Universities: Statutory Duty of Care

Debate between Afzal Khan and James Naish

Tuesday 13th January 2026 Westminster Hall

[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.