Should universities have a statutory duty of care?

I was going to give a speech today, in a debate about whether universities should have a statutory duty of care to students, but unfortunately, wasn't chosen to speak because of time constraints. Because I’ve got some expertise in the area, I thought I’d give the speech fireside instead. There’s no formal transcript today because this one hasn’t made it into the formal record, but I’ve copied the text of the speech below.

Adam Thompson MP

Thank you, [chair], it is a pleasure to serve under your chairship. Can I first thank my honourable friend, the member for Rushcliffe, for securing this important debate, and can I draw members’ attention to my register of interests, as the chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Universities Group and a member of and former workplace rep for the University and Colleges Union, UCU. I also continue to hold a post as an unpaid honorary associate professor at the University of Nottingham, where I worked as an academic prior to my election.

We all want our universities to be safe, inclusive and supportive places where students can thrive, academically and personally. The issue we are discussing this afternoon is not whether universities have a responsibility towards their students – they plainly do – but whether introducing a new, overarching statutory duty of care is the right mechanism to achieve better outcomes.

Universities UK has been clear that higher education providers already operate within a substantial legal framework. Universities owe a general duty of care not to cause harm through careless acts or omissions, alongside specific duties under contract law, health and safety legislation, the Equality Act and the Human Rights Act. Taken together, those duties already require institutions to act reasonably, proportionately and lawfully in protecting student welfare. We must also be honest about the nature of the university environment. Universities educate adults, not children. Many institutions have student populations comparable to small towns, often dispersed over wide geographical areas and overwhelmingly living beyond direct university control. Around a quarter of students commute from home, many more live in private rented housing or private halls, and only a minority live in university-managed accommodation. Universities are therefore very different from schools, custodial settings or healthcare environments, and they are certainly not in loco parentis. Imposing a statutory duty that implies a level of control universities do not and cannot possess would risk being disproportionate and potentially counterproductive.

There is also a risk, highlighted by Universities UK, that a compliance-led statutory approach could drive defensive practice rather than the open cultures of trust, disclosure and co-production we need for effective prevention and early intervention. We should be wary of regulations that encourage box‑ticking rather than genuinely supportive relationships.

I also want to underline, however, my own scepticism about a statutory duty should not translate into allowing complacency on the part of the universities. UCU rightly highlight that there are real accountability gaps and profound resource pressures across the sector. Mental health services for students are often overstretched, with long waiting lists, and universities are increasingly expected to compensate for services generally provided by our overburdened NHS and the previous Conservative government’s extensive cuts to student support.

Additionally, any new legal duty, if introduced without proper funding, would almost certainly increase workloads for academic and professional staff, many of whom are already operating under unsafe workload models and insecure contracts. There is a genuine danger that responsibility for managing complex risks to student wellbeing would be displaced onto individual staff members, rather than being addressed systemically and properly resourced. UCU also highlights the legal complexity of working with adult students: issues of consent, confidentiality, data protection and family involvement are already finely balanced. Without clear national guidance and investment, a statutory duty could lead to inconsistency, over‑reach and defensive decision‑making, none of which serves students or students well.

So, to conclude, I believe that we should focus predominantly on strengthening and enforcing existing duties, investing properly in student mental health and support services, providing appropriate student support, and tackling the systemic drivers of harm, including excessive workloads and insecure employment for staff. Safer universities will not be delivered by legislation alone, but by culture change, adequate funding and collective responsibility across government, institutions and society.