
China-backed centres at UK universities under threat from new free speech laws
Universities fear that the new regulations imposed by the Office for Students (OfS) this month will cause legal headaches with their Chinese partners, including the government in Beijing, and could lead to some being closed.
University leaders claim they have been left in the dark by England's regulator over whether or not they are breaking the new rules, which bar foreign governments from vetting staff employed at the institutes.
The 20 Confucius Institutes operating in England – including at the universities of Manchester, Coventry and Liverpool – are partnerships between each university, a Chinese university, and an arm of the Chinese state that provides funding. They offer Mandarin classes and promote cultural events but critics allege they also act as a Trojan horse within the education system.
The Department for Education (DfE) said it 'welcomed a range of international partnerships with UK higher education' but that they had to comply with UK laws and regulations.
'It is for individual higher education providers to assess whether the criteria of existing arrangements would have the effect of restricting free speech and take steps to address that,' the DfE said.
Jacqui Smith, the skills minister, said the government wanted to ensure that universities were 'places of rigorous debate' for all views.
Smith said: 'Any attempt by a foreign state to intimidate, harass or harm individuals in the UK will not be tolerated. The government has robust measures in place to prevent this activity, including updated powers and offences through the National Security Act.
'We are also working directly with the Office for Students to support universities in safeguarding free speech and tackling any form of harassment on campus.'
China's embassy in London did not respond to a request for comment.
The new guidance is likely to force the universities to rewrite agreements with the institutes or face sanctions for breaching the OfS's free speech regulations in England, particularly new rules that punish universities involved with 'a foreign-funded institute [that] imposes an ideological test' as a condition of employment.
One critical group, UK-China Transparency, says Chinese staff applying to work in the institutes have been asked to provide references to their 'political attitude' and be vetted by a committee of China's ruling Communist party.
A spokesperson for the OfS said: 'Where universities or colleges enter into agreements with any country, they must ensure that they continue to uphold freedom of speech within the law and academic freedom. Where they cannot do this, they should immediately take all necessary steps to amend or terminate the agreement.
'Our guidance is clear, for example, that the imposition of any kind of ideological test as a condition of employment would be unacceptable.'
Several universities contacted by the Guardian declined to comment publicly. But university leaders said they have asked the OfS for more time to investigate and negotiate with their partners. A spokesperson for the OfS said: 'Any institution not meeting their free speech obligations should take urgent action.'
A spokesperson for Lancaster University said: 'Lancaster University is fully committed to upholding the right to freedom of speech for all staff and students. Along with our sector colleagues, we are carefully considering if there are any potential implications in the new guidance for our Confucius Institute, which plays an important role in our internationally diverse academic community.'
One university said that the situation was complicated by the OfS refusing to indicate which arrangements would be allowed under the new regulations.
A spokesperson for Universities UK, which represents vice-chancellors, said: 'UK universities are committed to upholding free speech and academic freedom. They work hard to protect these fundamental freedoms and meet significant legal duties in this area set out by the Office for Students.
'This commitment extends to the partnerships universities have with institutions around the world, which bring important economic and social benefits to the UK.'
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


The Independent
an hour ago
- The Independent
Government asks body to consult on axing ‘discriminatory' minimum wage age bands
The Government has said it is pushing forward with plans to look at removing 'discriminatory' age bands for the national minimum wage as it extended the remit of the Low Pay Commission (LPC). It said the advisory body will consult with employers, trade unions and workers on narrowing the gap between the minimum wage rate for 18 to 20-year-olds, and the so-called national living wage – the UK minimum wage for workers 21 years and older. The LPC will also be required to put forward 'recommendations on achieving a single adult rate in the years ahead'. Chancellor Rachel Reeves said: 'To ensure the right balance is struck between the needs of workers, business affordability and the wider economy, the LPC is being asked to consult on several issues before recommending the new rates.' Last year, Labour committed to removing these age bands to create a 'genuine' national living wage, as part of efforts to bolster employment rights. Currently, the national living wage for workers aged 21 and older is £12.21. Meanwhile, the minimum wage for workers aged between 18 and 20 is £10. There is also a minimum wage for those aged under 18, and apprentices, of £7.55. The Government said the change to the LPC remit will also ensure it actively considers the cost of living in its recommendations for changes to the minimum wage which are next applied from April 2026. The LPC, which was founded in 1997, provides recommendations to the Government each October regarding how it believes the minimum wage should be changed. The Government ultimately sets minimum wage rates for the following April after this advice. Business Secretary Jonathan Reynolds said: 'Low pay drags down living standards for our workers and in turn hurts our high streets and local businesses. 'This Government's plan for change will put money back in people's pockets, with this new remit marking the next step in considering how we ensure a fair deal for our lowest-paid workers while maintaining a competitive economy that boosts businesses and their employees alike.' Baroness Philippa Stroud, chairwoman of the LPC, said: 'We are pleased to receive our remit from the Government. 'Already, since the beginning of the year, we have spent significant time speaking with workers and employers to understand the pressures in the economy and the effects of the most recent increases in the minimum wage. 'We have held a successful call for evidence and received detailed submissions from all sides.'


The Sun
an hour ago
- The Sun
Russia walks out of ballistic missile treaty with US as Medvedev warns nemesis Donald Trump & Europe ‘expect more'
DMITRY Medvedev slammed NATO's 'anti-Russian policy' for driving Russia to scrap the Cold War-era moratorium on nuclear missiles. In his latest online clash with Donald Trump, the ex-Russian president ominously warned the West to 'expect further steps'. 5 5 5 Medvedev's comments came shortly after Russia's Foreign Ministry said the country no longer regarded itself bound by the moratorium on the deployment of short- and medium-range nuclear missiles. The ex-president wrote on X on Monday: "The Russian Foreign Ministry's statement on the withdrawal of the moratorium on the deployment of medium- and short-range missiles is the result of NATO countries' anti-Russian policy. "This is a new reality all our opponents will have to reckon with. Expect further steps." The deputy head of Russia's powerful Security Council did not elaborate on the nature of the "further steps". The Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty was signed in December 1987 by US President Ronald Reagan and Soviet General Secretary Mikhail Gorbachev. But the US withdrew from the treaty in 2019, accusing Russia of breaking the rules. Moscow has since said it will not deploy the missiles - with ranges of 311 to 3,418 miles - unless Washington does first. But Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov warned last December that Moscow would have to respond to what he called the US and NATO's "destabilising actions". The ministry said: "Since the situation is developing towards the actual deployment of U.S.-made land-based medium- and short-range missiles in Europe and the Asia-Pacific region, the Russian Foreign Ministry notes that the conditions for maintaining a unilateral moratorium on the deployment of similar weapons have disappeared." It comes as Trump said on Friday that he had ordered two nuclear submarines to be positioned to "the appropriate regions". Russia and China begin war games in Sea of Japan after Trump nuclear threat Trump and Medvedev have been locked in a war of words after the ex-Russian president accused Trump of 'playing the ultimatum game' over the White House's push to end the war in Ukraine. Trump first gave Putin 50 days to end the war - but slashed the deadline to just 10 days from July 29 due to a lack of progress on Moscow's part. The US president also vowed to impose secondary tariffs on Russia if a ceasefire agreement is not reached by August 8. Medvedev ominously warned Trump that Russia "isn't Israel or even Iran". 5 5 "Each new ultimatum is a threat and a step towards war," he wrote on a post on X. Trump blasted Medvedev's comments as 'foolish and inflammatory' before ordering nuclear submarines to be deployed near Russian waters. "Based on the highly provocative statements of the Former President of Russia, Dmitry Medvedev, who is now the Deputy Chairman of the Security Council of the Russian Federation, I have ordered two Nuclear Submarines to be positioned in the appropriate regions," Trump wrote on Truth Social. The US has the world's largest fleet of nuclear-powered submarines, led by the USS Virginia - a 377-foot vessel armed with cruise missiles. Trump v Medvedev: War of words July 2025: Donald Trump announced a 50-day deadline for Russia to move toward ending the war in Ukraine or face "severe" tariffs. Dmitry Medvedev, the Deputy Chairman of Russia's Security Council, dismissed this as a "theatrical ultimatum" that Russia "didn't care" about. Late July 2025: President Trump reduced his deadline for Russia to secure a peace deal to just "10 or 12 days," threatening sanctions and secondary tariffs on countries that do business with Russia. In response, Medvedev wrote on X that Trump was "playing the ultimatum game" and warned that each new ultimatum was a step toward war, not between Russia and Ukraine, but with the United States. July 30, 2025: In a post on his Truth Social platform, Trump publicly targeted Medvedev, calling him a "failed former President of Russia" who was "entering very dangerous territory" with his remarks. This statement came as Trump also announced a 25% tariff on India, criticizing its "dead economy" and continued defense and energy ties with Moscow. July 31, 2025: Medvedev retaliated on social media by referencing the "Dead Hand," a Cold War-era Soviet nuclear retaliation system, in a veiled threat to the US. He also stated that Trump's "jittery reaction" proved Russia was "completely in the right" and would continue on its own path. August 1, 2025: In a further escalation, President Trump announced he had ordered two nuclear submarines to be positioned near Russia in response to Medvedev's "foolish and inflammatory statements." This move highlights the dangerous rhetorical turn the conflict has taken, now including nuclear threats from both sides. August 4, 2025: Medvedev blamed NATO countries for Russia's abandonment of a moratorium on short- and medium-range nuclear missiles. He added the West should "expect further steps".


Times
an hour ago
- Times
Parents beat Labour's VAT on fees raid by paying £500m up front
Parents of children at Britain's leading private schools may have avoided Labour's tax raid by offering up fees in advance. Hundreds of millions of pounds in fees were paid upfront last year to avoid the 20 per cent VAT, which came into effect on January 1, analysis by the Daily Telegraph shows. Britain's top 50 independent schools received £515 million in advance fees last year, up from £121 million in 2023, according to research of the latest annual accounts at Companies House and the Charity Commission. • More than fifty UK private schools shut since Labour put VAT on fees By handing over school fees before Labour's deadline, wealthy parents may have avoided up to £103 million in VAT, with that sum expected to be even higher when taking into account all of the UK's 2,600 private schools. Parents at some schools tried paying up to five years' fees before the January deadline to dodge Labour's tax, the analysis shows. The large scale of advance payments could impact Labour's plan to raise revenue, tax experts have warned. However, the Treasury says that the Office for Budget Responsibility considered the use of prepayment schemes when making its forecasts for how much money would be raised by the VAT raid. Fees gathered from prepayment schemes, which are used to pay for one or more years of a pupil's education in advance, have risen across the UK's most expensive schools, including Brighton College, which recorded £50.1 million in total prepaid fees last year — an increase of £4.1 million from 2023. Only 86 of its pupils were covered by the school's prepayment scheme last year. That figure jumped to 819 last year as parents scrambled to beat the VAT deadline. Eton College collected £52.7 million in advance fee payments last year, up £16.6 million from 2023. At Winchester College, fees collected in advance rose from £4.4 million in 2023 to £19 million in 2024. Labour maintains that its tax raid is aimed at targeting Britain's wealthiest families and will raise more than £1.8 billion a year for state schools in ten years. However, with wealthy parents forking out large sums to Britain's most prestigious schools, it is the smaller private schools that are likely to be affected the most. The government predicts that 100 schools could shut over the next three years, with more than 50 independent schools already announcing their closures as a result of the policy, the Telegraph reports.