The education secretary Bridget Phillipson has announced the implementation of the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act 2023 complaints scheme, alongside new regulatory powers for the Office for Students. This means free speech and academic freedom will be better protected at universities and colleges in England.
From April 2027, visiting speakers and academics who believe their free speech rights have been breached will be able to complain to the Office for Students (OfS) for free, rather than having to bring expensive legal proceedings. This introduces a materially different risk profile for universities and colleges.
Importantly this does not extend to students. If a student feels their free speech has been curtailed they should complain to the Office of the Independent Adjudicator, which is not legally able to determine whether a university has adequately discharged its free speech duties.
Nevertheless, any institution regulated by the OfS will have to consider how they can better protect freedom of speech on campus. This follows on from other parts of the law which were introduced on 1 August 2025 and required education providers to:
- Secure and promote freedom of speech and academic freedom
- Institute robust codes of practice to uphold these duties
- Ban the use of non-disclosure agreements (NDAs) in cases of bullying, harassment, and sexual misconduct
The statutory duty to secure and promote free speech
The starting point is the statutory duty introduced under the Freedom of Speech Act. Providers are required not only to protect lawful freedom of speech for staff, students and visiting speakers, but to take proactive steps to secure and promote it.
This extends academic freedom protections to ensure that academic staff can question established ideas, advance controversial positions and engage in research without risk to their employment, privileges or progression.
The duty requires demonstrable systems, decision-making processes and governance structures that show how institutions balance competing obligations, particularly where free speech interacts with equality, harassment and safety considerations.
A new regulatory complaints mechanism
A central development is the introduction of a regulator-led complaints scheme, administered by the Office for Students, expected to be operational from the next academic year.
This creates, for the first time, a direct route for academic staff, visiting speakers and other non-student participants in university life to raise complaints externally where they believe their free speech rights have been restricted.
The regulator is empowered to investigate these complaints and require remedial action. This may include recommendations to review institutional decisions, amend internal processes or provide compensation.
From a compliance perspective, this represents a significant escalation. Issues that might previously have been contained within internal grievance procedures can now be escalated to a specialist regulator with investigatory powers and a mandate to assess whether statutory duties have been met.
Financial penalties and registration risk
The enforcement regime will be further strengthened through new conditions of registration, expected to take effect from April 2027.
Under these conditions, the Office for Students will be able to impose financial penalties for breaches of free speech duties. The maximum penalty is set at the higher of £500,000 or 2% of an institution’s income, with the potential for substantially higher exposure for large providers.
In the most serious cases, the consequences extend beyond financial sanctions. Deregistration remains a possibility, which carries implications for access to public funding and student support mechanisms. This moves free speech compliance into the same category as financial sustainability, quality assurance and governance in terms of regulatory importance.
The underlying risk drivers for HE/FE
The regulatory intervention is not occurring in isolation. It reflects a growing body of reported concerns around the restriction of lawful speech within higher education settings. Data from The Free Speech Union has shown almost 1 in ten of the 5,700 cases they’ve taken over the last six years have involved universities failing to protect free speech and academic freedom on campus.
These include the cancellation or obstruction of external speakers, internal disciplinary processes perceived as punitive for lawful expression, and the use of recruitment or promotion criteria that embed ideological expectations. There is also increasing attention on foreign interference, where external actors seek to influence or suppress academic activity.
From a compliance standpoint, these issues are difficult because they often arise at the intersection of competing duties. Institutions must navigate obligations under equality legislation, duties to prevent harassment, safeguarding responsibilities and the requirement to maintain public order, while also ensuring that lawful speech is not unduly restricted.
Governance and operational implications
The practical impact for higher and further education providers is the need to treat free speech as a structured compliance domain rather than a policy statement. This has implications at several levels.
At governance level, boards and senior leadership must be able to demonstrate oversight of free speech risks, including how decisions are made in high-risk scenarios such as speaker invitations, disciplinary action or research partnerships.
At operational level, institutions will need clear procedures that ensure decisions affecting speech are consistent, documented and capable of withstanding external scrutiny. This includes complaint handling, event approval processes and recruitment practices.
At a cultural level, there is a more complex challenge. The legislation implicitly targets what regulators perceive as a chilling effect on lawful expression. Addressing this requires more than policy revision. It requires confidence among staff and stakeholders that lawful speech will be protected, even where it is controversial. For instance, institutions may need to take more robust measures against students who try to prevent invited speakers, or be attune to malicious complaints against academic staff who have a different opinion.
The compliance challenge lies in demonstrating that restrictions on speech are lawful, proportionate and necessary, rather than precautionary or reputationally driven. Decisions that are poorly documented or inconsistently applied are likely to present significant risk under the new complaints framework.
This is an area where institutions will need to develop more sophisticated decision-making frameworks, supported by training for those responsible for frontline judgments.
