Universities Bill

Intervened to question the Secretary of State's claims about instances of academic freedom being threatened. Cited Office for Students’ data showing that such incidents amount to 0.009% in a year, suggesting there is little evidence of widespread issues.

Intervened to reinforce the Secretary of State's point by using Darwin as an example. Suggested that even if such cases are rare, they could still have significant historical impact.

Questioned the Secretary of State about evidence for problems that the Bill seeks to address. Suggested that the Government appears to be manufacturing a problem and asked if they believe in evidence-based policy making.

Asked about data on sexual harassment and violence cases on university campuses, questioning the Government's priorities. Emphasised that while freedoms are discussed, students who face serious issues like rape or sexual abuse do not have adequate redress.

The speaker argues that the Bill offers protection to hate speech, including holocaust denial, racism, anti-vaccination messages, and conspiracy theories. She also raises concerns about potential financial recompense for those denied their right to speak on campus under the Bill.

Intervened briefly to express concern that the Bill could allow states hostile to Britain, like China, to propagate propaganda through university campuses.

Carol Monaghan, as a member of the Scottish National Party, argues against the proposed amendment or clause concerning free speech in universities. She emphasises that while academic freedom is important, the current climate presents concerns about individuals being prevented from expressing views that others may find upsetting but are legally permissible. Monaghan raises specific instances where events have been stopped and speakers prevented from speaking, illustrating a potential threat to healthy debate. She also criticises the Government for curtailing academic freedom by removing blog posts by academics and restricting materials in schools, suggesting inconsistency in supporting free speech based on political alignment. Additionally, she expresses concerns about the practical implementation of the Bill, including the possibility of extensive lawsuits and the risk that universities might indirectly undermine their equality duties.

Argues that freedom of speech is fundamental and under threat in universities due to online lynch mobs, intolerance, and threats. Emphasises the importance of protecting established figures like Amber Rudd, Julie Bindel, Peter Hitchens, and others from being no-platformed as a symbolic step towards broader protection of free speech.

Questions the focus on the current Bill rather than an online harms Bill to address social media abuse, suggesting that such legislation is more relevant in tackling the suppression of free speech.

Greenwood argues against the Education (No. 2) Bill, emphasising the need for clarity and support in post-pandemic higher education. She highlights the importance of universities adapting to challenges and being accessible to all young people. Greenwood raises concerns about rising living costs, safety issues, and mental health struggles faced by students. She also discusses the impact of student numbers on local services and housing markets, advocating for collaborative solutions with universities and city councils. Additionally, she criticises the Bill's focus on free speech while ignoring other pressing issues such as racism and sexual harassment.

Russell supports the Education (No. 2) Bill, emphasising the importance of diversity in thought and the ability to challenge ideas in universities. He shares his experience working with a university that initially restricted academic blogging but later allowed it for debate. Russell argues that universities should enable debates to reach the truth, especially in light of societal changes brought about by social media. He expresses concern over hate-mobbing on social media platforms and advocates for protecting free speech in academia. Russell highlights the importance of scrutinizing different viewpoints to prevent the festering of hateful ideologies.

Freedom of speech is crucial for democratic societies, and no-platforming certain individuals or groups can be seen as controlling and heavy-handed. While academic freedom must balance with safety from hate and prejudice, she questions if legislation is necessary to protect it.

Supports the Bill due to numerous restrictions on freedom of speech in academic settings. Provides examples such as Christian students and academics fearing adverse effects on their careers for expressing religious beliefs, leading to a need for legislative change.

The MP argues that the current bill prioritises academic freedom at the expense of student safety. She provides examples of students facing non-disclosure agreements after rape, universities failing to report sexual assault allegations properly, and professors dismissing concerns as a 'toxic combination' of alcohol and youth. Phillips questions where the Government's priority lies when it comes to addressing violence against women and girls, noting that significant issues have been highlighted for years without action being taken.

Hayes supports the bill, arguing that it protects intellectual freedom by ensuring that universities do not suppress dissenting opinions. He cites numerous examples of academics facing repercussions for expressing their views on contentious issues such as race, gender and sex. Hayes warns against a culture of intolerance in universities that stifles debate and innovation.

Shannon supports the bill by agreeing with Hayes's concerns about the need to hear diverse opinions, arguing that raising generations who believe their opinion trumps others is detrimental to a democratic society.

Cooper opposes the bill, believing it is unnecessary as existing laws already protect free speech in universities. She argues that the evidence does not support claims of widespread problems with no-platforming and fears the bill could lead to an increase in vexatious litigation. Cooper also warns that the bill undermines academic freedom by creating incentives for universities to avoid controversial topics.

Supports the Bill, citing its necessity due to increasing censorship on campuses driven by hard-left ideologies. Emphasises the importance of critical thinking and open debate in universities. Argues that cancel culture stifles free speech and silences dissenting voices. Highlights the dangers of eroding British history and national heroes through radical revisionism.

The speaker supports the Bill, arguing that it is necessary to defend academic freedom under attack from radicals who suppress conservative opinions as false consciousness. He calls for broadening protections for academics and extending obligations to colleges at Oxbridge and Durham.

[INTERVENTION]: Agrees with the speaker's point about views that do not conform being regarded as heretical, allowing almost anything to be legitimised in putting them down.

[INTERVENTION]: Agrees that the Bill is necessary to deal with the culture of perpetual offence and allows for the promotion of freedom of difference of opinion, enabling constructive debate.

[INTERVENTION]: Questions whether extending the legislation to employment law is necessary given that universities have a system of tenure which protects their academics.

Female academics are facing censorship, harassment, and threats for discussing gender self-identification. This includes security guards being provided to protect Selina Todd at Oxford University and invitations rescinded due to protests from activists against Jo Phoenix and Rosa Freedman. Women's freedom of expression is being restricted not only by universities but also by students who label them as transphobes or worse, leading to an environment where women fear for their safety on campus.

Recent meetings at Durham University have shown that academic freedom is being curtailed, with academics castigated for teaching about John Stuart Mill’s ‘On Liberty’ and students facing cancellation for airing moderate views. Universities are increasingly dependent on foreign funding from countries like China, leading to concerns about the influence of foreign Governments in UK universities. This Bill promotes academic freedom by protecting speech, especially regarding sensitive topics such as Hong Kong democracy.

Freedom of speech does not include hate speech. The England team represents modern, multicultural values but faces racism after tournament losses. This is promoted by government figures like the PM who engage in racist language and fail to condemn racial abuse. Prevent duty policies are a major threat to academic freedom on campuses, affecting Muslim students and staff disproportionately. Government actions such as targeting academics at Warwick and Oxford further undermine free speech and academic freedom.

Universities do not stifle debate but the Bill is excessive and unnecessary, attacking a non-existent problem of 'cancel culture'. Universities have a duty to protect students from harmful views. The Bill undermines protections against discrimination and narrows academic freedom to within legal limits and expertise. It introduces an ill-thought-out statutory tort enabling individuals to sue for free speech breaches, which should be removed. The bill diverts attention from real issues such as marketisation, precarious employment, research funding insecurity.

Argues for protecting free speech and academic freedom in universities to prevent them from becoming breeding grounds for political activists with a single-minded agenda. Cites specific examples of events being cancelled due to pressure from activist groups, such as Professor Jo Phoenix's talk at Essex University on transgender women in women’s prisons and Rosa Freedman's event at the University of Reading.

Questions the necessity of the Bill given existing legislation protecting freedom of speech, such as the Education (No. 2) Act 1986 and the Education Act 1994. Emphasises that universities should have independence in regulating themselves without government interference. Argues the Bill will lead to unnecessary legal costs diverting funds from education.

James Daly argues that there is no principled objection to the legislation as it aims to defend freedom of speech. He disputes claims that universities should not be subject to this new law, citing examples such as holocaust denial and anti-vaxxer statements. He states that the Secretary of State has clearly indicated that the Bill cannot be used to justify holocaust denial or other forms of antisemitism. Daly further asserts that the legislation imposes a duty on universities to take 'reasonably practicable' steps to ensure free speech, which includes ensuring both sides of an argument are heard rather than banning certain speakers.

Daniel Zeichner criticises the Government for not addressing pressing issues like financial challenges and international student quarantine arrangements. He argues that universities are world-class institutions but the Bill is unnecessary as universities already manage free speech effectively. The proposed legislation could lead to self-censorship in universities and student unions due to fear of legal repercussions, potentially reducing discourse.

Intervened to argue that while university-specific measures may not solve all problems, they contribute positively towards addressing issues of discourse quality.

Suggested that by erring on the side of caution, universities will indeed restrict freedom of speech and face legal challenges. The Bill could actually ensure more freedoms as institutions would be less risk-averse.

Clarke-Smith supports the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Bill, emphasising the importance of protecting healthy debate on university campuses. He criticises cancel culture and the no-platforming of speakers, arguing that universities must ensure graduates can think for themselves and tolerate differing views.

Cherry acknowledges issues with freedom of speech in universities but expresses concerns about the Bill's applicability to Scotland. She highlights instances where leading feminists and LGBT activists have faced no-platforming and abuse, advocating for universities to correctly apply existing laws and ensuring gender-critical beliefs are protected under equality legislation.

Mr. Longhi supports the Bill, arguing that universities should be centres of discussion and debate where both sides are heard. He criticises Labour's stance as contradictory to their supposed championing of free speech. He cites a 2018 parliamentary report which found one in four students do not share true opinions due to censorship on campus, and a staggering 40% of students state views held by speakers led to event cancellations.

Ms. Ribeiro-Addy argues that there is no evidence of a free speech crisis on campus, and that the Bill tramples on students unions' autonomy and overturns their long-standing no-platform policies. She emphasises that while freedom of speech is important, it does not justify debating topics such as paedophilia or discrimination against minority groups.

Supports the Bill to protect free speech in universities. Argues that controversial opinions can lead to change and progress, citing historical examples like Churchill's opposition to appeasement, Fawcett’s views on women’s rights, Darwin’s findings on evolution, Galileo’s heretical views on the solar system, and Martin Luther’s challenge to the Church.

Expresses concern about the Bill leading to a slippery slope where far-right elements can exploit free speech. Recounts personal experiences of extremist infiltration in universities, highlighting cases like Mark Collett and Chris Beverley using free speech societies as fronts for fascist activities.

Supports the Bill as it addresses concerns about harassment and intimidation on university campuses, particularly for Jewish students. Cites examples of antisemitic incidents and criticises universities for failing to protect their students. Questions what further steps the Government will take to ensure full implementation of the IHRA definition and disciplinary action against those who make remarks considered antisemitic.

[INTERVENTION] Argues that the Bill would promote and protect the right to make abhorrent remarks, making Jewish students less safe on campus. Asks how the speaker reconciles his support for the Bill with its potential negative impacts.

Supports the Bill as it preserves free speech in universities. Argues that diverse challenges to views help develop open minds and enlightened thinking. Considers there is a genuine concern about the chilling effect on free speech, but believes robust hate speech laws are unaffected by the Bill. Emphasises the importance of preserving academic freedom for future generations.

She argues that the Bill is unnecessary, as only a very small percentage of speaking events are cancelled on university campuses. She claims it will empower hate speech and detract from universities' focus on more pressing issues like student welfare.

She highlights that students face numerous challenges, including high tuition fees and sexual harassment. She criticises the Bill for potentially allowing hate speech from Holocaust deniers to be protected on university campuses.

Ms Foy supports freedom of speech but opposes the bill, arguing that it risks allowing holocaust deniers and transphobes to be invited to universities with no consequences. She points out inconsistencies between the legislation and universities' existing duties under education law, Prevent duty, and employment law. Additionally, she highlights that there is little evidence of 'cancel culture' at universities and suggests that the bill could make speaker programmes more risk-averse rather than inclusive. Ms Foy criticises the government for focusing on a non-issue while ignoring real problems in higher education such as insecure work and limited funding.

Mr Blomfield argues that the bill is nonsensical and part of the government's strategy to stoke up culture wars. He contrasts this with previous Conservative governments' use of free speech as a political tool during times of economic difficulty. Mr Blomfield criticises the bill for potentially empowering hate speakers and limiting genuine academic debate through its anti-protest provisions and new director role at the Office for Students. He emphasises that the bill is not addressing real issues faced by universities, such as financial and learning remediation needs post-covid.

Ms. West argues against the Bill, stating it has dangerous consequences and wrong priorities for Parliament and the country. She highlights concerns raised by Jewish families about abuse on university campuses and the failure of the Bill to address these issues adequately. She also raises questions regarding the lack of action from the Government based on the Augar report concerning student welfare and financial pressures faced by students, particularly those studying nursing with loans exceeding £50,000 while earning only £25,000 upon graduation.

Ms. Owen criticises the Bill for its lack of focus on real issues facing students during the pandemic and emphasises that her constituents have not raised concerns about no-platforming or anti-racism debates but rather about the impact of Prevent duty, which restricts freedom of speech. She highlights statistics indicating that 43% of those affected by Prevent feel unable to express their views freely on campus, impacting student democracy and engagement.

McDonnell argues that there is no systematic suppression of free speech in universities. He cites the Office for Students' findings that such suppression does not exist. Existing laws and institutions, including the Human Rights Act and section 43 of the 1986 Education Act, already ensure protection of free speech. McDonnell also criticises the government for focusing on a divisive culture war rather than addressing real issues faced by universities.

Shannon supports the Bill, emphasising the intrinsic rights to freedom of speech and belief. He cites examples where street preachers were silenced and a case involving Ashers bakery, highlighting the importance of upholding these rights through the rule of law. Shannon also quotes from a judge's deliberation on free speech, stressing that it includes contentious and heretical views as long as they do not provoke violence.

Webbe argues that the Bill addresses a non-existent problem and is a damaging solution. She cites a discredited Policy Exchange report and notes that no-platforming is an incredibly rare outcome, with only 0.1% of student requests being rejected in 2017-18. Webbe highlights the threats to academic freedom from casualised employment, insecurity of research funding, and government interference, such as through the Prevent programme. She calls for an end to marketisation in higher education and urges the Government to properly fund universities, scrap tuition fees, and cancel student debt.

Matt Western argued that the Bill was unnecessary and used as a distraction from other pressing issues. He cited examples of hate speech being facilitated by the legislation, highlighting contributions made by colleagues on the impact of antisemitic and racist hate speech in educational institutions. He also questioned why such a bill is prioritised over addressing serious issues like violence against women, mental health crises among students, and the broader impacts of the pandemic. Matt Western emphasised that existing laws already address the concerns raised by the Bill and expressed concern about the new obligations on higher education providers and the Office for Students (OfS). He also warned that the bill could lead to a chilling effect on free speech and academic freedom.

Asked the Minister to publish data backing up her claims about free speech issues on campuses. Sought clarity on legal risks for universities if they deny platforms to holocaust deniers.

Supported the Minister's stance, calling out opposition Members who suggested that holocaust deniers would gain a platform under the Bill. Asked for reassurance that universities would not face legal challenges from individuals denied speaking opportunities.