Parliament is debating the merits of introducing a statutory duty of care for higher education providers. The dicussion has been prompted by years of pressure from families and student campaigners, including ForThe100, and is being amplified by groups organising around sexual violence and institutional accountability.
It is tempting in FE and skills to see this as an HE issue. But that would be a mistake. Even if any new legal duty is initially framed around HE, the expectations that sit behind it will travel quickly through the rest of the system, including FE colleges without HE provision and independent training providers.
Under the proposal, a statutory duty of care would place a legal obligation on institutions to take reasonable steps to protect students from harm, including harassment, sexual violence and serious welfare risks.
The trigger would not have to be a formal complaint, but whether the institution knew, or ought to have known, that a learner was at risk.
This goes further than current regulatory requirements. HE providers are already subject to Office for Students conditions on complaints handling and harassment and sexual misconduct.
Those requirements focus on having effective processes in place. Duty of care would test whether an institution’s actions meet a legal standard of reasonableness in preventing and responding to harm. That distinction matters, and recent events outside education underline why.
Allegations of widespread sexual harassment at McDonald’s UK, involving large numbers of young workers and apprentices, have prompted legal action, union intervention and government-facilitated mediation.
The central question being tested there is not whether policies existed, but whether the organisation took reasonable steps to prevent harm and respond consistently when risks were known. That is precisely the territory a statutory duty of care in education seeks to occupy.
That same question is now being asked, in a different form, of education providers responsible for both young and adult learners.
Many FE colleges delivering HE are registered with the OfS. Others deliver HE through franchise or validation arrangements. In both cases, partner universities will expect equivalent standards of learner protection across the whole delivery chain. Once universities face heightened accountability for student safety, weaker practice in partner colleges becomes a reputational and contractual risk.
But the impact will not stop with HE provision.
FE colleges already carry statutory safeguarding duties for under-18 learners, and Ofsted tests safeguarding culture, leadership oversight and how providers identify and respond to risk.
As national debate sharpens expectations around adult learner safety, it will become increasingly difficult to justify weaker arrangements for adult FE learners. The expectation may not be written in the same legislation, but it will surface through inspection, governance scrutiny and public perception.
ITPs should also assume they will be drawn into the spotlight. Many deliver apprenticeships where learners spend most of their time in workplaces. That creates distinctive risk.
Harassment or abuse may occur off-site, disclosures may happen outside the classroom, and responsibility can appear blurred between employer and provider. In a climate where Parliament is debating institutional responsibility for learner safety, a provider will still be expected to demonstrate what action it took when concerns were raised.
So what does preparedness look like?
First, clear and accessible reporting routes for learners and staff. If someone feels unsafe, they should not have to navigate informal networks or guess who to contact.
Second, consistent case handling. Long and fragmented email chains and ad hoc notekeeping make it difficult to prove reasonable steps were taken. Structured recording, defined responsibilities and documented follow-up provide confidence for learners and evidence for leaders.
Third, leadership oversight. Governors and senior leadership teams need visibility of welfare trends, not just isolated incidents. Without reliable data, providers cannot identify patterns or intervene early.
None of this depends on waiting for legislation. New legislation around duty of care is unlikely to arrive overnight. It will probably emerge through OfS conditions, Ofsted expectations and contractual demands from partners. The effect is already being felt, and providers are being watched more closely on how they protect learners.
Duty of care may begin in HE but its influence will reach across FE and skills. Providers that recognise that early will be better prepared for future regulation, stronger partnerships and, most importantly, safer learning environments.
Your thoughts