Asked by: Baroness Deech (Crossbench - Life peer)
Question to the Department for Education:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what assessment they have made of whether universities in England and Wales (1) have breached the public sector equality duty, and (2) are compliant with the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s working definition of antisemitism, by permitting Israeli Apartheid Week activities to take place on their campuses.
Answered by Baroness Berridge
There is no place in our society - including within higher education (HE) – for hatred or any form of harassment, discrimination or racism, including antisemitism. The government will continue to work with universities to ensure we stamp out antisemitism in all its forms.
The government expects HE providers to take their responsibilities, including those under the Equality Act 2010 (including the Public Sector Equality Duty) and to promote freedom of speech, seriously. We expect HE providers to have robust policies and procedures in place to meet, and balance, their legal obligations effectively and to investigate and swiftly address reports of hate crime, including any antisemitic incidents that are reported.
We expect HE providers to have clearly set out procedures and policies for events and the hosting of external speakers, which allow for open, transparent events, challenge and debate and ensure that lawful speech can occur on campuses. Under the Education (No. 2) Act 1986, HE providers have a legal duty to take reasonably practicable steps to ensure that freedom of speech within the law is secured for their members, students, employees of the establishment and visiting speakers.
In relation to events occurring under the banner of Israeli Apartheid Week, it is crucial that HE providers handle these appropriately, taking into account their legal obligations to ensure that our values, expectations and laws are upheld.
The government strongly encourages HE providers to adopt the IHRA definition of antisemitism. It is an important tool in tackling antisemitism and a strong signal that HE providers take these issues seriously.
Asked by: Baroness Deech (Crossbench - Life peer)
Question to the Department for Education:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what assessment they have made of SOAS University of London’s compliance with the (1) public sector equality duty, and (2) International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s working definition of antisemitism, further to the decision to host a student workshop on advocacy for Palestine on campus on 7 March sponsored by EuroPal Forum; and what assessment they have made of (a) EuroPal Forum’s, and (b) EuroPal Forum’s senior leadership’s, relationship with Hamas.
Answered by Baroness Berridge
This government has committed to strengthen academic freedom and free speech in universities and ensure they are places where free speech and debate can thrive – this includes considering the underpinning legal framework. We have made it clear that if universities do not uphold free speech, the government will.
However, there is no place in our society - including within higher education (HE) – for hatred or any form of harassment, discrimination or racism, including antisemitism. The government will continue to work with universities to ensure we stamp out antisemitism in all its forms.
The government expects HE providers to take their responsibilities, including those under the Equality Act 2010 and for freedom of speech, seriously. We expect HE providers to have robust policies and procedures in place to meet, and balance, their legal obligations effectively and to investigate and swiftly address reports of hate crime, including any antisemitic incidents that are reported.
We expect HE providers to have clearly set out procedures and policies for events and the hosting of external speakers, which allow for open, transparent events, challenge and debate and ensure that lawful speech can occur on campuses. Under the Education (No. 2) Act 1986, HE providers have a legal duty to take reasonably practicable steps to ensure freedom of speech within the law for their members, students, employees and visiting speakers.
The government does not support blanket no-platforming of individuals or organisations. There have been some examples of attempts to restrict free speech under the banner of no-platforming or safe spaces and it is important that this does not become commonplace.
The government adopted the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) Working Definition of Antisemitism in 2016 and has written to HE providers on several occasions encouraging them to consider adopting this definition. The government sees the IHRA definition as an important tool in tackling antisemitism and a strong signal that HE providers take these issues seriously, which is why we will continue to call on higher education providers to adopt this definition.
Asked by: Baroness Deech (Crossbench - Life peer)
Question to the Department for Education:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what assessment they have made of the effectiveness of section 43 of the Education (No. 2) Act 1986 in upholding lawful freedom of speech on university campuses following the cancellation of a planned speech by the Israeli Ambassador at City, University of London on 21 November.
Answered by Viscount Younger of Leckie - Shadow Minister (Work and Pensions)
The government is deeply committed to protecting freedom of speech within the law. The freedom to express views openly, challenge ideas and engage in robust debate is crucial to the student experience and to democracy. Individuals should never be in a position where they can be stopped from expressing an opinion perfectly lawfully. Institutions are required to balance risks and legal obligations with a view to ensuring freedom of speech wherever reasonably practicable.
The Joint Committee on Human Rights held an inquiry into freedom of speech in universities earlier this year, which looked in detail and collected evidence in relation to upholding freedom of speech in universities. Drawing on information from the inquiry, which found the current regulatory landscape protecting freedom of speech to be extremely complex, the Equality and Human Rights Commission and key partners in the higher education sector have worked with the Department of Education to develop a single piece of guidance, which will set out key principles. This guidance will enable universities and student unions to understand their obligations for protecting and supporting free speech.
Asked by: Baroness Deech (Crossbench - Life peer)
Question to the Department for Education:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will issue guidance to universities on the misuse of data protection law and non-cooperation with security requirements in relation to upholding free speech.
Answered by Viscount Younger of Leckie - Shadow Minister (Work and Pensions)
The previous Minister for Universities, Science, Research and Innovation held a free speech summit in May, where sector leaders agreed to collectively develop a single piece of guidance. The government has worked alongside sector leaders to set out key principles for universities and student unions managing free speech. The Equalities and Human Rights Commission will be publishing guidance in 2019 on how to ensure that freedom of speech within the law is upheld effectively in higher education institutions, whilst acknowledging their other legal duties.
Asked by: Baroness Deech (Crossbench - Life peer)
Question to the Department for Education:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what discussions they have had with City, University of London about the cancellation of a planned speech by the Israeli Ambassador on 21 November; and whether they have received any representations from the Office for Students about freedom of speech at that University.
Answered by Viscount Younger of Leckie - Shadow Minister (Work and Pensions)
Both the Department for Education (DfE) and Office for Students (OfS) were made aware of the decision to defer the planned speech by the Israeli Ambassador. The DfE’s Further Education/Higher Education coordinator has been in contact with the institution.
Freedom of speech is a crucial element of higher education and government and OfS are committed to championing it and to promoting open debate and challenge. Universities are autonomous bodies and are responsible for taking their own decisions around how to manage events and mitigate risks; handling of individual cases is not dictated by government or by the OfS. The OfS has powers to intervene if providers are not following their own free speech codes of practice
Asked by: Baroness Deech (Crossbench - Life peer)
Question to the Department for Education:
To ask Her Majesty's Government how they propose to include representatives of student victims of (1) inhibition of freedom of speech, and (2) disruption of meetings, in the preparation of new guidance to promote freedom of speech at universities.
Answered by Viscount Younger of Leckie - Shadow Minister (Work and Pensions)
At the free speech summit on 3 May 2018 held by my hon. Friend, the Minister for Universities, Science, Research and Innovation, it was agreed that the report from the Freedom of Speech in Universities inquiry by the Joint Committee on Human Rights (JCHR) would be used as the foundation for a shared approach to free speech.
The JCHR inquiry included evidence from a number of groups including those who had experienced disruption of events and student representatives with a range of experiences related to free speech.
The new guidance will be drafted by the Equality and Human Rights Commission, who will work with a number of groups including the National Union of Students.
Asked by: Baroness Deech (Crossbench - Life peer)
Question to the Department for Education:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what discussions they have had, if any, with the Office for Students concerning whether, and if so what, disciplinary action was taken by King’s College London (KCL) following the disruption by protesters of an event hosted by the KCL Libertarian Society on objectivism on 5 March, which was to have been addressed by Yaron Brook and Carl Benjamin.
Answered by Lord Agnew of Oulton
The Office for Students (OfS) only became operational on the 1 April 2018, so any discussions before that date would have taken place with its predecessor body, the Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE).
Officials in the Department for Education (DfE) liaised with HEFCE colleagues in January 2016, in relation to the speech by Ami Ayalon to the Kings College London (KCL) Israel Society.
The department has not had discussions with HEFCE or the OfS concerning disciplinary actions taken with regard to the incidents that took place at KCL on 12 February and 5 March. In general, the OfS and DfE do not routinely discuss disciplinary actions, as this is matter for the institution.
Asked by: Baroness Deech (Crossbench - Life peer)
Question to the Department for Education:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what discussions they have had, if any, with the Office for Students concerning whether, and if so what, disciplinary action was taken by King’s College London (KCL) following the disruption by protesters of a speech by Dan Meridor at KCL on 12 February.
Answered by Lord Agnew of Oulton
The Office for Students (OfS) only became operational on the 1 April 2018, so any discussions before that date would have taken place with its predecessor body, the Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE).
Officials in the Department for Education (DfE) liaised with HEFCE colleagues in January 2016, in relation to the speech by Ami Ayalon to the Kings College London (KCL) Israel Society.
The department has not had discussions with HEFCE or the OfS concerning disciplinary actions taken with regard to the incidents that took place at KCL on 12 February and 5 March. In general, the OfS and DfE do not routinely discuss disciplinary actions, as this is matter for the institution.
Asked by: Baroness Deech (Crossbench - Life peer)
Question to the Department for Education:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what discussions they have had, if any, with the Office for Students concerning whether, and if so what, disciplinary action was taken by King’s College London (KCL) following the disruption by protesters of a speech by Ami Ayalon to the KCL Israel Society on 19 January 2016.
Answered by Lord Agnew of Oulton
The Office for Students (OfS) only became operational on the 1 April 2018, so any discussions before that date would have taken place with its predecessor body, the Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE).
Officials in the Department for Education (DfE) liaised with HEFCE colleagues in January 2016, in relation to the speech by Ami Ayalon to the Kings College London (KCL) Israel Society.
The department has not had discussions with HEFCE or the OfS concerning disciplinary actions taken with regard to the incidents that took place at KCL on 12 February and 5 March. In general, the OfS and DfE do not routinely discuss disciplinary actions, as this is matter for the institution.