MPs call for a Duty of Care – but the government sits on its hands
- admin57939
- 5 hours ago
- 3 min read
A Westminster Hall debate called for a statutory duty of care in higher
education, bringing universities into line with schools, FE colleges, employers
and even prisons. Once again, the government skirted the issue.
On January 13, MPs from across the UK and from a wide spread of parties met in
Westminster Hall to discuss the necessity of a Duty of Care from Higher Education
providers to students in their institutions. The debate was introduced by Rushcliffe
MP James Naish and chaired by Christchurch MP Sir Christopher Chope.
Many of those speaking in the debate cited harrowing examples of students from
their constituencies who had taken their life, and all sought a means to bring clarity,
parity and accountability to the many and various systems and practices institutions
provide to manage the welfare and wellbeing of the student population.
Arguments ranged from the personal to the legal. They acknowledged the good work
around mental health, academic practice and student welfare and wellbeing offered by
many universities, by the Government's own mental health taskforce and by charities
working with the sector. But, more so, witnessed by families and friends bereaved by
student suicide, there was consensus around the elephant in the room: all action in
this space not covered directly under Equality legislation remains voluntary. And
beyond this, there is no legislation or regulation putting any pressure on institutions
to conform with best practice.
New to the debate was the British Medical Association’s recent call for stronger
protections against neglect and specifically referring to sexism and sexual violence
towards medical students. Although this topic did not generate a great deal of
discussion it sends a clear message that universities’ safeguarding responsibilities
require robust systems when harm is foreseeable and vulnerability is evident, much
as already happens in other regulated settings.
Several MPs noted the financial pressures on the sector, but rather than use this as
an excuse for not pressing ahead with legislation, they stated the government should
support any cultural and legal change with statutory funding.
It was notable that the Conservative Party, now in opposition, has shifted its position
since the last Duty of Care Debate in mid-2023. Speaking for Her Majesty's official
opposition, Nick Timothy suggested the government should consider legislation.
We waited for insight from Josh MacAlister, speaking for the Department. Sadly, he
appeared to have picked up his Conservative predecessor, Robert Halfon's old script
while heading into Westminster Hall. While HEMHIT and the Universities Mental Health Charter received praise, they were also seen as the solution. The undescribed ‘unintended consequences' that legislation might have were again held up as a reason for the government to sit on its hands.
Without legislation, all the efforts of the government taskforce, of charities such as
Student Minds and of the conscientious academics and professionals working in the
sector may well come to nought. A statutory Duty of Care would set a baseline for
action that could be measured and enforced. In the university sector, what gets
measured gets done - and what is enforced by law is done very well.
The UK has an exceptional Higher Education sector, but it's currently being
undermined by a culture of voluntary compliance to nebulous standards and over-
cautious government. We in The LEARN Network and For The 100 note that on
average, 160 students in the UK take their own lives every year. That will not change
until a Minister grasps the nettle. Today, we saw members of the House of Commons
at their best. But once again, the government failed to rise to the occasion.
Media Comments can be provided by:
Dr Mark Shanahan, academic and bereaved father for The LEARN Network –
Dr Bob Abrahart bereaved father and campaigner for ForThe100 -
