Education Secretary Bridget Phillipson spends £500,000 of taxpayers’ cash in bid to scrap university free speech laws
Education Secretary Bridget Phillipson has spent around £500,000 of public money attempting to overturn free speech legislation for universities in England, according to reports. The move relates to duties introduced under the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act, which Labour has sought to water down or repeal, prompting criticism over the use of taxpayer funds to reverse protections campaigners say are needed to safeguard academic debate on campus.
The free speech law had required universities and student unions to actively promote lawful speech and allowed for a legal complaints scheme and financial penalties against institutions that failed to uphold it, but ministers paused and reviewed elements of the regime after taking office. Critics, including free speech advocates and opposition politicians, argue the spending shows the government prioritising the suppression of contested viewpoints over protecting open debate in higher education, while the Department for Education maintains its approach still supports lawful expression on campus.
- Phillipson spent roughly £500,000 pursuing changes to university free speech laws.
- The spending targets duties from the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act.
- Critics say it undermines protections for open debate on campus.
New here? Start with this
Universities in England have been operating under a legal duty, introduced by the previous Conservative government, that requires them and their student unions to actively promote and protect lawful free speech on campus. The rules also created a complaints system and the power to fine institutions that fall short. Since taking office, Labour ministers, led by Education Secretary Bridget Phillipson, have paused parts of this regime and pushed to change or remove it.
The debate matters because it touches on how universities balance open debate, including on contested or controversial topics, against concerns such as harassment or reputational risk. Supporters of the original law argue it protects academics and students from being silenced, while the government has said its approach still allows for lawful speech to be protected without the previous framework.
The story centres on the cost of this policy shift, with reports that around £500,000 in public money has gone towards efforts to unwind the free speech duties, drawing scrutiny from campaigners and opposition politicians over how taxpayer funds are being used in the dispute.
Both sides, in good faith
The strongest fair case each way — we don't pick a winner.
The case for
Those who support the government's move to reform or repeal elements of the Free Speech Act argue that the legislation, as originally designed, was poorly drafted and disproportionate, creating a costly new complaints scheme and statutory tort that risked exposing universities to legal claims even from those airing extreme or hateful views under the guise of lawful speech. They contend that ministers reviewing and amending inherited legislation is a normal and responsible exercise of government, and that public money is better directed towards supporting universities in handling difficult speech disputes through existing regulators and internal governance rather than funding a duplicative legal bureaucracy.
The case against
Those who support retaining strong statutory free speech protections argue that universities have shown a real pattern of caution and self-censorship, with speakers no-platformed, events cancelled and academics disciplined for expressing lawful but contested views, and that voluntary codes of practice have proven insufficient to prevent this. They see the spending of public funds to weaken enforceable duties as troubling in principle, arguing that clear legal backing, including the threat of penalties, is precisely what gives institutions the confidence and cover to uphold open debate against pressure from student bodies, staff or external campaigns.