Universities: Statutory Duty of Care

Tuesday 13th January 2026 Westminster Hall

09:30

[James Naish (Rushcliffe) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the potential merits of a statutory duty of care for universities.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Christopher. I am grateful to the Backbench Business Committee for granting time for this important debate, which follows an e-petition of 128,000 signatures that resulted in a Westminster Hall debate in June 2023. That was two and a half years ago and there has been a general election since then, so I thought it important that a new cohort of MPs be able to look at and debate this matter. After all, the wellbeing and safety of university students is an important issue that attracts thoughtful engagement across party lines. No doubt today’s debate will reflect a shared seriousness of purpose.

I was at university in the late 2000s. Although that feels like an increasingly long time ago, I still recall a phone call from one of my peers telling me that a mutual acquaintance, a 20-year-old involved in student politics, had taken his own life. Six years later, two more students at the college did the same, including one who had visited a GP only the day before and been told to take medical leave.

We should be clear at the outset that mental health struggles at university are not new. What has changed, arguably, is our understanding and recognition of them. Throughout the 2010s, there was a concerted effort to raise and tackle the stigma associated with mental health struggles through the work of many well-known names, as well as grassroots campaigners such as ForThe100, who live with the scars from a system that failed them and their families. They should all be applauded for those efforts, which have made such a positive difference.

Although there are ongoing debates about the so-called overdiagnosis of mental health issues and special educational needs, we should not lose sight of the impact. In each year between 2016 and 2023, there was an average of 160 suicides among higher education students in England and Wales, according to the Office for National Statistics. Student Minds states that one in three students reported poor mental wellbeing at the end of the same period.

At its heart, this debate asks a question that is relatively simple but that has complex implications: are the health, wellbeing and safety responsibilities that universities owe to their students sufficiently clear, consistent and enforceable, or does the current legal framework leave too much uncertainty for students and institutions alike?

[Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is making a very important speech. A few years ago, I and colleagues on the all-party parliamentary university group looked at these issues. What we found was a very inconsistent set of relationships between universities and local health services. Has my hon. Friend found that, too?

[James Naish]

Yes. I thank my hon. Friend for raising that point. Undoubtedly, “consistency” is a key word. It is about how we ensure that these issues are dealt with, through universities or associated support services, in a proper and consistent way, no matter where someone is at university. I am not surprised that my hon. Friend’s all-party parliamentary group came to that conclusion.

It is clear that more and more students are seeking to be open with universities about their mental health challenges and are seeking support. Over the past decade, the proportion of students disclosing mental health conditions to their university has risen sharply, from under 1% in 2010 to nearly 6% in 2022-23, and there is anecdotal evidence to suggest that the figure is rising yet again. It is also recognised and accepted by universities that poor mental health is associated with higher drop-out rates, poorer academic outcomes and weaker graduate prospects.

I welcome the work that this Government and the previous Government have done with the university sector to respond, including through the work of the higher education mental health implementation taskforce. However, although the scale of demand for mental health support from universities has risen sixfold, the law has yet to catch up with the very different set of circumstances and our increased understanding. At present, no statutory duty requires universities to take reasonable care to protect adult students from foreseeable harm. Instead, obligations arise in a fragmented way, through health and safety law, equality legislation, human rights law, contract law and voluntary guidance issued by sector bodies.

[Peter Prinsley (Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket) (Lab)]

I am concerned about medical students. If they have problems at university, there is a duty of care for them; if they are outwith the university, at a general practice or in another clinical setting under the aegis of the NHS, there appears to be no statutory duty of care. Does my hon. Friend agree that we must sort that out, particularly in respect of the sexual harassment of students?

[James Naish]

I will go on to mention the British Medical Association and its latest survey and work on the issue, but my hon. Friend is right to make that point. The patchwork of duties does not amount to a clear or proactive framework for student protection. That needs to be addressed.

[Warinder Juss (Wolverhampton West) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend find it surprising, as I do, that whereas there are duties of care on workplaces, prisons, hospitals and colleges, and owed by manufacturers to consumers, no duty of care is owed by universities to students?

[James Naish]

Yes. That comes as a surprise, without doubt, particularly to parents who find themselves in very difficult circumstances when their children are not well, or in some of the more extreme circumstances that we are thinking about today. I agree that the House needs to look at that. Most universities have wellbeing, counselling and mental health support services, which is fantastic, but we have to recognise that provision varies significantly in availability and quality.

[Katie Lam (Weald of Kent) (Con)]

My constituent Hilary’s daughter Phoebe took her own life at the University of Newcastle, aged just 20. Does the hon. Member agree that the level of pastoral care that universities do and do not provide is an important factor, not just for students but for their parents, in the choice where to go to university? Universities should be transparent and honest about the level of support that they do and do not provide.

[James Naish]

I absolutely agree. The reality, as I say, is that things have improved significantly. I am here today not to knock universities, but to ask the question whether, underpinning the provision that the hon. Member describes, there should be a level of legal obligation. Interestingly, a 2023 survey of 4,000 students by the suicide prevention charity CALM—the Campaign against Living Miserably—found that just 12% believed that their university handled mental health well. In response to the hon. Member’s point, I guess the question is “Yes, provision is important when you are selecting a university, but when you face problems, is that provision sufficient?”

The truth is that the lack of legal certainty results in some dangerous gaps. That is recognised by the higher education mental health implementation taskforce’s terms of reference, which were published only in December 2025 and which are clear that

“there is wide recognition among mental health practitioners, charities, those with lived experience and the sector that more could and should be done”.

I do not believe that I am flagging anything that is not already known, yet the sector and the Government have repeatedly said that a statutory duty of care is not necessary.

I beg to differ—that is why I am here—and so do my constituents Bob and Maggie Abrahart, who are here today, who lost their daughter Natasha to suicide at the University of Bristol in 2018. Both the county court, in May 2022, and the High Court, in February 2024, have ruled that the university caused or contributed to her death. In the Abrahart v. University of Bristol case, the court upheld a breach of the Equality Act 2010 for failure to make reasonable adjustments, but it declined to find a general duty of care in negligence. Crucially, however, the judge emphasised that the question of duty was

“one of potentially wide application and significance”,

and therefore not one that the court should resolve incrementally through individual cases.

In other words, the courts have signalled that this is a matter for Parliament and Parliament alone to assess. It is not for grieving families to seek litigation after harm has already occurred, but that is what is happening in the absence of legislation: the law develops only after harm has occurred, through costly and traumatic litigation brought by those who are least able to bear the burden. That matters all the more because, as I say, the context of higher education has changed significantly. The proportion of students disclosing mental health conditions has increased sharply, and a significant number of students who died by suicide were already known to university support services. That, in itself, should indicate that more must be done.

[Afzal Khan (Manchester Rusholme) (Lab)]

Some 72% of students report that their mental health has suffered as a result of the cost of living crisis. One in five have considered dropping out because they simply cannot afford it. Given the ever-rising financial pressures on students, does my hon. Friend agree that it is time to explore all avenues to protect students’ wellbeing?

[James Naish]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The cost of living has only exacerbated a problem that we knew existed, so it is right for this House to think very deeply about the question.

On a point that my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket (Peter Prinsley) mentioned, it is worth noting that gaps are being recognised by more and more organisations. Last November, following a UK-wide survey of medical students, the British Medical Association issued a press release calling for stronger protections against neglect and specifically referring to sexism and sexual violence towards medical students. It urged the Government

“to bring forward legislation that introduces a statutory duty of care on higher education institutions for their students.”

We should be clear that a statutory duty of care would not require universities to act in loco parentis, nor would it require them to provide unlimited services or assume clinical responsibilities. Rather, it would establish a clear baseline that universities must act reasonably, with appropriate care and skill, when harm is foreseeable and vulnerability is evident, much as already happens in other regulated settings.

[Dr Scott Arthur (Edinburgh South West) (Lab)]

I have come to this place from the university sector, so I understand the points that my hon. Friend is making. I pay tribute to staff across the sector who are supporting students right now. My hon. Friend will know that the sector is under huge financial pressure, so does he agree that a statutory duty should come with statutory funding?

[James Naish]

Yes. Undoubtedly one of the universities’ biggest concerns is about how the duty would be implemented and what the implications would be. I am not shying away from the reality that there would be costs for universities, but the question is whether we should put the duty in place. My hon. Friend’s point is about how any such legislation should be implemented, as opposed to whether it is needed in the first place.

It is important to be clear that a statutory duty of care is not about exposing institutions to unreasonable liability. In fact, clearer statutory duties may benefit universities by reducing uncertainty, helping to focus limited resources on the services and support that will make the biggest and most important legal difference, and by providing a shared sector-wide benchmark against which wellbeing and safety interventions can be properly assessed and, when necessary, judged in a court of law.

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

As a Bristol MP, I very much appreciate the fact that my hon. Friend has taken up the case on behalf of Natasha’s parents. I have had conversations with the University of Bristol about Natasha’s case, and also with the University of the West of England. One issue that comes up is where parents fit in, because students have a right to tell the university that they do not want their parents involved. They are treated as adults in that respect, which can put universities in quite a difficult position if they feel that the parents ought to know what is going on. What thought has my hon. Friend given to that aspect?

[James Naish]

My hon. Friend is right. What I am alluding to is the level of greyness that means that we see people falling through the gaps. Our responsibility in the House is to understand whether those gaps should continue to exist, for valid reasons, or whether a change in the law is required to ensure clarity for universities, parents and students.

I hope that in his response the Minister will address several questions. First, do the Government agree that the current legal position leaves duties unclear until after harm has potentially occurred? Secondly, do the Government accept that reliance on evolving common law places an unreasonable burden on impacted individuals to clarify law through litigation? Thirdly, what assessment has been made of the case for statutory clarity, particularly given the calls from organisations such as the British Medical Association for stronger protections for students?

Finally, if the Government do not believe that a statutory duty is the right approach, how do they propose to deliver the clarity, consistency and accountability that students and universities both currently lack, given the mental health taskforce’s stated aim in December 2025 to

“fill gaps in areas where more consistency is needed”?

Surely there is no better way to ensure the consistent implementation of proactive measures than by ensuring a solid legal basis for that obligation.

This debate goes to the heart of how we balance autonomy with responsibility and independence with protection in one of the most important sectors of our national life. Provision for students has improved, but in reality the consistency of support and legal understanding remain poor, despite words to the contrary. It is down to this House, and this House alone, to determine what more could and should be done. I look forward to colleagues’ contributions and to the Minister’s response.

[Sir Christopher Chope (in the Chair)]

I call Llinos Medi.

09:46

[Llinos Medi (Ynys Môn) (PC)]

Diolch, Gadeirydd. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher. I congratulate the hon. Member for Rushcliffe (James Naish) on securing this important debate on the potential merits of a statutory duty of care for universities.

My constituents, Glyngwyn and Iona Foulkes, have been directly affected by this issue, as they tragically lost their daughter to suicide in 2020. Mared Foulkes was a conscientious and high-achieving second-year pharmacy student at Cardiff University. On 8 July 2020, she committed suicide after receiving incorrect exam results. This error led Mared to believe that she could not progress into her third year of studies. By the time the university had sent her the correct exam results, Mared had taken her own life.

Mared had had a clear career path since her time at Ysgol David Hughes secondary school. All she ever wanted to be was a pharmacist. She worked at local pharmacies during school and university holidays. She became a peer guide for other students, and she participated in voluntary work at a hospital in the Philippines during her time at university. Sadly, all her dreams and aspirations ended on receiving those incorrect exam results.

Many people assume that universities already have a clear legal responsibility to look after students’ wellbeing, particularly where risks are known or foreseeable. However, the extent of any such responsibility remains unclear, and guidance and best practice across the sector are inconsistent. Sadly, this inconsistency results in a postcode lottery in the quality and accessibility of mental health care and other services.

As public services and universities struggle, the line of responsibility becomes blurred and our young people fall through the gaps. Too many young lives have been lost to suicide, and I believe that something concrete now needs to be done to safeguard them.

[Sadik Al-Hassan (North Somerset) (Lab)]

As a pharmacist, I remember when this news came out. My entire sector shares the grief of the family for the loss of a potentially amazing pharmacist. Does the hon. Member agree that pharmacy is a little lesser because of it?

[Llinos Medi]

I totally agree. The importance of today’s debate is that Mared’s name is recorded here and is always in our minutes and in our memories.

[Ann Davies (Caerfyrddin) (PC)]

I think we all fully appreciate the work that universities do to try to look after the wellbeing of their students. However, does my hon. Friend agree that the lack of investment in public services—by which I mean the health service as well as others—can perhaps lead to tragic consequences, such as Mared’s, for students who have mental health issues or who have been sexually abused? Our public services need more investment so that we can scoop up these young people and look after them a lot better.

[Llinos Medi]

I totally agree with my hon. Friend. Better resources and funding for our public services would go a long way to help students who are feeling vulnerable, scared and unable to cope. As the hon. Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy) mentioned, we recognise that students’ independence and autonomy as adults is important, but it is also our role here to make sure that we put safeguards in place to balance their autonomy with the need to safeguard them at vulnerable times.

[Warinder Juss]

I am really sorry to hear the case of the hon. Lady’s constituent. When I first raised this issue in the House last May, I mentioned that over the previous 10 years one student had taken their own life every four days in England and Wales. When Natasha took her life in April 2018, she was at least the 10th student to have committed suicide at that university since October 2016. Does the hon. Lady agree that as parliamentarians we cannot just sit aside and do nothing on this matter?

[Llinos Medi]

I thank the hon. Member for that intervention, and I totally agree. That is why I appreciate this debate, where we can all share our experiences and make sure that, in our terms here, we make the change that we want to see.

As has been mentioned, universities try to roll out strategies and action plans, but that has resulted in a patchwork of different support services across the university sector that simply is not working for our young people. It has also led to differing approaches to responsibility and accountability for students’ welfare and wellbeing. The lack of clarity has real consequences and, as we have heard in Mared’s case, it can have an impact on the whole community, including the pharmacy community.

When things go wrong, students and families often discover far too late that there was no obligation to act, even where warning signs were present. I therefore want serious consideration to be given to the concerns of students and their families. I agree with Mared’s parents that the current legal framework is insufficient and that reform is urgently needed to clarify institutional responsibilities.

09:52

[Lizzi Collinge (Morecambe and Lunesdale) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Christopher. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (James Naish) for securing this important debate on the merits of a statutory duty of care in universities.

The pain of losing a loved one to suicide is unquantifiable, and it stretches out further than we can imagine. I could share any number of heartbreaking statistics: for example, according to a 2022 Student Minds survey, 57% of students reported mental health issues, and over the past decade in the UK a student has taken their life every four days.

Although statistics matter, sometimes they can distance us from the reality of what is happening, which is why today I would rather talk about one of my constituents. His name was Oskar. He was a student at Sheffield Hallam University, and he was living with the effects of a brain injury. When the university gave him a warning related to his course, he took it to heart and feared he was being kicked out. Oskar then attempted to take his own life. Despite having given explicit consent for the university to contact his parents in the event of medical concerns, his family were not informed of this attempt. The university later argued that the consent applied only to physical injuries, not to an attempt to take his own life.

After that first attempt, Oskar should have been supported into treatment. At the very least, his parents should have been told that their son was in crisis. But neither happened. When I spoke to Oskar’s parents Maxine and Gary, they were clear that Oskar would not have wanted to upset them or to burden them. He would have needed someone else to make that call, and he gave his consent for that very thing to happen. Oskar later took his own life at his student accommodation.

At the inquest, the university was defensive and obstructive. I am sorry to say that I have seen that again and again in different organisations, including in healthcare. It was clear that the university’s focus was on getting the case closed. Maxine described it as the most horrific experience of her life. Although there is guidance on how universities should respond to serious incidents, the institution argued that it was not required to follow it. That is precisely the problem: guidance can be ignored, but a statutory duty cannot. Parents like Maxine and Gary do not want to replace the work that has already gone into improving mental health support for young people. They are asking not for universities to become parents, but for a clear legal framework where there is currently a gap.

One hundred and seven suspected student deaths by suicide were reported in 2023-24. Oskar’s case, and the response, is not an isolated failure. The Government’s national review of higher education student suicide deaths for 2023-24 shows that the same weaknesses are being repeated across the sector.

More widely, reports were submitted for only 62% of serious incidents, and families were not involved in three quarters of investigations. When action plans existed, many lacked named owners and deadlines, and senior sign-off was unclear in 71% of reports. This is very concerning, because processes matter. It really matters that investigations are done properly and that action is taken on them.

University students fall into a legal grey area. They are no longer protected by the safeguarding frameworks that apply in schools, yet they do not benefit from the clear duties of care that exist in most workplaces. Too many young people sit in that gap at a point in their life when they are particularly vulnerable, and too often the consequences are devastating.

University is often a pivotal time in a person’s life. Students can gain lifelong friends, meet their partners and discover their passions—and their alcohol tolerance. It is often seen as a carefree period, full of independence and possibility, but for many it will be the first time that they are living by themselves. They are often in a new city, without networks of support and the people who know them best and would notice if something is going wrong. It can be really lonely.

When the warning signs appear, it is not always clear who is responsible for acting. To answer the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy), one simple, practical safeguard would be for every student to nominate a trusted point of contact when they enrol, to be used in the event of a serious concern. That person might be a parent, but does not have to be. University students are adults and have the right to exclude their parents. They have the right to make their own decisions about how they live their lives. But such a safeguard would give them an opportunity to make a good decision, and would make sure that universities have a path to finding support for students in the event of mental health problems. Universities will contact families after the worst has happened, but why do they not reach out when there is still a chance to intervene, even when they have full consent to do so, as they did in Oskar’s case?

Although some universities have taken big strides towards increasing access to mental health support, others are lagging behind, and this is creating big inconsistencies across higher education bodies. At the moment, universities operate under a patchwork of guidance and general principles, which has left students, families and staff unsure where responsibility begins and ends. A clearly defined statutory duty would create consistency across the sector and provide assurance that basic, reasonable safeguards are in place for every student, regardless of where they study.

The pain of a loss by suicide never leaves us, and it causes a tidal wave of grief that ripples out. It is a sad truth that so many people will never fully realise how many people their lives have touched. It only becomes obvious when it is too late.

Suicide is a multifaceted issue, and of course the responsibility for students is not just on universities. Combating death by suicide requires a multifaceted and multi-agency approach, but it would be no bad thing if we all felt a little more responsible for one another. Establishing a statutory duty of care is not about blame. It is about responsibility, consistency and doing what is reasonable to protect young people before they choose a permanent solution to a temporary problem.

09:59

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Christopher. I thank the hon. Member for Rushcliffe (James Naish) for setting the scene incredibly well. I want to give a Northern Ireland perspective to the debate. Education is devolved; the Minister is not responsible for it, but the issues are the same for us in Northern Ireland. There is also the fact that 30% of Northern Irish students go to university here on the mainland and only 4% from the mainland study at our universities. The issue for parents in Northern Ireland, with 30% of their students on the UK mainland, is therefore pertinent to this debate.

I want to speak holistically about the needs of students across the United Kingdom, despite our differing education systems and educational devolution, because the issue that the hon. Member has brought to our attention today applies everywhere, irrespective of where someone lives in this United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. I believe that a statutory duty of care would clearly define legal obligations for universities, students and teaching staff so that they can follow up—a regulation, or a way of responding to every case brought to their attention. I want to address that, and I will also focus on what students and parents can expect, reducing ambiguity and uncertainty.

There is no doubt that the mental health and resilience of our young people is not where it once was. I am not saying that we were stronger back in the ’60s, or maybe even further back, but as an elected representative I have never seen anything quite like how it is today. Certainly, in my years as an elected representative I have seen it getting worse, more acute and more serious. That is probably where we are.

The landmark youth wellbeing prevalence survey of 2020 found that 12.6% of children and young people in Northern Ireland were likely to meet

“established criteria for a common mood or anxiety disorder.”

I know that we are talking about universities, but I have parents and constituents coming to me whose 10-year-old children have anxiety and mood issues. That should be a time of fun, with no worries or burdens hanging over their head.

The figure was noted as being approximately 25% higher than rates in other UK nations, so we in Northern Ireland seem to have a bigger anxiety issue. A 2023 survey by the Mental Health Foundation found that some 39% of young people aged 18 to 24 in Northern Ireland—nearly four in 10—reported that

“anxiety had affected their day-to-day life to a great or moderate extent.”

The 2023 Young Life and Times survey reported that

“45.2% of 16-year-olds in Northern Ireland had probably mental ill-health.”

It is clear that certainty and support are integral parts of education and must be a foundational principle.

My thoughts for the Minister are that even though education is a devolved matter, when it comes to discussing these issues it does not matter where someone lives, be it Edinburgh, Penryn, Bournemouth or Coleraine; the issue is the same. So can the Minister tell us what discussions he has had with the devolved Administration in Northern Ireland to ensure that we can work on this collectively across the United Kingdom?

[Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that clarity is required and that, in any statutory duty of care, account must be taken of the potential seriousness of the problem for those affected? Does he agree that we need to do it in a way that does not impose an extreme burden on universities to implement any statutory duty of care, so that it becomes a win-win for both students and their concerned parents?

[Jim Shannon]

My hon. Friend is right. The best way to approach this may be in a pastoral way, reaching out and noticing things—not that I am better than anybody else, but I do tend to see the person and perhaps see what the issues are a bit more deeply.

In Northern Ireland, results day for the transfer test—the cognitive abilities test, as it is known—is coming. Increasingly, parents who are considering which secondary school to choose for their children are not simply looking at academic grades, after-school clubs or links to vocational education. Parents are prioritising pastoral care for children as young as 11, because they are aware of the mental health pressure on their child from a young age. How much more pressure is there when they fly the nest and head to university? It can be a very lonely place. Sometimes, in life, the person who laughs the loudest and looks like the life and soul of the party is not necessarily without anxiety or mood issues. They could be the person who hangs their fiddle at the door, as my mother would have said: they seem like a person with no worries when they are outside, but when they close that door and go into their home, things can overtake them.

University is certainly the stage at which we advocate for independent thought and study, but independence is not the same as isolation. I believe that a duty of care would help to address drop-out rates. Precise figures for the number of Northern Ireland students who leave university due to mental health issues are not publicly available, because universities generally track overall drop-out rates in official stats but not the specific, self-reported reason for leaving. But one survey found that 29% students have considered leaving their course, with mental health cited as the most common reason. The hon. Member for Rushcliffe, who set the scene so well, cited an example of that.

None of us is looking for universities to take on parenting roles; it is not about that. It is about pastoral care, and that is where I would like to see the focus. Support is a different matter, and I hope that this proposal will provide a structure for greater student support to be a standard. I thank the hon. Member for securing this debate, and all those who are participating.

10:06

[Warinder Juss (Wolverhampton West) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Christopher. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (James Naish) for securing this important debate. Currently, there is no general duty on universities to take reasonable steps to prevent foreseeable harm to adult students. With much of the University of Wolverhampton in my constituency of Wolverhampton West, I have been working closely with the university’s director of student life and designated safeguarding lead to address this issue.

Campaigners are not asking for strict liability or for universities to take the form of a parent. They are asking for something fair and simple: where a university becomes aware of a foreseeable risk of serious harm to one of their students, it should take reasonable steps to reduce and prevent that risk. That duty of care is applied in workplaces and colleges, and higher education should be no exception.

After I raised this matter in the House last May, I got a response from the Minister for Skills, Baroness Smith of Malvern, who said that a duty of care may arise in certain circumstances, and that such circumstances would be a matter for the courts to decide, based on the facts and context of the case being considered, and would be dependent on the application by the court of accepted common-law principles. I became an MP to be a legislator. As MPs, we cannot absolve ourselves from our duty as legislators by saying that it is for the courts to clarify uncertainties in the law. It is for us not only to clarify the law, but to make it stronger and sensible.

I was a personal injury and clinical negligence solicitor for more than 30 years before I became an MP, and I find it shocking that the common law does not impose a duty of care on universities to exercise reasonable care and skill for the wellbeing, health and safety of their students when they are teaching them or providing education-related services. That also applies to taking reasonable steps to prevent injury, including psychiatric injury, when such a statutory duty exists in prisons, hospitals, primary and secondary schools, and colleges or further education. Duty of care in negligence also exists in other situations: doctor to patient, solicitor to client, manufacturer to consumer, and one road user to another. There are well-established principles of negligence that state that, where a duty of care exists and that duty is breached, resulting in injury and/or financial loss that was reasonably foreseeable, negligence has occurred.

I will bring the tragic case of Abrahart up again. In Natasha’s case, there was reasonable foreseeability of Natasha’s health suffering and her having a psychiatric disorder, but it was held that the university was not negligent because the university did not owe Natasha a relevant duty of care. In October 2017, university staff became aware that Natasha was struggling and was experiencing anxiety and panic attacks in response to oral assessments. In February 2018, a university employee received an email from Natasha, saying:

“I’ve been having suicidal thoughts and to a certain degree attempted it.”

At that time, Natasha had been diagnosed with chronic social anxiety disorder, but the university continued to mark her down on her assessments. The court confirmed that there were other ways of eliciting information from the student rather than having oral assessments. It concluded that, had there been a duty of care in existence, there would have been a breach of that duty, and the university would consequently have been negligent for its actions.

Natasha’s claim succeeded only under the Equality Act 2010 on the grounds of disability discrimination, because the university failed to make reasonable adjustments based on her disability. However, there are other reasons—to do with legal costs and time limits—why, in order to achieve justice, it should be possible to pursue a claim in negligence where a university has been negligent.

[Kerry McCarthy]

It is not adequate for us to have to rely on a determination that someone is suffering from a disability because of mental health issues. In some cases, there will be a history, engagement and a diagnosis of a disorder, but in many others, it could be that the student suddenly feels themselves to be in that situation. There is not always a long pathway to suicide; it could be triggered by a particular event. Does my hon. Friend share my concern that relying on the Equality Act is not adequate in the cases of these students?

[Warinder Juss]

My hon. Friend makes a valid point, and I agree. There will be cases where a student is vulnerable and action needs to be taken, but where that student may not have been diagnosed with a disability. It does not feel fair that in those circumstances the university should not take any steps to deal with the student’s vulnerability.

It cannot be right that there is currently no duty on universities to take reasonable steps to protect the welfare of their students and prevent them from suffering harm when it is reasonably foreseeable that a failure to act will result in harm. Establishing such a statutory duty of care would ensure that the law in this country was brought in line with the position in other common-law countries, like the United States and Australia. More importantly, it will give clarity to judges to ensure that justice is achieved and there is access to justice. Universities will also be given clarity about their responsibilities, so that they can take appropriate action to prevent the loss of young lives in their institutions.

A statutory duty of care for universities would define expectations, embed accountability and promote prevention. It would not burden universities unnecessarily, but would align them with the responsibility already expected in other sectors. This is about fairness, clarity and saving lives, and Parliament must act to close this duty gap. Students and their families deserve better, universities need certainty and the courts need clarity. As parliamentarians, let us make that happen.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Sir Christopher Chope (in the Chair)]

Order. Back Benchers’ speeches must end by 10.30 am so that we can move on to the wind-ups.

10:14

[Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Sir Christopher. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (James Naish) on setting out the case for a statutory duty of care so well.

Students face an array of intersecting pressures throughout their student journey. One is the cost of living. York is one of the most expensive places to be a student, not least because of the lack of supply and the cost of accommodation. That bears down on students, who have to take on more responsibilities, often working full time alongside their studies. Having to dedicate more of their time to surviving compromises their studies, yet universities seem quite impervious to understanding those cost pressures by putting mitigation in place, whether by providing accommodation or by supporting students who do not succeed because they have to spend more time on their work.

Transport pressures also bear down on students, as does the array of challenges that young people face today, including social media, violence and sexual violence, and we have talked about the interplay of neurodivergence and mental health. It is really important that there be a statutory duty of care on universities to provide holistic support around a student.

We must also recognise the challenges facing international students, who have not yet been mentioned in this debate. They are from another jurisdiction with different mental health models, but they also face challenges with their immigration status, which I have come across in York. We need to look at the system. An Iranian student today who would not be able to return to Iran because of the situation there must be able to change their status here. There are many intersections for international students, which we must take on board.

In 2015, York had a real surge in the number of students who took their lives. I congratulate the universities and the wider community on looking at how they could put mitigation in place, but 1,108 students have since taken their lives across the country. Therefore, this situation does permeate the sector.

[Alex Sobel (Leeds Central and Headingley) (Lab/Co-op)]

As near neighbours with universities in our constituencies, my hon. Friend and I see a real patchwork of support at universities across the country. Does she agree that a statutory duty would bring universities on a level playing field with hospitals, schools and employers? I am co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on students, and this is something that we have long called for. Does she not think it is time that we brought forward the statutory duty to support all those students?

[Rachael Maskell]

I agree. We must legislate in this place; that is why we are here. I particularly want to thank the student unions, because they are the people who are making the case, day by day, to the employers and the universities about the need to provide that statutory duty and the necessary services.

I want to address a different issue that has not been raised in the debate, around mental health services. We know that they are in crisis and, as a result, they are not responding to needs. Often, somebody will have a relationship with their mental health service at home but not when they move to a new area. We need a better transition for people who are neurodivergent, but also for those who experience mental health challenges, to ensure that they are properly engaged with those mental health services. The problem we have is that it is always somebody else’s problem, so we need to ensure that those mental health services are provided through a different model. Particularly within the student setting, I encourage a primary rather than secondary care model, because often the thresholds are in the wrong place for proper engagement. In the primary care setting, there can be a partnership formed between the university, the GPs and professionals to ensure that those services are timely.

My final point is about students who do not succeed in their studies and the welfare services that are wrapped around those students. There must always be a second chance for a student. Perhaps they do not get the scores they need; perhaps their relationships with some of their lecturers and professors are not, shall I say, cordial. As a result, conflict can often arise. We always need a second chance for a student so that there is another avenue to pursue and another opportunity ahead of them. That is what a statutory duty of care will confirm for students.

10:19

[Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to see a constituency neighbour in the Chair, Sir Christopher. My constituency has three universities: Bournemouth University, Arts University Bournemouth and the Health Sciences University. They are committed to achieving zero suicides, and have a joint strategy intended to ensure that no person loses their life. I would like to put on the official parliamentary record the names of Paul Millgate, Callum Jewell and Alec Channing. Their lives were lost, as was the love that they gave to their families.

Universities provide significant support for student wellbeing, but it is worth reflecting on what needs to go beyond that. My constituents are benefiting from studying at Bournemouth University and the duty of care that it provides. Bournemouth University is going as far as it possibly can to provide this care, but as we have heard in this debate, introducing a statutory duty of care can achieve two important things: first, a level playing field between the higher education sector and other sectors, and secondly consistency in the standards of care that students and staff can expect across the whole country. It is great that we have fantastic constituency examples of universities that care deeply for their students and staff, and that exercise that care deeply, but we need to make sure that every staff member and student benefits from that type of care.

That is particularly the case because education opens doors for so many young people. I am a fervent fan of apprenticeships and am pleased that the Government are moving towards further investment in apprenticeships, but university will still be a place of great educational importance for our young people. I am also pleased that many of them do not regret their decision to choose a degree. Indeed, last year’s student experience survey showed that just 11% of undergraduates regretted their decision to take a degree.

We must ensure that every undergraduate’s experience is the best it can be. In introducing a statutory duty of care, we need to think carefully about what this would be. There must be clarity on what duty of care means in a higher education context, and it has to intercept with and make sense alongside existing safeguarding responsibilities, health and safety law and anticipatory duties under equality legislation. I am confident that it can, for it must. We also need to think about who would monitor and regulate compliance. Would it fall under Ofsted, the Office for Students, the Department for Education or a new regulatory body? Universities need clear expectations and pathways for managing risk.

We also need to recognise the critical importance of funding, which has been touched on in this debate. In April, I spoke about the shortfall that Bournemouth University was facing of around £15 million to £20 million, which has now more or less closed. In the view of the Office for Students, 24 higher education institutions are at risk of closure. That is a desperate situation for many institutions and our higher education setting. If we are to put this duty on universities, as I think we should, we should also think carefully about what the funding will be.

I will give a short example of what Bournemouth University does. There is a university retreat that provides self-defined crisis support for students, Monday to Saturday from 2 pm to 9 pm on the Talbot campus. It has no thresholds to access, so student mental health support is available in the here and now. For students whose needs may be more complex—or not complex enough to allow them to access healthcare support at hospitals or GPs—this service from the university provides face-to-face support, particularly in crisis moments. It provides those who are stuck on long waiting lists with immediate access to the support that they need. Critically, that is funded by Dorset HealthCare and is delivered in collaboration with it. Any duty that we provide should provide additional funding through our NHS pathways, alongside higher education institutions, so that we can get the very best for our students.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (James Naish) for securing this debate and look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say in response. In particular, I am looking for the answer to the exam question: is it the Government’s intention to bring forward a statutory duty of care? What would that mean, and how would it be resourced?

10:23

[Mary Kelly Foy (City of Durham) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (James Naish) on securing this important debate.

As the Member for the City of Durham, I am immensely proud to represent a world-class university. For many students, coming to a city like Durham is not only a period of excitement, discovery and personal growth, but one of vulnerability. They are away from home for the first time, facing academic pressures far beyond A-levels and dealing with situations that they may not have had to deal with before, from problematic landlords to issues with utility suppliers, difficulties getting medication under shared care agreements and loneliness. They face situations that can pile on the pressure and exacerbate existing anxieties. For some, that vulnerability is even greater. Just yesterday, the Unite Foundation reported that well over a quarter of care-experienced and estranged students face financial concerns that directly damage their mental health. That number is over and above that of their peers who do have a family support network in place.

We are witnessing a crisis of scale. Higher Education Statistics Agency data shows that the number of students disclosing a mental health condition has increased by 480% since 2011. Office for Students statistics show that 25% of undergraduates in their final year have experienced sexual harassment, and we know that that is a tragically under-reported figure.

Some argue that because students are adults, a legal duty would make universities risk-averse, but I disagree. There is no need for a duty of care to be in loco parentis, where every move is monitored. It would be a duty to provide a professional standard of care, at the same level that we would expect from an employer or healthcare provider. If a student stops attending lectures for weeks on end, or their work shows signs of severe distress, a clearly defined process outlining how the university can and should support the student would potentially help with pressure points before they turn into emergencies.

Currently, student safety is a postcode lottery, and support varies widely between institutions. A statutory duty would replace this patchwork with a single national baseline and would help to give consistency, providing a floor below which no institution can fall. It would provide clarity on data to empower pastoral teams to involve emergency contacts without fearing that they are breaching GDPR, and integration to ensure better data sharing between the NHS and universities.

Alongside that, we must be mindful of the concerns raised by the University and College Union. Although a duty of care would be a huge step in the right direction, we need to be aware of the context in which this new responsibility would be introduced. A statutory duty of care would help to close gaps in accountability and would lead to earlier intervention, but there is already a funding crisis in higher education.

Imposing a duty of care on universities will not work if already overstretched staff and underfunded pastoral teams are expected to pick up the pieces. In fact, there is a risk that introducing a duty of care and thinking that that is job done could lead to more problems for students. If a duty of care is to be introduced, it must also come with the resources and funding to ensure that universities can deliver the training that their teams will need and that they can dedicate their own resources to already creaking mental health support teams. Of course, they need to ensure that their own staff are working in a safe environment.

A student’s safety should not rely on the terms and conditions of their specific university, but we cannot rely on passing legislation without the proper funding to allow universities to deliver the best support for their students. We owe it to every family to ensure that when a young person leaves home for higher education, the sector and the Government work hand in hand to ensure that they are protected by a properly funded, well-regulated and easy-to-understand statutory standard of care.

[Sir Christopher Chope (in the Chair)]

I call Phil Brickell, who has one minute.

10:29

[Phil Brickell (Bolton West) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Christopher. I will focus on recent goings-on at my local institution, the University of Greater Manchester, where over the past year there have been credible, detailed and publicly available allegations of fraud, bribery and corruption involving senior executives and the university’s Centre for Islamic Finance. Greater Manchester police’s major incident team has investigated.

The first detailed reports emerged in February 2025, but it was only in December that the Office for Students finally confirmed that it was opening an investigation into governance at the university. Students, staff and taxpayers are all entitled to ask why it took 10 months. Why did it take a police investigation to trigger regulatory action, and why did that happen six months later? How many students were left exposed while the Office for Students hesitated?

The delay is indefensible. The OfS’s condition E governance requirements exist to protect students and ensure public confidence in the sector, yet these allegations raise questions about whether governing bodies were aware of, or fully understood, commercial arrangements that appear to benefit insiders at the expense of the institution.

When millions of pounds are potentially being paid out in opaque deals, we must ask: were students served, or were they being treated as a revenue stream to be monetised without proper oversight? People across Bolton are watching events at the university unfold, wondering out loud what the regulator is doing and when it will act. They are crying out for certainty, which is why in my letters to the OfS chief executive and the Education Secretary I have called for urgent, transparent action—

[Sir Christopher Chope (in the Chair)]

Order. I call the Liberal Democrat spokesman.

10:30

[Ian Sollom (St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Sir Christopher. I thank the hon. Member for Rushcliffe (James Naish) for securing this important debate.

I acknowledge the families who have suffered the devastating loss of their loved one at such a young age. In particular, I recognise Natasha Abrahart’s parents for their campaigning to prevent other families from enduring what they experienced. I am grateful for the time that they spent with me to share Natasha’s story and their concerns about how universities support students in crisis. It is because of families like theirs that we are having this debate today, and we owe it to them to get it right.

Although much of this debate has rightly focused on mental health support, universities have a broader duty of care to their students. It encompasses physical safety, appropriate academic adjustments, protection from harassment and ensuring that institutional practices do not place unreasonable pressure on vulnerable students. The Liberal Democrats believe that universities should be held accountable for the support that they provide to their students as part of those duties.

We have heard a lot of numbers and statistics about students’ mental health challenges. In the interests of time, I will not dig into those further. From the many meetings that I have had with universities and student organisations, it is clear that many care deeply about those studying with them and want to provide the best support to all who need it, but we also know that demand is rising and not all institutions are meeting what we might expect.

The question is how we ensure that support services are available, timely and fit for purpose, and that students know how to access them. Also, how do we ensure that institutional practices, from assessment methods to accommodation standards, properly support student wellbeing? Support can come in a number of forms, catering to different student populations and localities, among other things, but I hope we would all agree that there should be a consistent approach across all universities to ensure that support is available when and where it is needed.

That is where the university mental health charter, devised by the charity Student Minds, could have an important role to play. Signing up to the charter is currently voluntary for universities, and just over 100 of the 165 have signed up. All universities are being asked to sign up by the end of this year. That should be encouraged, to ensure a base level of support for all students from the start of their higher education experience.

To address universities’ duty-of-care responsibilities, a voluntary aspiration must evolve into a rigorous accountability mechanism. That means not just mental health services, but ensuring that institutional policies and practices properly support student wellbeing. Universities must not only sign up to the charter, but demonstrate that they are adhering to a full strategy, with clear standards, regular independent assessment and consequences for non-compliance; providing details and evidence of direct signposting of services to students; dedicated individuals responsible for ensuring that well-structured welfare checks are carried out; and timely delivery of services when needed.

I was going to give a couple of examples from the University of the West of England, as I have been really impressed by its leadership on the issue. It does not have a one-size-fits-all solution, which is food for thought for other institutions and the Minister. However, in the interests of time I will just encourage the Minister to look into that. Importantly, the university’s approach is not just about counselling; it is about co-ordinating work across the institution to ensure that students with mental health conditions receive appropriate academic adjustments where necessary, that assessment practices are flexible when needed, and that support wraps around the whole student experience.

As others have said today, it is important to recognise that universities cannot solve this problem alone. We need much stronger partnerships between universities and NHS mental health services. Students should not fall into gaps between university counselling and clinical NHS provision when they most need support. When students move away to university, they often lose the continuity in NHS services that may have supported them at home. The student mental health agreement, which facilitates the sharing of information, with consent, between universities and NHS services, must be implemented consistently across all institutions.

Finally, the area that is perhaps hardest to address is the cultural change required among students, families and staff across universities. It is vital that students who are suffering feel comfortable and safe to disclose any issues they may have in order to seek and access the support and services they need. We can only do so by continuing to talk.

We owe it to the families of those young people who are no longer with us to ensure that we adopt a system-wide approach to providing the best access to support and services at universities, as well as bringing about much-needed cultural change to prevent further tragedies in the future.

10:37

[Nick Timothy (West Suffolk) (Con)]

I am pleased to respond to this debate on behalf of the Opposition. I congratulate the hon. Member for Rushcliffe (James Naish) on leading it; I also pay tribute to the families who have brought their tragic stories to hon. Members, which have informed the debate. That is how serious problems, such as the lack of consistent safeguarding for students, are brought to public awareness, and it is how change happens.

The themes that have come up today show a clear pattern and demonstrate the challenge across the whole United Kingdom. The main theme was the lack of consistency in safeguarding and care. The hon. Member for Rushcliffe was eloquent in making his case that deciding the law through litigation, not legislation, causes uncertainty and distress for families. Equally, some of the difficulties that exist—such as the need to recognise that students are adults with their own autonomy and responsibility, while parents obviously want to help their children in young adulthood—were also set out well.

University should be a rich and rewarding experience for every student. University is when so many young people have a chance to grow, learn more about their passions inside and outside the lecture hall, and decide what they want to do in future. It is when many young people begin to discover who they want to become.

[Sadik Al-Hassan]

Here with us in the Public Gallery is John, a constituent of mine from Nailsea. John’s beloved son Max devastatingly lost his life to suicide in 2017, at just 23. Max’s mental health difficulties emerged while he was studying for an economics degree at the University of Edinburgh. Tragically, Max is not alone. Does the hon. Member agree that there is a crisis of care in universities, and that we need a funded statutory duty of care to protect other students like Max?

[Nick Timothy]

I thank the hon. Member for sharing that very sad story. I reiterate that I know the bravery that it takes for families to share these stories, and the importance of hon. Members repeating them so that we can fully understand this problem. Although my party’s position is not yet fully established on whether we need a statutory duty, we certainly need to do a lot better than we are right now.

As well as being an exciting time, university can be when young people are at their most vulnerable. Universities have several legal duties, including health and safety legislation to ensure that they minimise accidents and injuries on campus. There is the basic maintenance needed to ensure that buildings and public spaces are safe, and in recent years we have seen universities take more seriously the task of offering mental health services to students and making sure that there is help available.

The proportion of students with a mental health condition has increased from less than 1% in 2010 to 5.8% in 2022, and the Office for Students has recorded an average of 160 suicides a year among students between 2016 and 2023, which is an extraordinary statistic. Like other colleagues here today, I have been contacted by constituents whose families have been affected by this awful trauma. One told me about a relative who committed suicide as an undergraduate. Legal proceedings against the university found that it had failed to make the changes needed to support the student in question. As we have heard today, my constituent is not alone, and so many others have not had the help that they needed during a critical time in their life.

These are often complex cases, but universities are obliged to find ways of addressing common problems experienced by students struggling with their mental health. Some students need help to cope with the stress of workloads and exam pressure, moving away from home for the first time, losing touch with friendship circles and family, as well as financial pressures, as we have heard during this debate. In those moments of crisis, universities can and must help.

It is also very much the job of universities to make their campus as safe as possible from criminal behaviour. The Office for Students found that 14% of surveyed students reported being a victim of sexual violence, and one in four students reported being a victim of sexual harassment. While this obviously reflects wider social problems, universities must still put in place sufficient preventive security measures and offer support for victims of these very serious crimes.

[Warinder Juss]

Many hon. Members have mentioned the need for universities to have extra funding to meet this statutory duty of care. Does the hon. Member agree that it is not always an issue of funding, but can be one of mindset? In Natasha Abrahart’s case, the matter could have been dealt, with without the need for extra funding, just by finding another way to elicit that information from Natasha rather than exposing her to oral assessments when the university was aware that she was suffering from chronic social anxiety disorder.

[Nick Timothy]

I thank the hon. Member for his intervention. In these debates, the first response is so often to say that it is a question of money. However, the reality is often that we need proper structures, policies and accountability in place so that institutions perform as they should. As the debate has shown, we also have a much wider culture to address. Some of the culture change we need reflects a wider cultural change in society, but some of it is very specific to universities and the work they do to make sure that they meet their duty of care. I therefore agree with the hon. Member.

Universities have a responsibility to protect their students from discrimination, intimidation and extremism, but that is not what has happened over the last several years. The last Conservative Government passed the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act 2023, which was introduced to ensure that universities are safe for the free exchange of ideas and intellectually honest debate. That legislation is still not properly or fully enacted. Students wanting to challenge ideas such as radical gender ideology still risk being threatened and punished for their opinions.

At the same time, universities have tolerated protests and encampments that have left Jewish students feeling unwelcome and unsafe. Antisemitic chants such as “From the river to the sea” and “Death to the IDF” have been met with silence from too many universities. The protests that I am talking about have cost £2.6 million in security and clean-up costs across the country since the 7 October attacks. Despite the brazen mass display of antisemitism at those events, only 49 students at 17 universities have been investigated, and even fewer have been punished.

Just last week, the United Arab Emirates placed restrictions on its citizens to limit the number who come to study at British universities, due to concerns that they might be radicalised by the Muslim Brotherhood on our campuses. Islamists are finding more ways to infiltrate British universities and institutions to spread their ideological poison undeterred. Just as we must in all our public institutions, we need to take on and destroy that evil in our universities.

There is no single clear statute in law that sets out a positive duty of care for universities, but parents have a reasonable expectation that universities will protect and support the young people they are entrusted with educating. That is why my party welcomes this debate. I personally welcome the contributions from everybody who has attended, and I thank Members across the House for engaging so constructively as we work to make universities safe for everyone.

10:45

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Josh MacAlister)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher.

I recognise the profound pain felt by families who have lost loved ones in higher education. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (James Naish) for securing this debate, and I pay tribute to his constituents Bob and Maggie Abrahart, whose tireless work for better student support has inspired so many. I want to acknowledge all the families who have campaigned with courage and determination, including those from the LEARN Network—Lived Experience for Action Right Now—who continue to work alongside us to drive change.

Our duty now is clear: we must turn grief into learning and action. The Government share the determination to do just that. We want safer campuses and better support for every student. Our approach is to act on the evidence and work with the sector to embed best practice and strengthen institutional accountability. Members should be in no doubt that this Government believe that change in that regard is needed.

I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Llinos Medi), who highlighted Mared’s story: the tragic loss of the life of someone who had a bright future as a pharmacist ahead of them. My hon. Friend the Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale (Lizzi Collinge) highlighted Oskar’s story. I recognise that improvement in higher education is needed. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) highlighted the UK-wide nature of these concerns and the growing prevalence of mental health conditions.

My hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton West (Warinder Juss) raised important issues about general duties, to which I will turn later. My hon. Friend the Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) highlighted the link to the cost of living pressures that many students face, and the issues for international students.

My hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth East (Tom Hayes) spoke about the tragic stories of Paul, Callum and Alec, and highlighted the really good practice taking place at Bournemouth University, which is part of the answer to what needs to change. My hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham (Mary Kelly Foy) highlighted the brilliant work of the Unite Foundation, which I know well, and spoke about cohorts such as care-experienced students and estranged students. My hon. Friend the Member for Bolton West (Phil Brickell) rightly highlighted governance concerns and the centrality of accountability.

The Government remain committed to improving students’ health and wellbeing. Since the previous debate on this matter, we have published the findings from the national review of higher education student suicides. That landmark review examined serious incident and prevention of future deaths reports, identified patterns and risk factors, and looked at institutional responses in depth. The sector’s response was notable. Many universities engaged openly and honestly, showing a clear commitment to share lessons and learn together.

To ensure that the review’s recommendations are turned into action, we have extended the higher education mental health implementation taskforce, which brings together students, families and the sector to work with and challenge institutions to improve student mental health and wellbeing services.

[Danny Beales (Uxbridge and South Ruislip) (Lab)]

Last week was the seven-year anniversary of the death of one of my constituents’ sons, Kieran Patel. Unfortunately, the House has not given me time to do justice to his story. His mother Manjo was in touch with me last week and shared the horrific experience of the loss of her much-loved and talented son, who was a medical student at Southampton University. We have heard many horrific stories of potential that has been cut short today.

Manjo and other family members left behind would like to know that the action that the Minister is outlining will take place with urgency. The Minister has pointed to a number of previous reviews, debates and discussions. Can he confirm that the Government are seriously looking at a statutory duty and all possible levers to ensure that no parent has to experience a tragic loss like Manjo’s again?

[Josh MacAlister]

I thank my hon. Friend for highlighting that. I welcome his intervention, given that he has not had a chance to mention Kieran’s story and Manjo’s experience as his mum in a speech.

We want to move fast, which is why we published updated terms of reference for the taskforce just last month. They set out the priorities for the taskforce for the next phase of work, which includes exploring the most effective mechanisms for holding the sector to account. We have also recently appointed Professor Sir Steve West as the new higher education student support champion, to maintain momentum on these matters. Sir Steve will steer the taskforce through the next phase of work.

Although universities play an important role in creating supportive environments, they are not, and should not become, substitute mental health services. Mental health care rightly sits with the NHS. The Government recognise that and the pressures on services, which is why we are recruiting 8,500 additional NHS mental health staff by the end of this Parliament.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth East highlighted, many universities are already delivering to bridge the gap, providing counselling, wellbeing services and crisis support, while working closely with local health partners to ensure that students get the right care. The taskforce will shortly publish a report showcasing five successful higher education and NHS partnerships. Those examples will demonstrate how greater collaboration can transform support for students while helping to drive efficiencies across health services. I urge universities that are not already part of such partnerships to study those models and explore how they can forge an approach that works for their local context. To stress it again: the taskforce is looking at how to better hold institutions to account and will make recommendations accordingly.

[Phil Brickell]

Can the Minister confirm that the taskforce will look at the effectiveness of the OfS as the regulator for the sector in driving better student outcomes and preventing student harm?

[Josh MacAlister]

The taskforce’s job is to look at the whole system that sits around universities, and the OfS is a crucial part of that, so it will be in scope of that work.

Let me turn to the question of a statutory duty of care. As has been highlighted in this debate, higher education providers have a general duty of care to deliver educational and pastoral services to the standard of an ordinary competent institution. In carrying out those duties, they are expected to act reasonably. In addition to general and common-law duties, universities also have explicit statutory obligations. For instance, under the Equality Act, they must make reasonable adjustments for disabled students, which includes those with qualifying mental health conditions. Providers should plan ahead to remove barriers and act promptly when there are signs of mental health deterioration.

Equality and Human Rights Commission guidance makes clear what good practice looks like. Student-facing staff should be trained to recognise signs of mental health crisis or deterioration and should know what steps to take, including helping the student to access support. Where a severe or urgent condition is apparent, reasonable adjustments should be made without waiting for a formal diagnosis or medical evidence. If a student has no diagnosis but staff are concerned, for example because of disengagement, missed deadlines or marked changes in behaviour, staff should consider whether the Equality Act criteria may be met and whether adjustments are appropriate.

We also need to be clear about what introducing a statutory duty would mean in practice. It is not just a question of drafting; it would require defining a minimum legal standard for universities, which risks becoming a ceiling rather than a floor. I draw Members’ attention to some of the evidence provided in the 2023 Petitions Committee hearing on a statutory duty of care, at which a number of stakeholders expressed a range of concerns and scepticism about the unintended effects of a statutory duty of care. A ceiling rather than a floor could drive providers towards defensive compliance and litigation, instead of focusing on what really matters: spotting problems early, making timely adjustments and learning from serious incidents. When we talk about the risk of unintended consequences, this is what we mean: confusion about boundaries, reduced ambition and the risk of resources being diverted from proactive support.

Almost all students are adults. Introducing a special statutory duty for them could be disproportionate, when the evidence shows that students in higher education have a lower suicide rate than others of the same age in the general population. That is not to minimise the problem at universities, which I recognise, but to highlight the need for a proportionate response that strikes the right balance.

We will continue to monitor the evidence, listen deeply to bereaved families and hold providers to account. Right now, the fastest and most effective route to support safer campuses is for universities to embed the recommendations from the national review and best practice identified through the taskforce’s outputs, to strengthen their partnerships with local health services and to ensure full compliance with duties that already exist. Together, I believe we can ensure that higher education remains a place of opportunity, enrichment and safety for every student. I know that those views are wholly shared by my noble Friend Baroness Smith, the Minister for Skills.

10:56

[James Naish]

I thank the Minister for his response. I pay tribute to those in the Public Gallery, and I thank everybody for coming; the debate will not have been easy listening for some, so we appreciate their presence. Secondly, some hon. Members were not able to contribute, including my hon. Friend the Member for Erewash (Adam Thompson), chair of the all-party parliamentary group on universities. I thank everybody for joining, even if they were not able to make their points.

We heard from hon. Members from across the country—from England, Scotland Wales and Northern Ireland—and from the great university cities of Durham, York, Edinburgh, Leeds, Birmingham and Bournemouth, among others. I thank them all. There were some emotional speeches, but the overall sentiment was clear: universities have made good progress on the practical elements—although they need to be funded properly to provide the necessary services—but there is still a place for legislation.

The word “consistency” was used numerous times. I push the Minister to think carefully about how we can ensure a level of consistency across hundreds of different organisations across the country without taking a statutory approach. We heard about incorrect exam results and failures to act on appropriate consent, and a range of other examples. A statutory level would ensure certainty across the whole of the United Kingdom. There is a gap between public expectation and reality. When things fall apart, it leads to confusion, anger and a loss of trust in some of our greatest institutions, which are among our great national assets. We should not take it for granted that we can allow that to be self-managed.

I push the Minister and the Department to monitor the effectiveness of the mental health taskforce. The taskforce acknowledges that there are gaps and that more needs to be done. It may be that the gaps cannot be closed without taking the step that we have talked about today. I hope that there will not be groupthink in the Department, but that this matter will be constantly asked about and discussed. As I said, surely there is no better way to ensure the consistent implementation of protective measures than a solid, legal basis for that obligation. I believe that that stands as the cross-party sentiment of MPs here today. I hope that the Government will go back and look once more at this issue.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered the potential merits of a statutory duty of care for universities.