Hull and East Yorkshire mayoral candidates' debate
What are you going to do about our declining high streets?
Melanie Charlton, manager at the Helping Others community charity shop, asked the question about her local high street in Goole, and claimed business rates are "absolutely killing" the town.Luke Campbell said he would talk to the council about "common sense ideas" to give business rate relief, turning derelict shops into thriving community hubs for people. He said "we need to get that [pride] back" in towns and cities. Rowan Halstead said he would enable the police to tackle those involved in human trafficking and money laundering. He said he would ensure people who attend events can access free transport to get there.Anne Handley said she would have a pot of funding "just for our high streets" to support "local small shops". Asked, as leader of East Riding of Yorkshire Council, why the authority is consulting on parking charges, she added that "under no circumstances" will the council put them up. Kerry Harrison said people are struggling with the cost of living and changing shopping habits. She said she would make high streets affordable and accessible and "bring buses back into public ownership". Margaret Pinder said she would make high streets accessible, making them "hubs of the community" by tackling anti-social behaviour and "getting trouble-makers off the high streets". She said she wants to make high streets thrive so businesses come back.Mike Ross said he would introduce a high street fund for the region and recognised the importance of "getting new life back into these high streets". He said he would support small and medium businesses as well as bringing investment in.
What would you do to ensure young people have access to decent, affordable housing?
James Ellis, 21, from Hull, asked the question and said "it's hard to get on the property ladder".Luke Campbell said he would set up a scheme for first-time buyers and has a fund available. He would convert derelict buildings into affordable homes, supporting shared ownership and 'rent to own'.Rowan Halstead said attracting businesses should be a priority to promote jobs and enable homes to be built. He said they should be "real community-led houses" with outside spaces, which put people and families first.Anne Handley said infrastructure needs to form part of developers' submitted plans, adding investment was also needed.Kerry Harrison said she would push for a pilot scheme to help people get financial security to get on to the housing ladder. She said she would look at refurbishing and regenerating houses to make them sustainable.Margaret Pinder said young people "deserve to have decent accommodation" and suggested smaller, affordable units for all ages. She said houses should be spread evenly across communities. Mike Ross said the government's housing targets were "ambitious" and "challenging" and called for a "proper plan" for where houses and related infrastructure are built.
Will you improve rural transport? Yes or no?
Sharlah Cantwell, chair of Aldbrough Parish Council, asked the question, and said public transport in rural communities was "limited or non-existent".Luke Campbell said "no rural town should feel cut off". He said he would take back control of bus companies which should be "for the people" and "not for profit". Rowan Halstead said he supported public ownership of transport and would work with councils and bus companies. Profit makers would subsidise companies making a loss, he said. Social isolation "is killing people", he added.Anne Handley said she would look at improving rural transport across the region and introduce "an integrated transport solution".Kerry Harrison said she would bring the bus network back into public ownership because, she said, it is a service "people need" and should be "led for the public".Margaret Pinder said she would bring buses back into public control, running them "where the service is needed" over "where the profits lay". She said "safe, late night transport" was also important for women and girls. Mike Ross would not rule out public ownership of buses but said "it's not a quick overnight process". He said he would like to work with bus companies and councils to improve services.
What are you going to do about skills and employment opportunities for older people?
Andy Haines, CEO of Age UK Hull & East Yorkshire, asked the question and said the rising older population "cannot afford to retire".Luke Campbell said he would work with colleges, businesses and skills hubs, to encourage employment opportunities. Rowan Halstead said he would develop apprenticeships for all ages, working with businesses and educational establishments to ensure the workforce was ready when required. He said he would also provide free transport so location, age and money did not become barriers to employment.Anne Handley said she would work with Age UK and educational providers to "upskill and reskill the aging population".Kerry Harrison said "it's quite depressing" that people cannot afford to retire. She said when getting older people back into work, accessibility through hybrid working is important to accommodate mental and physical health. She added this is also important for young people and people with disabilities.Margaret Pinder said she would help older people use their experience to set up businesses, creating jobs and helping them become self-employed. Mike Ross said he would work with businesses to identify skills gaps and the providers to help fill them.
Final pitches
Luke Campbell said people need change and a fresh start was needed to connect people and get results.Rowan Halstead said he was the local candidate "not shackled" by a national party and said he would put people in the region first.Anne Handley said she would make a difference and added she had delivered on a promise to create a combined mayoral authority.Kerry Harrison said Hull and East Yorkshire needs a fresh approach and perspective to understand issues and challenges.Margaret Pinder said, by having both a Labour mayor and a Labour government, she could deliver across the county.Mike Ross said there was the opportunity to do "wonderful things" and it requires someone with his experience.
The full list of candidates standing for the seat are:Luke Campbell - Reform UKRowan Halstead - Yorkshire PartyAnne Handley - ConservativeKerry Harrison - Green Margaret Pinder - LabourMike Ross - Liberal Democrats Information about the 1 May mayoral election and how to vote can be found here.
POSTCODE LOOKUP: Check if there is an election in your areaSIMPLE GUIDE: Everything you need to know about the local electionsGET IN TOUCH: Tell us the election issues that matter to youFULL COVERAGE: Catch up on all our election stories
Listen to highlights from Hull and East Yorkshire on BBC Sounds, watch the latest episode of Look North or tell us about a story you think we should be covering here.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New Statesman
an hour ago
- New Statesman
Just raise tax
Rachel Reeves' vast, imposing office in the Treasury, overlooking St James's Park, doesn't have air conditioning, but even in the Commons (which does) there was little respite for Reeves and her work and pensions secretary, Liz Kendall, in a sweltering few days in Westminster. On 30 June, the Chancellor sat stony-faced on the front bench as Kendall defended the new, diluted version of the government's welfare reforms. The following evening the social security and disability minister, Stephen Timms, conceded that the last money-saving elements of the reforms would be delayed, and may be removed, by his review into disability assessments. The government's attempt to save £5.5bn could end, as did the attempt to cut the winter fuel allowance, with the government spending slightly more than if it had done nothing at all. This is the deeply frustrating position in which Reeves and her department find themselves. Young people are dropping out of the labour market in unprecedented numbers, which our economy cannot support, and the bill for disability and incapacity benefits will rise to £100bn a year, which the government cannot afford. Our debts are almost the same size as our entire economy, and our borrowing costs are the highest since 2008. And yet, in the Treasury's view, some of Labour's own MPs are unwilling to accept fiscal reality. Backbenchers who argued against the 'tractor tax' on family farms also signed the amendment against the welfare bill, rejecting both the government's plans to raise more money and its plans to spend less money. Reeves is beginning the process of writing the next Budget, which she will announce in October. Before the economic modelling and the departmental bargaining begins, the Chancellor and her advisers will meet at the long, cabinet-style table in her office on Horse Guards Road and talk about first principles. A year in and the government has run out of money. Yet more tweaks will not suffice. Everyone around that table understands that taxes will almost certainly have to rise in the autumn. They will also have to confront the fact that they made a terrible mistake. By promising not to raise any of the three biggest revenue-raising taxes (income tax, National Insurance and VAT, which account for 63 per cent of all government income) they effectively agreed to maintain Britain's long-term political and economic malaise. The question that now hangs over this government is which would be worse: breaking that promise, or breaking Britain's already dented economy – before handing it over to Nigel Farage. How did the intelligent, politically savvy people running Labour's election campaign agree to make such a catastrophic mistake? Imagine yourself in their place. Imagine how humiliating it would have been if Labour hadn't won the election. After 14 years of Conservative rule – the gutting of public services, the shambolic exit from Europe, the conga-line of backstabbing and pocket-stuffing – imagine if they had still lost. Imagine losing to a group of people so utterly devoid of responsibility that upon learning the date of the election, they scuttled to the bookies to do some illicit gambling. This was the possibility that terrified Labour's strategists and advisers. A career-defining win was within reach; but so was the chance to miss the greatest open goal in modern British politics. This was not a risk they were willing to take. And so the 'Ming vase' strategy was born. The public and the bond markets were to be reassured: here was a party of managers, securonomists, cautious practitioners of grey-suited fiscal rectitude. Subscribe to The New Statesman today from only £8.99 per month Subscribe At the heart of this strategy was an act of cowardice: the tax lock, a pledge not to raise any of the big three taxes on 'working people'. This promise allowed Labour to insure itself against the relatively small risk of humiliation at the election, but guaranteed that it would be humiliated in its first year in power. The government has been forced into two painful and politically damaging U-turns on spending cuts: first, on winter fuel payments, and, more recently, on disability benefits. At the same time, it is trying to hide the inevitability of higher taxes in stealth taxes and tweaks to an already overcomplicated and dysfunctional system. This wider strategy has run out of road. Many of those closest to Starmer and Reeves believe tax is at the core of the enragement of ordinary voters. As they see it, middle-income workers have seen their living standards squeezed for close to two decades, as their pay has failed to keep up with inflation and taxes have slowly risen to pay for the old, young, sick and unemployed. In this telling, the middle earner has become the cart-horse of Britain, paying out ever greater sums in tax to live in a country in which the schools are falling down and a GP appointment is harder to come by than a Glastonbury ticket. One influential Starmer aide likes to deploy the metaphor of a ceiling slowly moving downwards (think Indiana Jones), crushing the great middle classes underneath. The government's job, in this aide's view, is to lift the ceiling off the shoulders of middle earners so that by the time of the next election they feel life is at last getting better again. There is some truth in this account, but it is far from a complete picture. The 'tax burden' on the whole economy is high, but taxes on many 'working people' are at a multi-decade low. Economists measure the 'tax wedge' – the percentage of labour costs that become taxes of any sort – and for an average single worker in the UK, this is among the lowest in the developed world: below the US, Japan, Ireland and Canada. The uncomfortable truth is that our tax system is narrowly focused on workers with good jobs (60 per cent of income tax is paid by the top 10 per cent of earners) while others (landlords and pensioners) get a much easier ride. The basic rate of income tax has not risen – not once, not by a penny – for more than 50 years. During that time the average life expectancy of people in the UK has increased by almost ten years, and as a result, our spending on healthcare and pensions as a share of GDP has doubled. We now face a plethora of other steeply rising costs: from managing climate change (£14bn to build a new nuclear power station in Suffolk) to defence (more than £70bn a year by 2027) and even the asylum system, where accommodation alone is expected to cost £15bn over a decade. We remain frighteningly over-exposed to sudden changes in the cost of energy – a source of constant panic in the Treasury. Our creaking transport network, crumbling schools and overwhelmed NHS need rebuilding and maintaining. But for five decades, as successive governments have tried to keep the cost of the state off the balance sheet, costs such as tuition fees (a graduate tax by another name) have contributed to this sense of being squeezed, and so the idea of raising the basic rate has remained taboo. The truth is that middle earners are not being taxed enough for the kind of state we want. Taxes need to rise. Our crisis of delusion about the tax system has put public finances on an unsustainable path. The longer we refuse to face up to this reality, the more painful the situation will become. Every targeted tweak creates a new interest group with which the public can sympathise, while the central problem at the heart of the British state persists. Failure to address this may cost Labour the next election, leaving a Reform-led coalition to impose its priorities. The country would continue to have a depleted and failing public realm and a monstrous pile of debt, neither of which is likely to be fixed by a second attempt at Trussonomics. The choice before us is becoming ever more obvious: between permanent political crisis and what would be, for any other European country, a normal level of tax. The last election was notable for the amount of time the Conservatives spent lying about tax. In September 2023, Rishi Sunak claimed, bizarrely, that he had 'scrapped' a proposed tax on meat. He didn't say which arm of the international vegan conspiracy had plotted to impose a meat tax on Britain's long-suffering beef consumers, but two weeks later his energy secretary, Claire Coutinho, claimed it was a Labour policy. She provided no evidence for this. The following year, as the election approached, the Conservatives paid for hundreds of attack adverts and campaign leaflets that claimed Labour planned to roll out the London Ultra Low Emissions Zone charge for polluting vehicles across the country. This, too, was untrue. In May 2024, Jeremy Hunt published a document – 'Labour's tax rises' – which presented the claim that Labour was planning to hike taxes by more than £2,000 as an official costing, 'conducted by HM Treasury'. The figures were disowned by the civil service. The government statistics regulator rebuked Sunak for his use of the figure, but it continued to be promoted online by the Conservative Party press office, which had mendaciously rebranded on X as 'Tax Check UK'. The Conservatives could make such claims because they knew that Labour, in power, would have to raise Britain's taxes. Hunt and Sunak had already condemned the British public to higher taxes, for years after the election, by freezing the thresholds at which different levels of income tax became payable, causing millions of people to be pulled into higher tax brackets ('fiscal drag'). Labour could have seized the moment of electoral victory to make it clear that the tax system, as currently arranged, was not working. Instead, Reeves and Starmer persisted in the same subterfuge as their predecessors. Having limited their options with a commitment not to increase any of the three main taxes, they talked up the value of relatively minor adjustments – VAT on private schools, changes to the non-dom regime – while getting the real money from stealth taxes such as fiscal drag and higher employers' National Insurance (a tax that is, according to the Office for Budget Responsibility, mostly passed on to employees, and therefore very much a tax on 'working people'). On either side of the centre, populists offer what sound like simple solutions: the left claims that a simple wealth tax, which has failed in every other country in which it's been tried, could raise £20bn a year. On the right, Reform claims tens of billions in tax cuts would be achievable without either the obliteration of public services or a mass sell-off of government bonds. The public is wise to the reality of stealth taxes, which are reviled in focus groups across the country. People feel the tax system is a con. And they're right. Worse still: it is a con that is actively making us poorer. Lying about the tax system is easy because it is a precarious assemblage of misdirection and untruth. We are told that there is a special tax to pay for pensions, but there isn't: the National Insurance Fund is not an insurance scheme or a pension pot. Today's pensions are paid by today's workers. The Office for Budget Responsibility is instructed every year to pretend that fuel duty will rise; it has been frozen at every Budget for 15 years. Council tax rises inexorably but the bins are collected ever less frequently, the potholes bloom, and somehow the council has still run out of money – because 'council tax' is no longer a tax to pay for the council, but a de facto tax to pay for social care. The system cloaks its dysfunction in its bizarre complexity. One economist described Britain to me as having 'the most complex tax system in the world'. Simply reading the yearly handbook to the tax system – which runs to more than 23,000 pages – would be a full-time job that would take three or four months. The VAT code is a catalogue of absurdities. An ice-cream cone, on its own, is classed as a biscuit and is therefore zero-rated for VAT, unless it is covered in chocolate, in which case it stops being a biscuit for tax purposes, or until such time as a scoop of ice cream is placed into it, at which point it becomes a taxable dessert (unless it is a chocolate-lined waffle basket of a size that would make it – to quote the tax code – 'quite difficult, although not impossible, to hold one in the hand and eat it'). His Majesty's Revenue and Customs will seek to collect tax on the sale of a fur coat (but not a fur hat) assuming the fur is from an animal other than a rabbit or a sheep (separate rules also exist for products made from the fur of gazelles, chamois and dogs, depending on whether the beasts' hides have been 'tanned or dressed'). A coat made from a goat is zero-rated, but wait: was the goat Mongolian, Tibetan or Yemeni? If so, the tax must be paid. The funding of our public services genuinely varies with the filling of ice-cream cones and the nationality of goats. This teetering edifice of workarounds and compromises has created a system of distorted priorities. Council tax aggressively redistributes wealth from the poor to the rich. It is a significant cost to people on low incomes – in the past two decades, thousands of prison sentences have been handed out to people who haven't been able to pay it – and a trivial expense to the rich. The property values on which it is based are three decades out of date (they were last updated in 1992), so it is an arbitrary measure. And more than half of it is spent on services – social care – that it does not make sense for councils to provide. National Insurance is also regressive, in that it has an upper earnings limit, so again it is much more expensive to people on lower incomes. Capital gains tax is very high for genuine investors (people who patiently build up value in an investment over time and then crystallise the gains in one year) and very low for those who use it cynically (by taking income as capital gains purely to exploit the lower headline rate). Walk down almost any high street in Britain and ask: why does this place feel poorer and more desolate than streets in ostensibly less prosperous countries? Many of the answers can be found in the tax system. About one shop in every seven will be vacant, and almost one in ten will be a charity shop, thanks largely to business rates, which are charged on valuations that are four years out of date (and which are therefore much higher than they should be) but which are not charged on charity shops or empty premises. In the surviving restaurants, you may find that most of the people coming through the door are delivery riders, who are – despite the brands emblazoned on their bags – technically self-employed (meaning the delivery company doesn't have to pay employers' National Insurance contributions on their work). Meanwhile, large numbers of people don't pay as much as they should, or at all. HMRC estimates the 'tax gap' (the difference between all the tax for which people and businesses were liable, and the amount of tax actually collected) was £46.8bn in 2023-24. Another awkward fact: £2bn of this is estimated to be wealthy individuals, but £28bn of it is from small businesses. The idea of big companies paying more tax does very well in focus groups – one source told me this was the main reason corporation tax was raised in 2021 by Rishi Sunak – but it has a significant impact on economic growth. The best tax to raise, purely in terms of economic impact, is the most direct and unavoidable: income tax. Research by the National Institute of Economic and Social Research shows that income tax is the least distorting measure, with the lowest impact on economic growth. But for all Labour's insistence on growth as their main objective, the main tax hike in the last Budget was a £24bn rise in employers' National Insurance. Workers will pay almost all (£19.5bn) of this, through lower wages, while the wider economy is already impacted by reduced hiring. No doubt it seemed a palatable way to raise money, but we should also ask: how many people were fooled? Given Labour's standing in the polls the answer appears to be: not many. Rumours abound as to how Reeves will find the roughly £6bn the two U-turns have cost, relative to her previous plans. Wealthy investors worry she may implement an 'exit tax' to prevent the highly paid from eloping to Milan or Dubai. But this would be more tinkering, and it would not address the elephant in the room. Britain's public debt is 96.4 per cent of GDP. Our government is spending almost twice as much on debt interest as it spends on schools. The UK has very limited fiscal space and economic growth has slowed to a crawl. This is not a situation that small tweaks to the system are likely to solve. The truth is staring us in the face: the tax system needs to be overhauled. And the overall tax take has to increase. Reeves is well aware of the need for both. First, the simplifying. Start with National Insurance: get rid of it. This 8 per cent tax on work could be replaced by an additional 5 per cent on income tax. This would be a tax cut for workers. Wealthy pensioners and landlords would be furious at having to pay more, but they should pay more. Economic growth does not proceed from making it more lucrative to work less. Politically, this has the benefit of having been a Tory idea (proposed by Jeremy Hunt, although he failed to say how he would pay for it). Rather than raising employers' National Insurance as Reeves has done, many suggest getting rid of that, too, because it is a tax on having employees, and therefore effectively a subsidy for companies that use gig workers and zero-hours contracts. To change course would require another rise in income tax, but the long-term result would be higher wages. Next, taxes on property: get rid of stamp duty, which gives the government an incentive to inflate the housing market and makes it too expensive to move, preventing older people from downsizing and younger people from taking up new jobs in other cities. The same goes for council tax and business rates. All three should be replaced by a land value tax, which would be fairer, less vulnerable to avoidance and less damaging to the economy. As in Germany, this should allow for more taxes to be raised, and spent, at a local level, rather than centralising almost all spending power in the Treasury. Finally, eliminate the loopholes and cliff edges that make the system inefficient, such as the VAT threshold, which causes many small businesses to deliberately remain small in order to avoid becoming taxable. Of course, as Reeves is tired of explaining, it is easy for journalists and think tanks to present such plans; getting it past the party and the public is very different. Achieving even part of such a programme would involve a huge political fight for a government that already seems exhausted by the skirmishes of its first year in power. But it is going to have a huge fight anyway against a party that won't accept cuts, opposition parties that offer easy (and improbable) answers, and the uncaring, invincible bond market. You can try to make compromises that will allow you to muddle through, until you face disaster at the next election. Or you can try to make history. That's the thing about history: it keeps happening, and it makes your choices for you. Starmer's other promise – 'a politics that treads a little lighter on all of our lives' – was even more naive than his assurances on tax. No politician can offer to stem the tide of history. Brenda from Bristol can avoid the news, but it will not stop happening while our species is around. The solution to Britain's political and economic problems is not found in a bit less politics. Nor is that what a restive public wants. Back in the Treasury, the Chancellor is considering the moral principles under which the system by which Britain pays for its state could be remade. Reeves is known to be frustrated by the fact that one pound in every ten of British public spending goes to the holders of UK government bonds – including hedge funds and overseas investors – rather than on public services. She sees a progressive case for reducing the deficit, just as she has seen the need to pour tens of billions into the health service in an attempt to fix the labour market, and to rewrite the fiscal rules to invest hundreds of billions in infrastructure. She is frustrated and embattled, facing a summer of rebellion and calls for her to be replaced before the biggest test of her career in this autumn's Budget. Now is the time to be bold. Reeves and the Treasury are keenly aware that to reform the tax system would require a battle that would make the fights they've had seem trivial. For the moment, they are having a series of ill-defined squabbles instead. But this is the fight they need to have. [See also: Why George Osborne still runs Britain] Related
Leader Live
4 hours ago
- Leader Live
Overseas students using higher education as ‘backdoor' to stay in UK
A paper from centre-right think tank Policy Exchange has called for the graduate visa route to be scrapped for all students other than those on postgraduate research degrees. The current model is 'not working' as individuals are using the student visa as a route to longer-term migration, the report has suggested. In May, the Labour Government announced plans to reduce the graduate visa route, which allows overseas students to live and work in the UK for up to two years after their studies, to 18 months. Under changes introduced by the former Conservative government in January 2024, international students in the UK have been banned from bringing dependants with them since – apart from some postgraduate research courses or courses with government-funded scholarships. But the report said the changes do not go 'far enough' and it called for bolder action to ensure study at UK universities is not 'a migration backdoor'. The paper said: 'Most fundamentally, the purpose of student migration should be to study, not to provide a backdoor route to longer term migration or settlement. 'Yet increasingly studying in the UK has become a pathway for widespread and sustained immigration.' The number of international students in the UK increased by 66% between 2014/15 and 2023/24, the report suggested. Two in five (40%) of those who arrived on student visas transferred to a different visa type within one year in 2023 – up from just 3% in 2019, according to the paper. Zachary Marsh, research fellow in education at Policy Exchange and author of the report, said: 'UK universities must return to the business of selling education, not immigration. 'Whilst international students can provide valuable economic benefits, the current system drives migration by those who have no interest in study but instead see the student and graduate visa as an open door to working in the UK. 'The Government and universities must go further to clamp down on those gaming the system. 'A more muscular approach is needed to restore public confidence that international students are good for our universities and wider economy and society.' The report has also suggested that overseas students 'may be crowding out UK students' at some universities. Shadow education minister Neil O'Brien is due to address a Policy Exchange event in London on Wednesday on higher education and migration to coincide with the launch of the think tank's report. Mr O'Brien is expected to say: 'It's not just taxpayers who are losing out. 'The current system isn't working for too many students, who are promised great things but find themselves having to pay back huge sums on very low wages. 'Too many students are being ripped off and we have to ask whether there are better uses of taxpayers' money that will leave young people better off.' Tim Bradshaw, chief executive of the Russell Group, a group of 24 research-intensive universities, said: 'In an increasingly competitive global market, the UK needs to maintain an attractive offer for international students. 'This includes the graduate visa route, which allows international graduates to remain in the UK to work and contribute to the economy for a period after their studies. 'We know that international student recruitment, like any immigration policy, needs to be robust and fair to maintain people's trust in the system. 'Our universities are committed to working with Government to eliminate any abuse of the system and ensure places go to those who are here to study and meet the standards needed to succeed on their course.' A Government spokesperson said: 'A series of measures have already been laid out in the Immigration White Paper to restore control over the system, including reducing the graduate visa from two years to 18 months. 'We will also ensure international graduates move into graduate level roles. This is what the Graduate route was created to facilitate access to, and will also help meet the UK's workforce needs, as part of our Plan for Change. 'We will also crack down further on abuse of our immigration system by strengthening requirements for universities, requiring tighter enforcement on visa approvals, course enrolments and student completions whilst continuing to welcome international students that support our world-leading universities.'
Rhyl Journal
7 hours ago
- Rhyl Journal
Universities did not protect gender-critical academics from harassment
A review led by Alice Sullivan, a professor of sociology at University College London (UCL), said free speech and academic freedom have come 'under attack' at UK universities by those who believe 'treating sex as an important category 'denies the existence' of trans people''. The report – on barriers to research on sex and gender identity – has called for staff and students who take part in freedom-restricting harassment to face 'consequences commensurate with the seriousness of the offence'. Universities should critically review their policies and practices to remove 'partisan policies and messaging on questions of sex and gender', it added. The report follows a review of data, statistics and research on sex and gender, which was commissioned by the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology under the former Conservative government in February 2024. It came after high-profile cases of academics who faced harassment relating to their gender-critical views garnered media attention in recent years. In March, the Office for Students (OfS) issued a fine of £585,000 to the University of Sussex for failing to uphold freedom of speech. The watchdog's investigation into the university was launched after protests called for the dismissal of academic Professor Kathleen Stock in 2021 over her views on gender identity. The OfS concluded the university's trans and non-binary equality policy statement had 'a chilling effect' of possible self-censorship of students and staff on campus. In January last year, an academic won an unfair dismissal claim against the Open University (OU) after she was discriminated against and harassed because of her gender-critical beliefs. An employment tribunal found Professor Jo Phoenix – who was compared with 'a racist uncle at the Christmas table' – was forced to quit her job because of a 'hostile environment' created by colleagues and 'insufficient protection' from the university. Prof Sullivan's latest report cites evidence from a number of academics – including Prof Stock and Prof Phoenix – who have challenged the theory that sex is always less important than gender identity. It said: 'Several respondents to this review have suffered extreme personal consequences, both to their careers and to their physical and mental health, including post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and extensive sick leave as a result of bullying, harassment and discrimination. 'The failure to adequately support and defend these individuals is a stain on the higher education sector.' The review concluded: 'Campaigns of harassment have had devastating consequences for individuals and created a wider chilling effect for academia and the research community. 'University policies have often adhered to the tenets of gender-identity theory, thus embedding discriminatory practices. 'In cases where individual academics or students have tried to resolve issues using internal mechanisms, these processes have often proven inadequate. 'Going to an employment tribunal is an exceptionally onerous and potentially career-ending step. 'Statements from higher education management representatives and bodies have typically downplayed and denied problems with academic freedom, dismissing or minimising concerns as 'media noise' or 'culture wars'.' Report author Prof Sullivan, from the UCL Social Research Institute, said: 'The evidence I have collected raises stark concerns about barriers to academic freedom in UK universities. 'Researchers investigating vital issues have been subjected to sustained campaigns of intimidation simply for acknowledging the biological and social importance of sex. 'Excessive and cumbersome bureaucratic processes have exacerbated the problem by providing levers for activists to exert influence. 'Academic institutions need to examine their policies and processes carefully to avoid these unintended outcomes.' Among a series of recommendations, the report said senior leaders in higher education should acknowledge the reality of bullying and harassment by internal activists and 'take on board the lessons of the Phoenix judgment'. Prof Phoenix, who resigned from the OU in December 2021 after she was harassed for her gender-critical views, said: 'I just suggested that there was a different evidence base from which we could make assessments about the potential harms of placing males who identify as trans in female prisons and I set up a research network. That was all I ever did. 'But it was enough for the activist academics to stop my criminological research career in its track and to do so permanently.' A Government spokeswoman said: 'We are taking strong action to protect academic freedom and free speech, which are fundamental to our world-leading universities. 'This includes introducing new duties on universities to ensure they are robust in promoting and protecting free speech on campus. 'It also comes alongside the firm steps the Office for Students is already taking, through fines and new guidance, to ensure universities remain beacons of academic freedom.' A Universities UK (UUK) spokeswoman said: 'We agree that universities must protect and defend academic freedom and freedom of speech. 'They are bound to do so by law and, in England, there is a new regulatory approach under the Freedom of Speech Act which is about to come into force. 'These are complex issues. In practice universities are bound by law to protect the free speech of individuals who have very different views on contentious topics. 'They are required both to allow and facilitate protest, and to prevent that protest creating an intimidatory or chilling environment on campus or from preventing staff and students from pursuing their work and studies. 'We will carefully consider this report as part of our work in supporting universities as they navigate these difficult issues.'
