Universities: Statutory Duty of Care

Warinder Juss Excerpts

Tuesday 13th January 2026 Westminster Hall

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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—]

--- Later in debate ---

[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.