Education Secretary Bridget Phillipson has spent more than £500,000 of taxpayers' money in a legal bid to weaken laws designed to protect free speech at universities. The attempt to dilute legislation, which mandates universities and student unions to actively promote and safeguard free speech on campuses, was ultimately opposed by the Free Speech Union (FSU).
The legal battle arose after Phillipson sought to revoke the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act, which was passed in 2023. Internal documents indicated that officials had prepared to pause the Act immediately upon the Labour government's entry into office in July 2024. Phillipson had described the legislation as a "Tory hate speech charter."
The free speech watchdog allows universities to be fined up to 2% of their income for censoring academics. These laws were introduced following incidents where university staff faced repercussions for expressing their views. One such case involved Professor Kathleen Stock, a philosophy lecturer who resigned from Sussex University in 2021 amid harassment and protests from trans activists. Professor Stock stated she felt pressured to "self-censor" her work, particularly concerning her views on single-sex spaces.
In January 2025, nine days before the case was scheduled to be heard, Phillipson conceded and informed Parliament that most of the Act's provisions would be enacted. The FSU then offered to withdraw its claim in exchange for a fixed costs payment of £84,000. The government declined this offer, proposing a "drop hands" settlement where the FSU would recover no costs.
The High Court subsequently ruled that the government must cover the FSU's legal costs, amounting to £353,748. This figure, combined with the government's own legal expenses, brings the total expenditure to over £500,000.
Toby Young, general secretary of the FSU, stated that the judicial decision validates the FSU's position and that of its lawyers, confirming they won the case. He added that the awarded costs would sufficiently cover the expenses of the judicial review.
A spokesperson for the Department for Education asserted that the government's "commitment to free speech is clear" and characterized the FSU's legal action as a "complete waste of taxpayers' money." The department argued that the action preempted the conclusion of its own review to make the legislation workable. Sources close to Phillipson countered that the previous Conservative government prioritized policing free speech over addressing university financial issues, resulting in an "unworkable" bill that has now been rectified.