Key Facts

• Amendment 43 seeks to add 'and academic freedom' after 'speech'.
• The proposal aims to ensure that academic freedom is explicitly considered by higher education providers.
• Amendment 51 aims to elevate the threshold for freedom of speech to one of 'primacy'.
• Professor Nigel Biggar recommended addressing the imbalance in the Bill.
• Witnesses, including Taylor Vinters, argued that the current wording could lead to an imbalance favoring freedom of speech over academic freedom.
• The Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Bill aims to enhance protection for freedom of speech.
• Amendment 43 proposes adding 'academic freedom' to the legislation, which is considered unnecessary by the Government as it falls under broader freedom of speech protections.
• Witnesses testified on the need to strengthen the definition within the Bill.
• Amendment 31 proposes inserting 'or occupied by' after the second 'of'.
• Amendment 53 amends clause 1, page 2, line 6 to include financial cost provisions.
• Amendment 53 requires an alternative online platform if physical security costs are disproportionate.
• The amendments aim to extend free speech duties to cover online platforms.
• Amendment 52 would ensure that laws apply equally to in-person and online meetings.
• Amendment 53 seeks to provide an alternative online platform if financial costs for hosting speakers are disproportionate.
• The amendment would ensure that if in-person events are not feasible due to sizeable costs, an online event must be provided.
• Universities may occupy numerous premises under different contractual agreements.
• Private companies often provide student services such as halls of residence.
• Amendment 52 seeks to clarify that the duty to take reasonably practicable steps to secure freedom of speech applies to online platforms.
• The Bill already includes provisions in section A1(3) requiring providers to ensure that use of premises is not denied because of an individual's ideas, beliefs or views.
• Christopher Chope highlights the need for clarity regarding premises 'occupied by' a provider, beyond just those owned or leased.
• Amendment 53 addresses cases where security costs prevent events from going ahead.
• The Bill requires providers to take ‘reasonably practicable’ steps to secure freedom of speech.
• The MP commits to reviewing the concerns raised regarding amendment 53.
• The amendment seeks to ensure conduct that would otherwise constitute harassment under section 26(1) of the Equality Act 2010 is considered freedom of speech within the law if it involves academic or scientific discussion.
• Professor Biggar raised concerns about the tension between the Bill and the Equality Act, particularly around the definition of harassment.
• Emma Hardy argues that amending the Equality Act for universities would permit offensive behavior inside university grounds while requiring politeness outside.
• The amendment aims to protect 'discussion of an academic or scientific matter'.
• Adam Wagner, a human rights barrister, argues the amendment could legalise hate speech in academic settings.
• Witnesses suggest the Bill might allow Holocaust denial and other forms of racial hate speech on university campuses.
• The amendment could strip out the safeguard of harassment protection.
• The Office for Students can work with regulators to establish settled opinions on guidance.
• The National Union of Students' no-platform policy bans fewer than six proscribed organisations.
• Amendment 29 widens the definition of academic members.
• Amendment 56 defines a “visiting academic speaker”.
• The amendments aim to include affiliated academics and external individuals holding academic positions.
• Amendment 29 aims to broaden the definition of 'members' to include affiliated academics and anyone holding an academic position.
• The term 'staff' in the Bill includes individuals who work at providers without employment contracts or employee status.
• Visiting academic speakers are covered by their own universities' protections, but not necessarily those they visit.