I’ve written a piece for Parliament News about why I think Bridget Phillipson was wrong to torpedo the Freedom of Speech Act and why the Free Speech Union is bringing legal proceedings against her. It begins:
When people asked me on July 5th whether the incoming Labour Government would do anything to derail the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act 2023, pointing out that its most important clauses weren’t due to be commenced until August 1st, I assured them it would be okay. “Keir Starmer and his allies will be too busy celebrating in their villas in Tuscany to notice,” I said. “By the time they’ve got their feet under the desk, the Act will have been implemented.”
I was wrong. Bridget Phillipson, the new Education Secretary, did notice and duly revoked its commencement. She made a number of statements to justify her decision, not all of them consistent with each other. But I suspect she just wanted to torpedo the Act without burdening the Government with having to repeal it, which would take up valuable parliamentary time. She was kicking it into the long grass.
As the director of the Free Speech Union, I had been involved in getting this Act on the statute books since the autumn of 2020, when I’d been one of several contributors to a paper setting out why stronger protections for academic freedom and free speech at English universities were needed and what legislative form they might take. That paper was submitted to the then Higher Education Minister and, after some revisions, became the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Bill, first published in 2021. I was then part of a coalition that argued for the Bill as it made its way through Parliament, briefing its supporters, meeting with ministers and helping to draft amendments to make it more palatable to opponents.
One of the things that made Phillipson’s decision to place the Act in suspended animation so disappointing is that the parliamentary process it had gone through from 2021-23 was so thorough. As someone with a front row seat, I was impressed by how well parliament did its job, scrutinising every clause, consulting all the relevant stakeholders and fine tuning the bill until it was acceptable to as many of them as possible. A huge amount of work went into getting it shipshape and the final version – the version that passed into law – enjoyed cross-party support from both houses. By choosing not to commence it in full, Phillipson was defying the will of parliament. Isn’t that a breach of one of the fundamental principles of the English constitution?
Another disappointment was the reasons the Secretary of State gave for hamstringing the Act, none of which stacked up.
Worth reading in full.
Stop Press: Taking legal action against a minister of the crown is expensive. Please give generously to the FSU’s crowdfunder to help pay its legal expenses.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.