House of Commons · Bill Debate
02 May 2023 · 7 other contributors
Opened by Claire Coutinho Con East Surrey
Summarised by AI from the official record, so it can contain mistakes.
Claire Coutinho raised concerns about higher education (freedom of speech) bill - clause 4 in the House of Commons. Other MPs contributed to the debate.
Key points
MPs spoke in turn to share their views and ask questions. Here's what each person said.
Opened the debate
I move to adopt amendments that will ensure the statutory tort retains its teeth and offers a concrete means of redress for those whose right to free speech has been unlawfully infringed. Proposed new subsection (2) clarifies that 'loss' includes reputational damage or adverse career consequences, while proposed new subsection (5) allows claimants seeking an injunction direct access to the courts without having to exhaust complaints schemes first.
Welcomes the change but questions why it was not included at the beginning of the Bill. Asks the Minister to investigate and provide more clarity on this issue.
Highlights recent instances of cancel culture, where members have been no-platformed by universities or had their comments deleted from social media sites. Believes the Bill can help address such issues.
Mr Matt Western criticises the Government for reopening debate on the tort after a compromise was reached in the House of Lords. He expresses concern about potential vexatious claims that could arise from the amendment, which he believes will complicate the resolution process and potentially harm students' welfare.
Mr Julian Lewis intervenes to argue that seeking an injunction in cases of serious infringement of rights is not a frivolous step. He suggests that such measures are only taken when necessary, and highlights the seriousness with which individuals approach legal action.
Ms Miriam Cates intervenes to argue that introducing a tort in county court is cheaper than judicial review. She suggests this change would make it more affordable for students and academics to pursue their free speech rights, rather than deterring them due to high costs.
Supports retaining the full use of the tort, arguing it is vital to the success of the Bill. Believes that facing a long Office for Students complaints process is no deterrent against cancelling an event due to take place tomorrow, but the potential for court action is. Emphasises the importance of exposing young people to different views as part of their education and resilience-building.
Defends the need for swift redress, such as if a student has been kicked off their course due to freedom of speech restrictions. Argues that upholding free speech should be part of the staff and student experience in universities. Considers it crucial that people at the forefront of their mind are academics who have been targeted for sharing views on campus.