Ministers are preparing to relaunch legislation aimed at safeguarding free speech on university campuses in England. However, a controversial clause that allows legal claims for compensation is expected to be removed.

Initially paused by Education Secretary Bridget Phillipson, the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act faced criticism for potentially protecting hate speech and imposing legal and bureaucratic costs on universities and student unions.

Phillipson had halted the Act’s implementation shortly after the last general election, citing concerns that it could expose students to harmful speech.

Critics, including the Union of Jewish Students, feared that the legislation might enable Holocaust deniers to sue universities if denied a platform. One opponent described the Act as an “antisemite charter.”

A government source has confirmed that the legislation will be relaunched, with a formal statement expected on Wednesday afternoon. Phillipson previously declared the legislation “not fit for purpose,” emphasizing the risks of harm and hate speech on campuses.

The Act passed in 2023, imposed a duty on universities to “promote” and “secure” freedom of speech and academic expression, regulated by the Office for Students (OfS). It granted the OfS new powers to sanction or fine universities and student unions that failed to uphold these duties.

Additionally, a complaints scheme allowed students, staff, and external speakers to seek compensation through a “statutory tort” included in the legislation.

Higher Education Minister Jacqui Smith recently addressed the provisions in a letter, stating that the Act was “disproportionate, burdensome, and damaging to the welfare of students,” potentially leading to costly legal actions.

Shadow Education Secretary Laura Trott welcomed the government’s reconsideration, stating, “However, for this bill to have teeth it must have the statutory tort included.”

Government sources suggested that a revised complaints process overseen by the OfS would remain. One source noted that “academic freedom mattered more than students not being offended.”

Vivienne Stern, Chief Executive of Universities UK, representing vice-chancellors, expressed the need to revise the Act’s provisions.

Stern highlighted the challenges the Act posed, stating, “There are things in this Act that are going to gum up the works within universities, making it very difficult to discharge their legal obligations related to freedom of speech, harassment, hate speech, and radicalisation.”

Concerns Over Potential Litigation

Professor Shitij Kapur, President of King’s College London and chair of a Universities UK advisory group on freedom of speech, underscored the burdens the statutory tort could impose.

Kapur warned that the provision could lead to numerous claims, some of which could be “frivolous or malicious,” cooling rather than encouraging debate on campuses.

“Any student, staff member, or citizen could sue the university or its students’ union for perceived violations, leading to enormous numbers of claims. Our institutions are already struggling financially, and this tort would require additional dedicated legal and administrative teams to address.”
Professor Shitij Kapur

With the government poised to reintroduce the legislation, the debate over balancing free speech and safeguarding students from harm continues to stir strong opinions across the higher education sector.