Universities: Statutory Duty of Care

Debate between Christopher Chope and Mary Kelly Foy

Tuesday 13th January 2026 Westminster Hall

[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.

Education and Training (Welfare of Children) Bill

Debate between Christopher Chope and Mary Kelly Foy

Report stage & 3rd reading
Friday 12th March 2021 Commons Chamber

[Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

I beg to move amendment 1, page 3, line 3, leave out from “force” to end of subsection and insert “on 1 October 2021”.

This amendment will incorporate into the Bill the guidance for policy makers issued in August 2010 that there should be two common commencement dates each year, one of which is 1st October, for the introduction of changes to regulations affecting businesses.

Amendment 1 is a short amendment, supported by my hon. Friends the Members for Wellingborough (Mr Bone) and for Shipley (Philip Davies), but it has a deeper purpose, which is set out in the explanatory statement. It means that the regulations under the Bill would come into effect on 1 October 2021.

In thinking about all this, it occurred to me that over the years we have lost sight of an important deregulatory policy of the Government, introduced, I think, in 2010: that, to reduce the burdens on business, regulations passed by this House should only be implemented on two implementation dates each year. One was, I think, 1 April and the other was 1 October. The idea behind that was that people in business should not have to keep an eye on when another regulation was going to be implemented or when those regulations that had been passed would be commenced. I thought it would be useful to try to tease out from the Government what their thinking is.

This Bill, in particular, contains an enormous amount of regulatory burden affecting the providers of important apprenticeships and training for youngsters. I do not disagree with the substance or the idea of what it is doing, but we must not underestimate the fact that what we are talking about is creating an additional burden. It would be better, in my view, to say that instead of its coming into force at the end of two months beginning on the day on which it is passed, it should come into force on 1 October and we could then re-adopt the practice that was begun, that there should only be two days each year when we commence these regulations.

That is quite a short point, and it will not be made any stronger by repetition, but I hope it will be taken seriously by the Government. I imagine the Minister, having received notice of this amendment, will be able to give me a definitive response from the deregulation unit, or whatever the equivalent body now is that deals with these matters on behalf of the Government and tries to ensure that this is a business-friendly Government.

Years ago, I was on a deregulation taskforce that made many different regulations. I wish this suggestion had been one of the ones that came out of our particular taskforce. It was not, but I think it was a sensible suggestion, so I am trying to use the vehicle of a Friday private Member’s Bill day and the opportunity of the Report stage of this Bill to ventilate the matter and try to engage the Government in a dialogue about it.

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

I will be speaking against the amendment, and I will keep my remarks brief out of consideration for my colleagues whose Bills follow my own.

The intervention by the hon. Member for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope) is not, in my opinion, needed for several reasons. First, the guidance he refers to in the amendment was intended to give time for businesses to prepare for costs associated with changes in legislation or for any significant changes in their practices. As this Bill does not result in any increased costs for education providers or any significant burden for business, I would argue that this extra time is not needed.

Secondly, I can assure the hon. Gentleman that many designated safeguarding leads in further education are aware of the potential change in legislation, so again, I do not believe that further time is needed for providers to prepare for the change in law. Finally, as the Bill relates to education and aims at simplifying the safeguarding process for providers of post-16 education, it would make more sense for this legislation to come into effect for the start of the academic year in September. In fact, a change in legislation mid-term would arguably be more burdensome to business.