectiveness of the provisions in the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act 2023 in the context of the response to recent remarks made by the Rector of St Andrews University on the Israel - Gaza war.
Answered by David Johnston - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Department for Education)
Although the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Bill received royal assent in May 2023, the main provisions of the Act will not come into force until 1 August 2024. This is because the Office for Students (OfS) will need to create the new free to use complaints scheme introduced by the Act and develop guidance on how providers and students’ unions can comply with their new duties, in consultation with the sector.
When in force, however, this Act will only apply to higher education providers in England registered with the OfS. The University of St Andrews will not, therefore, be in scope.
The new duties under the Act will give specific protections to academic staff and introduce routes of redress where an individual may not have clear contractual protections in place in respect of freedom of speech and academic freedom. The Act is clear that the job security of staff should not be undermined by the expression of lawful speech, including where they may question and test received wisdom, and put forward new ideas and controversial or unpopular opinions.
Asked by: Lyn Brown (Labour - West Ham)
Question to the Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office:
To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs, further to the Answer of 31 January 2023 to Question 129752 on Rwanda: Human Rights, what assessment he has made of the adequacy of progress of the investigation into the death of John Williams Ntwali in Rwanda; and what steps his Department have taken to monitor that investigation.
Answered by Andrew Mitchell - Minister of State (Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office) (Minister for Development)
The UK government is aware of the tragic death of John Williams Ntwali. We understand that a police investigation determined a traffic incident led to his death. Noting concerns around due process, we have raised this case with government of Rwanda and underlined the importance of transparent investigations. The UK encourages Rwanda to uphold and champion Commonwealth values of freedom of speech and the press, and respect for human rights. We discuss these issues regularly with the Government of Rwanda. We will continue to monitor the situation.
Asked by: David Davis (Conservative - Haltemprice and Howden)
Question to the Department for Science, Innovation & Technology:
To ask the Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology, what assessment she has made of the (a) adequacy of the work of the Counter Disinformation Unit and (b) impact of that work on freedom of speech.
Answered by John Whittingdale
The Counter Disinformation Unit (CDU), now called the National Security Online Information Team (NSOIT), is focused exclusively on risks to national security and public safety.
Preserving freedom of expression is an extremely important principle underpinning the team’s work. The Government believes that people must be allowed to discuss and debate issues freely.
The NSOIT does not monitor the social media accounts of individuals and does not take any action that could impact anyone’s ability to discuss and debate issues freely. When the NSOIT identifies content which is within one of the areas of focus ministers have agreed, is assessed to pose a risk to national security or public safety and which is assessed to breach the terms and conditions of the relevant platform it may share that content with the platform. No action is mandated by the Government, it is entirely up to the platform to determine whether or not to take any action in line with their terms of service. Under no circumstances is content from Parliamentarians or journalists ever referred to platforms. Ministers continue to keep the work of the NSOIT under review and the approach to sharing any content with platforms.
Asked by: John Hayes (Conservative - South Holland and The Deepings)
Question to the Department for Digital, Culture, Media & Sport:
To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, whether her Department has made a recent assessment of the effectiveness of Ofcom in protecting freedom of speech in the media.
Answered by John Whittingdale
This Government is committed to defending the invaluable role of a free media. This is vital to a strong and fully functioning democracy where the powerful can be held to account.
Ofcom is the UK’s independent broadcasting regulator. In particular, it is required by legislation, and accountable to Parliament, to draw up and enforce a Broadcasting Code for television to ensure that audiences are adequately protected from harm. It is for Ofcom to determine whether there has been a breach of the Broadcasting Code, and whether to take action. In making any decision, Ofcom is required by the Communications Act 2003 to strike a balance between ensuring an appropriate level of freedom of expression and adequate protection from harmful material. It would not be appropriate for the Government to assess their effectiveness in this regard.
Asked by: Mark Logan (Conservative - Bolton North East)
Question to the Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office:
To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs, what steps his Department is taking to support BBC World Service broadcasts into North Korea.
Answered by Anne-Marie Trevelyan - Minister of State (Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office)
The FCDO strongly values the BBC World Service's role in bringing high-quality and impartial broadcasting to audiences in need, particularly where free speech is limited.
The BBC has provided assurance that it will continue to serve audiences in countries lacking media freedom and a free press, such as North Korea. Through the World2020 programme, the FCDO provides support to the BBC Korean service which is aimed at audiences across the Korean Peninsula, including inside North Korea where access to international media sources is extremely limited.
The UK is committed to media freedom, and to championing democracy and human rights around the world.