Freedom of Speech (Hansard, 15 December 1988)

Mr. Jackson

I have written to the chairmen of the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals and of the Committee of Directors of Polytechnics and to the hon. secretary of the Standing Conference of Principals to suggest that as a first step their organisations should examine the working of the section by reference to their members' codes of practice and the way in which they have been applied and should recommend to the Government any desirable changes.

The text of my letter to the chairman of the CVCP is as follows.

Professor Sir Mark Richmond FRS
Chairman
Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals
29 Tavistock Square
LONDON WC1H 9EZ

Dear Mark

14 December 1988

FREEDOM OF SPEECH It is just over a year since Section 43 of the Education (No. 2) Act 1986 came into force. During that period there seems to have been a welcome decrease in the disruption which gave rise to the original legislation. But there have still been some bad incidents, which raise questions about the effectiveness of present arrangements. I am sure therefore that you will agree that we ought now to review the working of Section 43. 2. The Government has indicated its intention to undertake such a review. However, we lack systematic 654W information on the arrangements made by institutions. In particular, we have only seen copies of a few institutions' Codes of Practice. 3. I should therefore like to suggest that as a first step the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals (and the Committee of Directors of Polytechnics and the Standing Conference of Principals, to whom I am writing in similar terms) might agree:

(i) to examine the working of Section 43 by reference, among other things, to your members' Codes of Practice and the way in which they have been applied;
(ii) to obtain from your members any additional information needed to illuminate a number of key issues described below, and
(iii) to recommend to the Government any desirable changes.

4. The key issues in (ii) are those which seem to us, as a result of our monitoring of events during the last year, pose particular problems for institutions. They do not necessarily reflect on the legislation but may raise questions as to how institutions have sought to put it into effect. They are:—

(a) the practice of directly limiting the number of meetings which may be held, or requiring organisers to meet security costs which may be disproportionate to their resources. (One suggestion to consider is that the student body, represented by the Student Union, should bear the scrutiny costs as a means of engaging them in the maintenance of free speech and good order);
(b) requirements for excessive notice of meetings. Notice is needed to make security arrangements but should not be such as to prevent topical meetings being arranged to a relatively short timescale. (Long periods of notice also enable those determined to cause disruption to marshall their forces);
(c) the need to ensure that speakers are not intimidated by the number of actions of protestors. This may require institutions to take greater responsibility for the conduct of meetings and the selection of venues;
(d) the responsibility of institutions to avoid appearing to acquiesce in "no platform" policies. We are aware of one institution which refused to consider, and referred back to its Student Union, a complaint from a student group that it had been denied rights by the Union;
(e) the need to take firm disciplinary measures against students who breach Codes of Practice and to have in place effective arrangements for identifying offenders.

5. If the task outlined above could be completed by the end of April 1989, the Government would then review its own position and discuss with the CVCP, CDP and SCOP changes for adoption, if possible, from the beginning of the 1989/90 academic year. 6. If you wish to discuss the contents of the letter with me or with officials, we are available to do so. But work needs to be put in hand quickly. I hope therefore that you can signify by Friday 6 January 1989 your agreement to proceed.

ROBERT JACKSON