University free speech complaints system to come into force in 2026

The UK government has announced a new complaints system where providers fail to protect freedom of speech to be introduced at the start of the next academic year.

The system will allow complainants to raise their concerns directly with the Office for Students (OfS) for the first time.

It comes ahead of new conditions of registration for higher education providers coming into force from April 2027, which could result in universities receiving fines of £500,000 or 2% of their income if they are found to have failed to protect free speech. In the most serious of cases, the government said providers could face deregistration which involves losing access to student support funding or public grant funding.

The regulator will be empowered to investigate claims and recommend that universities review decisions, pay compensation or alter their processes to help “restore the integrity of universities as rigorous centres of intellectual debate”.

“The new scheme marks a shift for raising complaints about the suppression of free speech”, said Stephanie Connelly, a universities expert with Pinsent Masons. “After a period of uncertainty about the direction of travel, the government has opted to press ahead with a complaints mechanism, but in a more contained form than earlier rhetoric suggested.”

The new scheme is expected to streamline the existing complaints process at a time when many providers are grappling with the balancing act of upholding freedom of speech, open debate and academic freedoms.

Currently university staff can only use providers’ internal complaints process, which can leave institutions vulnerable to costly judicial review claims or employment tribunal action. However, under the new scheme, university staff, external speakers and non-student members will be able to go to OfS directly with any concerns.

Connelly said the changes would be significant for the higher education sector: “The risk of potential fines of £500,000 or 2% of annual income reinforce the need for universities to evidence not just a commitment to secure free speech and academic freedom in principle, but have in place robust, consistent and well‑documented decision‑making in practice.”

Francis Keepfer, an employment specialist at Pinsent Masons, said the shift towards a more regulatory approach would not mean that universities can forget about their obligations under equality law. “Previous cases heard in the Employment Tribunal have found that a wide range of views are ‘protected philosophical beliefs’ for the purposes of the Equality Act 2010,” he said. “Universities therefore need to take care to not only protect and promote freedom of speech, but also not to discriminate against staff on the basis of their protected beliefs.”

Keepfer added that these changes would now make it even more important for those making decisions in these areas to be “up to speed on the considerations and duties and to work collaboratively with colleagues in different areas such as HR and governance when needed.”

The new system will not be open to students, who will continue to be able to raise concerns with their university and then to the higher education adjudicator, the OIA.

These latest measures follow reforms introduced last August under the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act, which were designed to reinforce universities’ obligations to promote free speech and academic freedom in response to rising concerns from university staff about alleged restrictions on free speech. Those reforms placed a duty on the OfS to promote free speech.

The regulator also published guidance on how higher education providers could meet the duty to take steps to secure free speech.  

There have also been a number of recent legal claims challenging alleged failures to uphold freedom of speech.

Connelly said higher education providers should continue to monitor these developments amidst growing regulation in this part of the sector: “The recent challenges in this area have and will continue to be closely watched by the sector, both for their outcomes and for what they indicate about the limits of the regulator’s powers and the scope for challenge.”