Witnesses: Gary Attle, Partner, Mills and Reeve LLP, Paul
Bowen QC, Brick Court Chambers, Helen Mountfield QC, and Aileen
McColgan, Matrix Chambers
Members of the panel agreed there was a requirement for
simplified guidance to help university administrators regarding
freedmon of speech, especially in regard to the Prevent strategy.
Although Statute trumped guidance, administrators were not well
served by the guidance.
In a session cut short to one hour due to votes in the House of
Commons, most questions focussed on gaining an understanding of
how freedom of speech conflicted with possible abuses of human
rights.
Committee chairman asked about the clarity of
boundaries between free speech and human rights. Paul Bowen and
Gary Attle agreed the answer was always context-specific. Some
freedoms of speech were given greater protection than others.
Asked if more legislation was required, the witnesses agreed it
would be difficult to get more clarity than currently existed.
Gary Attle said defining freedom of speech depended on the
circumstances. It would be helpful to "untangle" some of the
guidance.
Aileen McColgan said some rights might be curtailed not because
the words used were unlawful, but the context might cause
difficulties in other ways.
Helen Mountfield was less worried about the law than the
guidance, which 'fuzzes the issues," making universities unduly
anxious.
asked how the panel would
define hate speech. Paul Bowen said some forms of speech
considered extremist might not be considered hate speech. “In my
view that is correct because free speech that protects only what
you want to hear is not worth anything at all.”
Helen Mountfield said universities had a responsibility to
protect all lawful speech. Then the question was defining the
limits of lawful speech. The Prevent guidance encouraged
universities to an over-anxious approach to stopping speech for
precautionary reasons.
Other lines of questioning included (by Harriet Harman) if there
could be a different duty to enforce freedom of speech depending
on the ethnic makeup of the student body; and (by Fiona Bruce)
about Strasbourg case law and if the duty under section 43 added
anything over and above article 10.
Gary Attle said the 1994 Education Act provided the link between
a university’s obligation to secure freedom of speech and the
students union. But the Act also gave the university’s governing
body a duty of oversight over the student union.
asked if universities were
observing their obligations. Gary Attle said that was difficult
to say. Universities believed passionately in freedom of speech,
but there could be anxiety about putting on certain events. There
needed more leadership and communication; not more legislation.
asked about the
responsibility of universities to help students who couldn't get
their message across. Gary Attle said university leaders might be
able to answer that. Helen Mountfield said the duties under the
law were duties to think about things, rather than taking
particular steps. There was a lot that universities could do to
set a tone for a particular debate.
The transcript of the hearing will be sent as soon as it is
available.
