Universities: Statutory Duty of Care

James Naish Excerpts

Tuesday 13th January 2026 Westminster Hall

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.