From 1 September 2026, university staff, applicants for academic posts, visiting speakers and certain other individuals will have a new route to complain directly to the Office for Students (OfS) where they believe a university or college has failed to protect their lawful freedom of speech.
The new complaints scheme forms part of the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act 2023 reforms and applies to OfS-registered higher education providers and their constituent institutions in England. The rules take effect on 1 September 2026.
Decisions around free speech that were previously handled largely through internal grievance, disciplinary, research or speaker-event processes can now result in an external investigation by a specialist regulator. The OfS can require information, examine institutional decision-making, make recommendations for redress and normally expects to publish information about complaint outcomes.
However, the scheme does not create an unrestricted right to say anything on campus. Unlawful speech remains outside the protection of the legislation, and institutions can still restrict speech where there is a proper legal basis and the interference is proportionate. Equality law, harassment law, safeguarding obligations, the Prevent duty and legitimate safety considerations continue to apply. Covered institutions should ensure these distinctions are correctly applied, and be able to demonstrate how a decision was reached.
What changes on 1 September 2026?
The underlying statutory free speech duties are already in force. Since 1 August 2025, registered providers and their constituent institutions have been required to take reasonably practicable steps to secure freedom of speech within the law, maintain an appropriate free speech code of practice and promote the importance of freedom of speech and academic freedom in higher education. The 2025 reforms also introduced restrictions on the use of non-disclosure agreements concerning bullying, harassment and sexual misconduct.
What changes on 1 September 2026 is enforcement at the individual complaint level. An eligible complainant who says they have suffered adverse consequences because of action or inaction by a provider, and that this may have resulted from a breach of the provider’s free speech duty, can ask the OfS to review the complaint. The adverse consequences do not have to be financial.
Examples could include an academic being disciplined over lawful expression, a research programme being restricted, an applicant for an academic position being disadvantaged because of their views, or an invited speaker having an event cancelled.
The scheme is free for complainants. The OfS says it expects most reviews to be completed within six months, although it acknowledges that the timetable remains untested.
Who can use the OfS scheme?
The scheme is deliberately narrower than the population protected by the substantive free speech duty. Eligible complainants include current and former members and members of staff, applicants for academic posts, and people who are or were invited visiting speakers.
“Staff” is defined broadly. It includes conventional employees as well as fixed-term, zero-hours and other casual employees, together with some people providing personal work or services under other contractual arrangements.
Non-student members can also qualify. This may include, depending on the institution’s constitutional arrangements, individuals such as emeritus professors. A person does not become an eligible “member” merely because they are or were a student.
There are important exclusions.
Students cannot use the new OfS complaints scheme in their capacity as students. They should normally use their institution’s internal process first and can then take eligible unresolved complaints to the Office of the Independent Adjudicator for Higher Education (OIA). The OIA expressly includes freedom of speech within the categories of student complaints it can review.
Applicants for non-academic jobs are not included merely by virtue of applying for employment. Nor can someone become an eligible visiting speaker simply because they wanted to speak or asked to be invited. The OfS definition does, however, extend to someone who would have been invited except for something done by the provider or constituent institution.
Does this apply to the further education sector?
The scheme does not apply automatically to every further education college or FE provider in England. Its institutional scope is determined by OfS registration.
The OfS can review complaints against registered higher education providers and their constituent institutions. That includes FE colleges which are themselves registered higher education providers. An FE institution which is neither registered with the OfS nor a constituent institution of a registered provider does not fall within the complaints scheme merely because it provides further education.
The OfS guidance expressly recognises that registered providers differ in size, specialism and whether they deliver further education, and that those circumstances may affect what steps are reasonably practicable.
What about students’ unions?
The new scheme does not provide for complaints against students’ unions. The government decided not to commence the separate students’ union duties in the original 2023 Act framework, and the current OfS scheme covers providers and constituent institutions rather than students’ unions.
That does not make student-union activity irrelevant to provider risk. A complaint may still concern something the provider itself did or failed to do in connection with an event involving a students’ union. The scheme’s definition of visiting speaker also expressly contemplates invitations to speak at a students’ union. The important question is whether the alleged breach is attributable to the registered provider or constituent institution that is the respondent under the scheme.
What does someone have to show to make a free speech complaint?
The complaint must raise a question as to whether the provider breached its statutory duty to secure freedom of speech within the law and whether the complainant experienced adverse consequences as a result.
Importantly, complaints are formally made against the governing body. This does not mean that only decisions personally taken by governors can be challenged. The governing body has overarching responsibility for the institution, so decisions taken through delegated processes such as HR, academic discipline, research governance or speaker approval can form the basis of a complaint.
The OfS will generally expect internal processes to have been used first. Where a disciplinary, grievance, or similar procedure exists, the OfS will normally accept a complaint once that process is complete or, if earlier, after 90 days have elapsed since it began.
Complaints should normally reach the OfS within 12 months of the action or inaction complained about. Anonymous complaints cannot be reviewed. The OfS may attempt to protect a complainant’s identity where there is a compelling reason, such as a credible safety threat, although it cannot guarantee anonymity and expressly states that it does not have formal whistleblower-protection powers. Complaints concerning the same subject matter as court or tribunal proceedings will generally be excluded.
Is the scheme retrospective?
No. Actions or inactions before 1 September 2026 cannot themselves be reviewed under the scheme.
The position becomes more complicated where earlier conduct continues to have effects after that date.
The OfS gives the example of a policy introduced in 2024 that allegedly continues to restrict an academic’s teaching after 1 September 2026. The continuing operation of that policy may generate post-commencement action or inaction that can be complained about.
Conversely, simply completing an internal appeal after 1 September will not bring an earlier event within the scheme. The OfS gives another example in which permission for a controversial politician to speak is refused in June 2026 and the internal complaint concludes on 22 September. Because the underlying action occurred before the scheme began, that decision cannot be taken to the OfS under the new scheme.
Institutions should therefore expect disputes about continuing policies and ongoing decisions to be among the early boundary questions considered by the regulator.
Lawful speech can still be restricted in some circumstances
One of the most important compliance points is that “freedom of speech within the law” does not mean that institutions must permit every form of expression in every setting.
The OfS’s updated Regulatory Advice 24 now uses a three-stage framework. Institutions should first determine whether the speech is within the law. They should then identify reasonably practicable steps that could secure the speech. Where a proposed measure would interfere with the speech, they must consider whether the restriction is prescribed by law and proportionate under the European Convention on Human Rights.
This is particularly important where free speech interacts with equality and harassment obligations. The OfS makes clear that the Public Sector Equality Duty does not create a general requirement to restrict speech. At the same time, providers remain subject to substantive Equality Act obligations, including protection against unlawful harassment, discrimination and victimisation.
Safeguarding can also justify restrictions in appropriate circumstances, particularly for institutions with students under 18. The Prevent duty remains relevant. Genuine physical safety risks can justify steps such as security arrangements, ticketing requirements or controls over the time, place and manner of an event.
What is much harder to justify is intervention simply because a viewpoint is controversial, offensive to some people, inconsistent with institutional values or potentially damaging to reputation. The OfS guidance places substantial weight on protecting lawful expression and expects institutions to examine less restrictive options before cancelling or suppressing it.
This creates a significant compliance risk around policies using broad terms such as “offensive”, “inappropriate” or “harmful” without connecting them to a proper legal test. Policies and complaints systems should not inadvertently turn disagreement with lawful opinions into evidence of misconduct.
Reading the University of Sussex judgment within the free speech context
The High Court’s April 2026 judgment in University of Sussex v Office for Students is particularly important for understanding how the new regime is likely to operate.
The case arose from the OfS’s earlier investigation into the university and its response to events involving Professor Kathleen Stock. The OfS had imposed a £585,000 financial penalty under the regulatory framework then in force. The university successfully challenged the regulator’s decision in the High Court.
The judgment identified several errors in the OfS’s approach, including its interpretation of the university’s governing documents and freedom of speech within the law, aspects of its approach to academic freedom, its treatment of changes the university had subsequently made, and procedural fairness concerns.
This was not a ruling that universities have broad freedom to restrict lawful speech. Nor was it a complaint under the new September 2026 scheme. Its significance is that the regulator itself must apply the statutory framework correctly and carry out a proper proportionality analysis when assessing restrictions.
The OfS decided not to appeal. It subsequently amended Regulatory Advice 24, with the August 2026 version placing greater emphasis on proportionality and the interaction with Convention rights.
A decision record should identify the speech at issue, whether it is lawful, the relevant legal obligations and risks, what alternatives were considered, why any interference was necessary and why the chosen response was proportionate. A conclusion based predominantly on controversy, institutional discomfort or anticipated reputational damage is likely to be vulnerable.
Where are the main compliance risks?
Speaker events remain an obvious source of complaints. Cancellation should not become the default response simply because protests are expected. Institutions should distinguish a credible safety problem from general tension or opposition and consider practical measures capable of allowing the event to proceed.
Employment and disciplinary processes present another significant exposure. Complaints about controversial academic opinions, social media posts or teaching content need to be assessed against free speech obligations before ordinary misconduct procedures are allowed to run their course. This is particularly important where complaints themselves may be motivated by disagreement with an individual’s lawful views.
Research governance is also relevant. Decisions to prevent research, withdraw institutional support or change academic activity because of reputational pressure, external funding relationships or political sensitivities may engage both free speech and academic freedom.
Recruitment presents a newer risk. The OfS guidance says providers should not require applicants for academic positions to commit to, or demonstrate commitment to, a particular viewpoint.
Institutions should also examine harassment, EDI, IT, social media, complaints, fitness-to-practise and conduct policies. The strongest framework is one that clearly separates unlawful conduct from lawful expression that somebody finds objectionable.
International partnerships and foreign funding are another emerging area. The OfS has specifically identified potential risks where foreign states or funders seek to influence curricula, impose ideological conditions, monitor students or constrain academic teaching and research. It expects to publish a further statement of expectations concerning foreign-state arrangements in autumn 2026.
What can the OfS do if a complaint succeeds?
After investigating, the OfS will classify a complaint as justified, partly justified or not justified.
A complaint is justified where the OfS considers it more likely than not that the free speech duty was breached and that the complainant suffered adverse consequences that were more than minor or trivial. Where the duty was breached yet the complainant suffered no adverse consequences or only minor or trivial consequences, the complaint may be partly justified.
Where a complaint is justified or partly justified, the OfS can make recommendations requiring the institution to take specified action or refrain from doing something. The OfS has given reinstatement of a research programme and re-invitation of a visiting speaker as possible examples.
The government’s April announcement described compensation as one possible form of redress. This should be distinguished from a regulatory monetary penalty imposed by the OfS.
The OfS may also recover costs associated with making its decision from a respondent where a complaint is justified or partly justified. Failure to comply with requirements imposed under the scheme can ultimately be enforced through civil proceedings for an injunction.
There is also a reputational dimension. The OfS normally expects to publish information about complaints and their outcomes. It does not normally expect to name individuals, although it acknowledges that individuals may sometimes be identifiable from the published facts.
Does the new scheme introduce £500,000 fines?
The complaints scheme beginning on 1 September 2026 does not itself establish a £500,000 penalty for an upheld complaint. Its immediate mechanisms are investigation, recommendations, possible payment of sums, publication and cost recovery, while preserving the OfS’s ability to take separate regulatory or enforcement action where appropriate.
A further change is scheduled for 1 April 2027, when provisions requiring the OfS to establish new mandatory conditions of registration relating to freedom of speech are due to commence. Those conditions will address providers’ governance arrangements and compliance with the statutory duties. As of August 2026, the OfS says it is still developing and preparing to consult on the conditions and supporting guidance.
Once those conditions are operational, breaches may engage the OfS’s wider regulatory enforcement framework. Providers should therefore distinguish the individual complaints process beginning in September from the conditions-of-registration regime arriving in April 2027 rather than treating them as a single new fine regime.
What should universities and colleges do before 1 September?
Providers should use the remaining period before the scheme begins to test whether their existing procedures will withstand external scrutiny. In practical terms, this should include:
- Check institutional scope and responsibilities. Confirm which legal entities and constituent institutions are OfS-registered and where decision-making responsibility sits.
- Review high-risk policies. Examine free speech codes, disciplinary and grievance procedures, harassment and EDI policies, IT and social media rules, research governance, academic recruitment, fitness-to-practise arrangements and speaker-event procedures against the OfS three-stage framework.
- Strengthen decision records. Decisions affecting speech should record the applicable law, the risks identified, alternatives considered and the proportionality assessment rather than relying on general statements about reputation, offence or institutional values.
- Review internal complaint timescales. A process that remains unresolved for 90 days can normally be taken to the OfS, so institutions should know where complex free speech cases could become stuck.
- Create an escalation route. HR, events teams, EDI teams, security staff, research committees and academic managers need to know when a decision raises a free speech issue requiring specialist or legal review.
- Preserve evidence. The OfS can request policies, correspondence and evidence about institutional decision-making and can seek further information or hold meetings as part of a review.
- Update institutional materials. As soon as reasonably practicable after 1 September, and no later than 1 January 2027, information advertising the scheme should appear prominently in staff induction materials, the free speech code and speaker procedures, relevant internal review procedures and application materials for academic posts.
- Plan ongoing awareness. The rules say providers should bring the scheme to the attention of staff and non-student members at least annually.
Train your staff today on protecting freedom of speech on campus.
From 1 September 2026, university staff, applicants for academic posts, visiting speakers and certain other individuals will have a new route to complain directly to the Office for Students (OfS) where they believe a university or college has failed to protect their lawful freedom of speech.
The new complaints scheme forms part of the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act 2023 reforms and applies to OfS-registered higher education providers and their constituent institutions in England. The rules take effect on 1 September 2026.
Decisions around free speech that were previously handled largely through internal grievance, disciplinary, research or speaker-event processes can now result in an external investigation by a specialist regulator. The OfS can require information, examine institutional decision-making, make recommendations for redress and normally expects to publish information about complaint outcomes.
However, the scheme does not create an unrestricted right to say anything on campus. Unlawful speech remains outside the protection of the legislation, and institutions can still restrict speech where there is a proper legal basis and the interference is proportionate. Equality law, harassment law, safeguarding obligations, the Prevent duty and legitimate safety considerations continue to apply. Covered institutions should ensure these distinctions are correctly applied, and be able to demonstrate how a decision was reached.
What changes on 1 September 2026?
The underlying statutory free speech duties are already in force. Since 1 August 2025, registered providers and their constituent institutions have been required to take reasonably practicable steps to secure freedom of speech within the law, maintain an appropriate free speech code of practice and promote the importance of freedom of speech and academic freedom in higher education. The 2025 reforms also introduced restrictions on the use of non-disclosure agreements concerning bullying, harassment and sexual misconduct.
What changes on 1 September 2026 is enforcement at the individual complaint level. An eligible complainant who says they have suffered adverse consequences because of action or inaction by a provider, and that this may have resulted from a breach of the provider’s free speech duty, can ask the OfS to review the complaint. The adverse consequences do not have to be financial.
Examples could include an academic being disciplined over lawful expression, a research programme being restricted, an applicant for an academic position being disadvantaged because of their views, or an invited speaker having an event cancelled.
The scheme is free for complainants. The OfS says it expects most reviews to be completed within six months, although it acknowledges that the timetable remains untested.
Who can use the OfS scheme?
The scheme is deliberately narrower than the population protected by the substantive free speech duty. Eligible complainants include current and former members and members of staff, applicants for academic posts, and people who are or were invited visiting speakers.
“Staff” is defined broadly. It includes conventional employees as well as fixed-term, zero-hours and other casual employees, together with some people providing personal work or services under other contractual arrangements.
Non-student members can also qualify. This may include, depending on the institution’s constitutional arrangements, individuals such as emeritus professors. A person does not become an eligible “member” merely because they are or were a student.
There are important exclusions.
Students cannot use the new OfS complaints scheme in their capacity as students. They should normally use their institution’s internal process first and can then take eligible unresolved complaints to the Office of the Independent Adjudicator for Higher Education (OIA). The OIA expressly includes freedom of speech within the categories of student complaints it can review.
Applicants for non-academic jobs are not included merely by virtue of applying for employment. Nor can someone become an eligible visiting speaker simply because they wanted to speak or asked to be invited. The OfS definition does, however, extend to someone who would have been invited except for something done by the provider or constituent institution.
Does this apply to the further education sector?
The scheme does not apply automatically to every further education college or FE provider in England. Its institutional scope is determined by OfS registration.
The OfS can review complaints against registered higher education providers and their constituent institutions. That includes FE colleges which are themselves registered higher education providers. An FE institution which is neither registered with the OfS nor a constituent institution of a registered provider does not fall within the complaints scheme merely because it provides further education.
The OfS guidance expressly recognises that registered providers differ in size, specialism and whether they deliver further education, and that those circumstances may affect what steps are reasonably practicable.
What about students’ unions?
The new scheme does not provide for complaints against students’ unions. The government decided not to commence the separate students’ union duties in the original 2023 Act framework, and the current OfS scheme covers providers and constituent institutions rather than students’ unions.
That does not make student-union activity irrelevant to provider risk. A complaint may still concern something the provider itself did or failed to do in connection with an event involving a students’ union. The scheme’s definition of visiting speaker also expressly contemplates invitations to speak at a students’ union. The important question is whether the alleged breach is attributable to the registered provider or constituent institution that is the respondent under the scheme.
What does someone have to show to make a free speech complaint?
The complaint must raise a question as to whether the provider breached its statutory duty to secure freedom of speech within the law and whether the complainant experienced adverse consequences as a result.
Importantly, complaints are formally made against the governing body. This does not mean that only decisions personally taken by governors can be challenged. The governing body has overarching responsibility for the institution, so decisions taken through delegated processes such as HR, academic discipline, research governance or speaker approval can form the basis of a complaint.
The OfS will generally expect internal processes to have been used first. Where a disciplinary, grievance, or similar procedure exists, the OfS will normally accept a complaint once that process is complete or, if earlier, after 90 days have elapsed since it began.
Complaints should normally reach the OfS within 12 months of the action or inaction complained about. Anonymous complaints cannot be reviewed. The OfS may attempt to protect a complainant’s identity where there is a compelling reason, such as a credible safety threat, although it cannot guarantee anonymity and expressly states that it does not have formal whistleblower-protection powers. Complaints concerning the same subject matter as court or tribunal proceedings will generally be excluded.
Is the scheme retrospective?
No. Actions or inactions before 1 September 2026 cannot themselves be reviewed under the scheme.
The position becomes more complicated where earlier conduct continues to have effects after that date.
The OfS gives the example of a policy introduced in 2024 that allegedly continues to restrict an academic’s teaching after 1 September 2026. The continuing operation of that policy may generate post-commencement action or inaction that can be complained about.
Conversely, simply completing an internal appeal after 1 September will not bring an earlier event within the scheme. The OfS gives another example in which permission for a controversial politician to speak is refused in June 2026 and the internal complaint concludes on 22 September. Because the underlying action occurred before the scheme began, that decision cannot be taken to the OfS under the new scheme.
Institutions should therefore expect disputes about continuing policies and ongoing decisions to be among the early boundary questions considered by the regulator.
Lawful speech can still be restricted in some circumstances
One of the most important compliance points is that “freedom of speech within the law” does not mean that institutions must permit every form of expression in every setting.
The OfS’s updated Regulatory Advice 24 now uses a three-stage framework. Institutions should first determine whether the speech is within the law. They should then identify reasonably practicable steps that could secure the speech. Where a proposed measure would interfere with the speech, they must consider whether the restriction is prescribed by law and proportionate under the European Convention on Human Rights.
This is particularly important where free speech interacts with equality and harassment obligations. The OfS makes clear that the Public Sector Equality Duty does not create a general requirement to restrict speech. At the same time, providers remain subject to substantive Equality Act obligations, including protection against unlawful harassment, discrimination and victimisation.
Safeguarding can also justify restrictions in appropriate circumstances, particularly for institutions with students under 18. The Prevent duty remains relevant. Genuine physical safety risks can justify steps such as security arrangements, ticketing requirements or controls over the time, place and manner of an event.
What is much harder to justify is intervention simply because a viewpoint is controversial, offensive to some people, inconsistent with institutional values or potentially damaging to reputation. The OfS guidance places substantial weight on protecting lawful expression and expects institutions to examine less restrictive options before cancelling or suppressing it.
This creates a significant compliance risk around policies using broad terms such as “offensive”, “inappropriate” or “harmful” without connecting them to a proper legal test. Policies and complaints systems should not inadvertently turn disagreement with lawful opinions into evidence of misconduct.
Reading the University of Sussex judgment within the free speech context
The High Court’s April 2026 judgment in University of Sussex v Office for Students is particularly important for understanding how the new regime is likely to operate.
The case arose from the OfS’s earlier investigation into the university and its response to events involving Professor Kathleen Stock. The OfS had imposed a £585,000 financial penalty under the regulatory framework then in force. The university successfully challenged the regulator’s decision in the High Court.
The judgment identified several errors in the OfS’s approach, including its interpretation of the university’s governing documents and freedom of speech within the law, aspects of its approach to academic freedom, its treatment of changes the university had subsequently made, and procedural fairness concerns.
This was not a ruling that universities have broad freedom to restrict lawful speech. Nor was it a complaint under the new September 2026 scheme. Its significance is that the regulator itself must apply the statutory framework correctly and carry out a proper proportionality analysis when assessing restrictions.
The OfS decided not to appeal. It subsequently amended Regulatory Advice 24, with the August 2026 version placing greater emphasis on proportionality and the interaction with Convention rights.
A decision record should identify the speech at issue, whether it is lawful, the relevant legal obligations and risks, what alternatives were considered, why any interference was necessary and why the chosen response was proportionate. A conclusion based predominantly on controversy, institutional discomfort or anticipated reputational damage is likely to be vulnerable.
Where are the main compliance risks?
Speaker events remain an obvious source of complaints. Cancellation should not become the default response simply because protests are expected. Institutions should distinguish a credible safety problem from general tension or opposition and consider practical measures capable of allowing the event to proceed.
Employment and disciplinary processes present another significant exposure. Complaints about controversial academic opinions, social media posts or teaching content need to be assessed against free speech obligations before ordinary misconduct procedures are allowed to run their course. This is particularly important where complaints themselves may be motivated by disagreement with an individual’s lawful views.
Research governance is also relevant. Decisions to prevent research, withdraw institutional support or change academic activity because of reputational pressure, external funding relationships or political sensitivities may engage both free speech and academic freedom.
Recruitment presents a newer risk. The OfS guidance says providers should not require applicants for academic positions to commit to, or demonstrate commitment to, a particular viewpoint.
Institutions should also examine harassment, EDI, IT, social media, complaints, fitness-to-practise and conduct policies. The strongest framework is one that clearly separates unlawful conduct from lawful expression that somebody finds objectionable.
International partnerships and foreign funding are another emerging area. The OfS has specifically identified potential risks where foreign states or funders seek to influence curricula, impose ideological conditions, monitor students or constrain academic teaching and research. It expects to publish a further statement of expectations concerning foreign-state arrangements in autumn 2026.
What can the OfS do if a complaint succeeds?
After investigating, the OfS will classify a complaint as justified, partly justified or not justified.
A complaint is justified where the OfS considers it more likely than not that the free speech duty was breached and that the complainant suffered adverse consequences that were more than minor or trivial. Where the duty was breached yet the complainant suffered no adverse consequences or only minor or trivial consequences, the complaint may be partly justified.
Where a complaint is justified or partly justified, the OfS can make recommendations requiring the institution to take specified action or refrain from doing something. The OfS has given reinstatement of a research programme and re-invitation of a visiting speaker as possible examples.
The government’s April announcement described compensation as one possible form of redress. This should be distinguished from a regulatory monetary penalty imposed by the OfS.
The OfS may also recover costs associated with making its decision from a respondent where a complaint is justified or partly justified. Failure to comply with requirements imposed under the scheme can ultimately be enforced through civil proceedings for an injunction.
There is also a reputational dimension. The OfS normally expects to publish information about complaints and their outcomes. It does not normally expect to name individuals, although it acknowledges that individuals may sometimes be identifiable from the published facts.
Does the new scheme introduce £500,000 fines?
The complaints scheme beginning on 1 September 2026 does not itself establish a £500,000 penalty for an upheld complaint. Its immediate mechanisms are investigation, recommendations, possible payment of sums, publication and cost recovery, while preserving the OfS’s ability to take separate regulatory or enforcement action where appropriate.
A further change is scheduled for 1 April 2027, when provisions requiring the OfS to establish new mandatory conditions of registration relating to freedom of speech are due to commence. Those conditions will address providers’ governance arrangements and compliance with the statutory duties. As of August 2026, the OfS says it is still developing and preparing to consult on the conditions and supporting guidance.
Once those conditions are operational, breaches may engage the OfS’s wider regulatory enforcement framework. Providers should therefore distinguish the individual complaints process beginning in September from the conditions-of-registration regime arriving in April 2027 rather than treating them as a single new fine regime.
What should universities and colleges do before 1 September?
Providers should use the remaining period before the scheme begins to test whether their existing procedures will withstand external scrutiny. In practical terms, this should include:
- Check institutional scope and responsibilities. Confirm which legal entities and constituent institutions are OfS-registered and where decision-making responsibility sits.
- Review high-risk policies. Examine free speech codes, disciplinary and grievance procedures, harassment and EDI policies, IT and social media rules, research governance, academic recruitment, fitness-to-practise arrangements and speaker-event procedures against the OfS three-stage framework.
- Strengthen decision records. Decisions affecting speech should record the applicable law, the risks identified, alternatives considered and the proportionality assessment rather than relying on general statements about reputation, offence or institutional values.
- Review internal complaint timescales. A process that remains unresolved for 90 days can normally be taken to the OfS, so institutions should know where complex free speech cases could become stuck.
- Create an escalation route. HR, events teams, EDI teams, security staff, research committees and academic managers need to know when a decision raises a free speech issue requiring specialist or legal review.
- Preserve evidence. The OfS can request policies, correspondence and evidence about institutional decision-making and can seek further information or hold meetings as part of a review.
- Update institutional materials. As soon as reasonably practicable after 1 September, and no later than 1 January 2027, information advertising the scheme should appear prominently in staff induction materials, the free speech code and speaker procedures, relevant internal review procedures and application materials for academic posts.
- Plan ongoing awareness. The rules say providers should bring the scheme to the attention of staff and non-student members at least annually.
