Josh MacAlister

The taskforce’s job is to look at the whole system that sits around universities, and the OfS is a crucial part of that, so it will be in scope of that work. Let me turn to the question of a statutory duty of care. As has been highlighted in this debate, higher education providers have a general duty of care to deliver educational and pastoral services to the standard of an ordinary competent institution. In carrying out those duties, they are expected to act reasonably. In addition to general and common-law duties, universities also have explicit statutory obligations. For instance, under the Equality Act, they must make reasonable adjustments for disabled students, which includes those with qualifying mental health conditions. Providers should plan ahead to remove barriers and act promptly when there are signs of mental health deterioration. Equality and Human Rights Commission guidance makes clear what good practice looks like. Student-facing staff should be trained to recognise signs of mental health crisis or deterioration and should know what steps to take, including helping the student to access support. Where a severe or urgent condition is apparent, reasonable adjustments should be made without waiting for a formal diagnosis or medical evidence. If a student has no diagnosis but staff are concerned, for example because of disengagement, missed deadlines or marked changes in behaviour, staff should consider whether the Equality Act criteria may be met and whether adjustments are appropriate. We also need to be clear about what introducing a statutory duty would mean in practice. It is not just a question of drafting; it would require defining a minimum legal standard for universities, which risks becoming a ceiling rather than a floor. I draw Members’ attention to some of the evidence provided in the 2023 Petitions Committee hearing on a statutory duty of care, at which a number of stakeholders expressed a range of concerns and scepticism about the unintended effects of a statutory duty of care. A ceiling rather than a floor could drive providers towards defensive compliance and litigation, instead of focusing on what really matters: spotting problems early, making timely adjustments and learning from serious incidents. When we talk about the risk of unintended consequences, this is what we mean: confusion about boundaries, reduced ambition and the risk of resources being diverted from proactive support. Almost all students are adults. Introducing a special statutory duty for them could be disproportionate, when the evidence shows that students in higher education have a lower suicide rate than others of the same age in the general population. That is not to minimise the problem at universities, which I recognise, but to highlight the need for a proportionate response that strikes the right balance. We will continue to monitor the evidence, listen deeply to bereaved families and hold providers to account. Right now, the fastest and most effective route to support safer campuses is for universities to embed the recommendations from the national review and best practice identified through the taskforce’s outputs, to strengthen their partnerships with local health services and to ensure full compliance with duties that already exist. Together, I believe we can ensure that higher education remains a place of opportunity, enrichment and safety for every student. I know that those views are wholly shared by my noble Friend Baroness Smith, the Minister for Skills.