Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Gavin Williamson and Bridget Phillipson

Monday 1st December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Sir Gavin Williamson (Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge) (Con)]

5. What steps her Department is taking to help prevent Chinese influence in universities.

[The Secretary of State for Education (Bridget Phillipson)]

The UK wants a consistent and mutually beneficial relationship with China. We should be frank about where we disagree, but also find targeted opportunities to collaborate. We are clear that any attempt by a foreign state to intimidate and coerce universities in the UK will not be tolerated. My Department is working with vice-chancellors to further our resilience.

[Sir Gavin Williamson]

I thank the Secretary of State for her answer; I know that she takes the issue of Chinese influence incredibly seriously. The free speech legislation brought forward by the previous Government required the monitoring of bodies that are supported by the Chinese or funded and supported by the Government of China. That was dropped. Will the Secretary of State look at bringing it back?

[Bridget Phillipson]

I recognise the right hon. Gentleman’s long-standing interest in this area. Our national security is of the utmost importance, and the Office for Students already has extensive powers to require information from providers to investigate any breaches. If we are to introduce new reporting requirements, we must ensure that they add value without being overly burdensome, but I can be absolutely clear to the right hon. Gentleman and to this House that we expect universities to be alert to risks and to take action.

Higher Education Regulatory Approach

Debate between Gavin Williamson and Bridget Phillipson

Wednesday 15th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Sir Gavin Williamson (Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge) (Con)]

I thank the Secretary of State for coming to the House and setting out the revised position of the Government. I am particularly concerned about the removal of the tort, because it effectively removes the real consequences for people who disregard free speech and the consequences that could be imposed on an institution or organisation. If that is going to be the case, can she set out to the House what resources will be dedicated to the director of free speech? Let us hope this is not just a one-person fig leaf. How many people are going to be working for them? What resource will there be to ensure that free speech is protected?

[Bridget Phillipson]

I am grateful to the former Secretary of State for his question. He will appreciate that this will be an independent regulator, and that there is a limit to what I can set out on their behalf. On the key issue of the tort, there will be consequences, even following the removal of the tort, for those providers who do not fulfil their duties under the Act. The OfS can already regulate providers in relation to free speech. It will be able to take regulatory action where there are breaches of the duties under the Act, including monetary penalties if needed, and the complaints scheme will enable the OfS to make recommendations to providers that they will be expected to follow. Existing routes of redress through judicial reviews and employment tribunals will remain open, but we want the OfS to focus on making sure that there is a system in place that is workable so that complaints can be dealt with swiftly.