Higher Education Students: Statutory Duty of Care

Angela Richardson Excerpts

Monday 5th June 2023 Westminster Hall

[Angela Richardson (Guildford) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Robert. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Nick Fletcher) for opening the debate and for his tireless work supporting the mental health of men and boys. I also thank the 394 petitioners from my constituency of Guildford, which is home to the excellent University of Surrey. I should declare that my eldest child is currently a university student.

Although I recognise that universities are autonomous, the petitioners are—reasonably, in my view—calling for a statutory legal duty of care for students in higher education. I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Minister for sending a detailed letter to all colleagues in the House about why the Government believe the statutory duty is not required, and I am sure he will go into more detail on the Government’s position. I also acknowledge the significant funding that has gone into the university sector to support mental health, and the Government’s drive in setting a target for universities to sign up to the mental health charter by September 2024.

I am grateful that the Government have stated that if they do not see a proactive and positive response from the sector, they will ask the Office for Students to explore targeted regulation to protect students’ interests. The Government are also right to be wary of unintended consequences, but the main thrust of their argument seems to be that we must wait so as not to stifle innovative projects. I love innovation, and universities are particularly well placed to innovate, but I am afraid that it is too late for the families in the Public Gallery who have lost a loved one to suicide while they were at university, and it will be cold comfort to families who will lose someone in the coming months and years while the Government wait.

From both reading the evidence given to the Petitions Committee and my conversation last week with Dr Mark Shanahan, who is a politics professor at the University of Surrey in my constituency and who is here today with his wife Jacquie, having tragically lost their son Rory, it is clear to me that the families are not looking to replace the work that has already gone into the mental health support for our young people. They are not trying to reinvent the wheel, nor do they wish to seek retribution. They simply wish to fill a legal gap—an anomaly.

My understanding is that there is a duty of care in place for further education students, no matter their age. We have worked so hard to bring parity of esteem between FE and HE, and for society to recognise the value of apprenticeships in particular. It is a shame for our world-leading university sector that any parent listening to the debate could deduce that they are more likely to be contacted by the provider of their family member’s education when there is a mental health crisis if they choose further education.

Not all 18-year-olds are ready for university, and not all 18-year-olds should go to university. Some 18-year-olds and their families have no idea that they are neurodiverse until they go to university, such has been the level of support and coping mechanisms in place until then, and we all know that the prefrontal cortex does not fully mature until about the age of 25. Potential changes in diet, misuse of alcohol and/or drugs, and sleep disturbance or deprivation can wreak havoc on the neurotypical. For the neurodiverse, they can spike anxiety and a downward spiral very quickly. There are no protections for such students if they are undiagnosed.

As a constituency MP, I have had the sadness of having to support parents of university-age children who have had psychotic episodes and have had to be hospitalised. It is horrific. Once someone knows their child is mentally not well, they never stop worrying that they have just had their last phone call or text message from them. When they cannot be contacted, that worry escalates. It does not ever really disappear over that child’s lifetime—and I speak from personal experience.

As has been mentioned, there have been instances of misunderstanding of GDPR that have led to no contact with families. The university sector clearly needs to improve its understanding of how to use GDPR properly. Each young person going to university could have an automatic nominated point of contact in case there is a mental health concern or crisis. It may not need to be a family member, and could be a trusted friend. The fundamental question is: why should parents be contacted on the death of their child, but not before?

Finally, I thank Dr Mark Shanahan for telling me about Rory and the desperately sad circumstances around his suicide, and how it was dealt with by the university in question. It is cold that universities simply wait for a medical “fit for study” notice so that they can issue an invoice for fees. It is a shame that students taking a break are often hounded about when they will return to complete their studies. It is not right, and we need to get it right.

All the families in the Public Gallery cannot bring back their loved ones, but they dearly wish to prevent other families from suffering needlessly. I thank them for their selfless battle for others. The Government need to look again at how they can work with the Office for Students to plug this legal gap. If the universities do not come to the table and explore targeted regulation, anything else is no more than hand-holding, a cup of tea and warm words. That is not enough.