James Naish MP: speeches

Speeches

• 13 Jan 2026 · Chinese Embassy · Hansard source

  More

  This debate on the mega-embassy is not just about a building and 208 secret rooms; it is primarily about national security and the safety of those from the Hongkonger, Chinese, Uyghur and Tibetan diasporas in the UK—approximately 700,000 people. We have learned that in 2018, the then Prime Minister committed to no delays in granting permission for the mega-embassy, which has an air of predetermination. What reassurances can the Minister give me and this House that that opinion has not compromised the independence of the planning process?

• 13 Jan 2026 · Universities: Statutory Duty of Care · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The cost of living has only exacerbated a problem that we knew existed, so it is right for this House to think very deeply about the question. On a point that my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket (Peter Prinsley) mentioned, it is worth noting that gaps are being recognised by more and more organisations. Last November, following a UK-wide survey of medical students, the British Medical Association issued a press release calling for stronger protections against neglect and specifically referring to sexism and sexual violence towards medical students. It urged the Government “to bring forward legislation that introduces a statutory duty of care on higher education institutions for their students.” We should be clear that a statutory duty of care would not require universities to act in loco parentis, nor would it require them to provide unlimited services or assume clinical responsibilities. Rather, it would establish a clear baseline that universities must act reasonably, with appropriate care and skill, when harm is foreseeable and vulnerability is evident, much as already happens in other regulated settings.

• 13 Jan 2026 · Universities: Statutory Duty of Care · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That this House has considered the potential merits of a statutory duty of care for universities. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Christopher. I am grateful to the Backbench Business Committee for granting time for this important debate, which follows an e-petition of 128,000 signatures that resulted in a Westminster Hall debate in June 2023. That was two and a half years ago and there has been a general election since then, so I thought it important that a new cohort of MPs be able to look at and debate this matter. After all, the wellbeing and safety of university students is an important issue that attracts thoughtful engagement across party lines. No doubt today’s debate will reflect a shared seriousness of purpose. I was at university in the late 2000s. Although that feels like an increasingly long time ago, I still recall a phone call from one of my peers telling me that a mutual acquaintance, a 20-year-old involved in student politics, had taken his own life. Six years later, two more students at the college did the same, including one who had visited a GP only the day before and been told to take medical leave. We should be clear at the outset that mental health struggles at university are not new. What has changed, arguably, is our understanding and recognition of them. Throughout the 2010s, there was a concerted effort to raise and tackle the stigma associated with mental health struggles through the work of many well-known names, as well as grassroots campaigners such as ForThe100, who live with the scars from a system that failed them and their families. They should all be applauded for those efforts, which have made such a positive difference. Although there are ongoing debates about the so-called overdiagnosis of mental health issues and special educational needs, we should not lose sight of the impact. In each year between 2016 and 2023, there was an average of 160 suicides among higher education students in England and Wales, according to the Office for National Statistics. Student Minds states that one in three students reported poor mental wellbeing at the end of the same period. At its heart, this debate asks a question that is relatively simple but that has complex implications: are the health, wellbeing and safety responsibilities that universities owe to their students sufficiently clear, consistent and enforceable, or does the current legal framework leave too much uncertainty for students and institutions alike?

• 13 Jan 2026 · Universities: Statutory Duty of Care · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Minister for his response. I pay tribute to those in the Public Gallery, and I thank everybody for coming; the debate will not have been easy listening for some, so we appreciate their presence. Secondly, some hon. Members were not able to contribute, including my hon. Friend the Member for Erewash (Adam Thompson), chair of the all-party parliamentary group on universities. I thank everybody for joining, even if they were not able to make their points. We heard from hon. Members from across the country—from England, Scotland Wales and Northern Ireland—and from the great university cities of Durham, York, Edinburgh, Leeds, Birmingham and Bournemouth, among others. I thank them all. There were some emotional speeches, but the overall sentiment was clear: universities have made good progress on the practical elements—although they need to be funded properly to provide the necessary services—but there is still a place for legislation. The word “consistency” was used numerous times. I push the Minister to think carefully about how we can ensure a level of consistency across hundreds of different organisations across the country without taking a statutory approach. We heard about incorrect exam results and failures to act on appropriate consent, and a range of other examples. A statutory level would ensure certainty across the whole of the United Kingdom. There is a gap between public expectation and reality. When things fall apart, it leads to confusion, anger and a loss of trust in some of our greatest institutions, which are among our great national assets. We should not take it for granted that we can allow that to be self-managed. I push the Minister and the Department to monitor the effectiveness of the mental health taskforce. The taskforce acknowledges that there are gaps and that more needs to be done. It may be that the gaps cannot be closed without taking the step that we have talked about today. I hope that there will not be groupthink in the Department, but that this matter will be constantly asked about and discussed. As I said, surely there is no better way to ensure the consistent implementation of protective measures than a solid, legal basis for that obligation. I believe that that stands as the cross-party sentiment of MPs here today. I hope that the Government will go back and look once more at this issue. Question put and agreed to. Resolved , That this House has considered the potential merits of a statutory duty of care for universities.

• 13 Jan 2026 · Universities: Statutory Duty of Care · Hansard source

  More

  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.

• 13 Jan 2026 · Universities: Statutory Duty of Care · Hansard source

  More

  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.

• 13 Jan 2026 · Universities: Statutory Duty of Care · Hansard source

  More

  Yes. I thank my hon. Friend for raising that point. Undoubtedly, “consistency” is a key word. It is about how we ensure that these issues are dealt with, through universities or associated support services, in a proper and consistent way, no matter where someone is at university. I am not surprised that my hon. Friend’s all-party parliamentary group came to that conclusion. It is clear that more and more students are seeking to be open with universities about their mental health challenges and are seeking support. Over the past decade, the proportion of students disclosing mental health conditions to their university has risen sharply, from under 1% in 2010 to nearly 6% in 2022-23, and there is anecdotal evidence to suggest that the figure is rising yet again. It is also recognised and accepted by universities that poor mental health is associated with higher drop-out rates, poorer academic outcomes and weaker graduate prospects. I welcome the work that this Government and the previous Government have done with the university sector to respond, including through the work of the higher education mental health implementation taskforce. However, although the scale of demand for mental health support from universities has risen sixfold, the law has yet to catch up with the very different set of circumstances and our increased understanding. At present, no statutory duty requires universities to take reasonable care to protect adult students from foreseeable harm. Instead, obligations arise in a fragmented way, through health and safety law, equality legislation, human rights law, contract law and voluntary guidance issued by sector bodies.

• 13 Jan 2026 · Universities: Statutory Duty of Care · Hansard source

  More

  I absolutely agree. The reality, as I say, is that things have improved significantly. I am here today not to knock universities, but to ask the question whether, underpinning the provision that the hon. Member describes, there should be a level of legal obligation. Interestingly, a 2023 survey of 4,000 students by the suicide prevention charity CALM—the Campaign against Living Miserably—found that just 12% believed that their university handled mental health well. In response to the hon. Member’s point, I guess the question is “Yes, provision is important when you are selecting a university, but when you face problems, is that provision sufficient?” The truth is that the lack of legal certainty results in some dangerous gaps. That is recognised by the higher education mental health implementation taskforce’s terms of reference, which were published only in December 2025 and which are clear that “there is wide recognition among mental health practitioners, charities, those with lived experience and the sector that more could and should be done”. I do not believe that I am flagging anything that is not already known, yet the sector and the Government have repeatedly said that a statutory duty of care is not necessary. I beg to differ—that is why I am here—and so do my constituents Bob and Maggie Abrahart, who are here today, who lost their daughter Natasha to suicide at the University of Bristol in 2018. Both the county court, in May 2022, and the High Court, in February 2024, have ruled that the university caused or contributed to her death. In the Abrahart v. University of Bristol case, the court upheld a breach of the Equality Act 2010 for failure to make reasonable adjustments, but it declined to find a general duty of care in negligence. Crucially, however, the judge emphasised that the question of duty was “one of potentially wide application and significance”, and therefore not one that the court should resolve incrementally through individual cases. In other words, the courts have signalled that this is a matter for Parliament and Parliament alone to assess. It is not for grieving families to seek litigation after harm has already occurred, but that is what is happening in the absence of legislation: the law develops only after harm has occurred, through costly and traumatic litigation brought by those who are least able to bear the burden. That matters all the more because, as I say, the context of higher education has changed significantly. The proportion of students disclosing mental health conditions has increased sharply, and a significant number of students who died by suicide were already known to university support services. That, in itself, should indicate that more must be done.

• 13 Jan 2026 · Universities: Statutory Duty of Care · Hansard source

  More

  Yes. Undoubtedly one of the universities’ biggest concerns is about how the duty would be implemented and what the implications would be. I am not shying away from the reality that there would be costs for universities, but the question is whether we should put the duty in place. My hon. Friend’s point is about how any such legislation should be implemented, as opposed to whether it is needed in the first place. It is important to be clear that a statutory duty of care is not about exposing institutions to unreasonable liability. In fact, clearer statutory duties may benefit universities by reducing uncertainty, helping to focus limited resources on the services and support that will make the biggest and most important legal difference, and by providing a shared sector-wide benchmark against which wellbeing and safety interventions can be properly assessed and, when necessary, judged in a court of law.

• 13 Jan 2026 · Universities: Statutory Duty of Care · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend is right. What I am alluding to is the level of greyness that means that we see people falling through the gaps. Our responsibility in the House is to understand whether those gaps should continue to exist, for valid reasons, or whether a change in the law is required to ensure clarity for universities, parents and students. I hope that in his response the Minister will address several questions. First, do the Government agree that the current legal position leaves duties unclear until after harm has potentially occurred? Secondly, do the Government accept that reliance on evolving common law places an unreasonable burden on impacted individuals to clarify law through litigation? Thirdly, what assessment has been made of the case for statutory clarity, particularly given the calls from organisations such as the British Medical Association for stronger protections for students? Finally, if the Government do not believe that a statutory duty is the right approach, how do they propose to deliver the clarity, consistency and accountability that students and universities both currently lack, given the mental health taskforce’s stated aim in December 2025 to “fill gaps in areas where more consistency is needed”? Surely there is no better way to ensure the consistent implementation of proactive measures than by ensuring a solid legal basis for that obligation. This debate goes to the heart of how we balance autonomy with responsibility and independence with protection in one of the most important sectors of our national life. Provision for students has improved, but in reality the consistency of support and legal understanding remain poor, despite words to the contrary. It is down to this House, and this House alone, to determine what more could and should be done. I look forward to colleagues’ contributions and to the Minister’s response.

• 7 Jan 2026 · Rural Communities · Hansard source

  More

  I refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. Too often, rural Britain has been spoken about and taken for granted, no more so than by the Conservative party, which over 14 years left many rural businesses—including family farms such as my own—operating on life support, including through its harmful pursuit of Brexit. As the Food and Drink Federation’s 2024 trade snapshot notes, “The UK’s global food export volumes have declined significantly more than other major European countries, demonstrating that the UK’s challenges aren’t part of a global trend but rather unique to the UK’s post-Brexit circumstances.” That is why I welcome this Government’s work towards a SPS agreement that will help food and drink producers in my constituency of Rushcliffe. Doing things differently is extremely important. In government, we must think, talk and act differently in relation to rural Britain if we are to break long-standing cycles of poverty and under-investment. Rural Britain cannot be treated as an afterthought, not only because this risks the urban-rural divide growing even further, but because rural Britain is central to everything we do. Yes, food security, nature restoration, flooding adaptation and animal welfare all clearly depend on partnership with rural communities—everyone in the Chamber knows that—but the role of rural Britain goes much further. New homes, new energy infrastructure, new transport routes, new critical mineral extraction, and national security planning and preparation will all depend on rural space and resources. That is why, in my view and that of many of my Labour colleagues, rural Britain offers a vital route—arguably the only route—to national renewal. However, that will happen only if its unique values, needs and potential are properly understood and acted on. For that reason, I will set aside the Opposition motion, which simply lists a set of things that the previous Conservative Government did not necessarily resolve, and focus on the amendment’s mention of a “joined-up approach”. I will continue to push the Government to commit to developing a proper rural strategy. The last one was in 2004, under the last Labour Government. I hope we will commit to a rural strategy that puts rural Britain at the centre of economic growth, meaning that we can finally ditch overused slogans about nimbys and yimbys and stop trivialising our rural communities, which are so important.

• 6 Jan 2026 · BBC Charter Renewal · Hansard source

  More

  I am MP for Rushcliffe in the midlands. Is my hon. Friend aware that, according Equity, the midlands generates 25% of the licence fee income, but less than 3% of it is spent in the region? Does he agree that regional disparities need to be looked at in the charter renewal process?

• 6 Jan 2026 · Future of Thames Water · Hansard source

  More

  I think it was more a turn of phrase than anything else, but it was suggested earlier that customers were being treated as cash cows for servicing the debt of Thames Water. Will the Minister confirm that that is not the case, either for Thames Water or for other companies, because investment is ringfenced under the new legislation, and therefore customer money is being put into the infrastructure that matters?

• 6 Jan 2026 · Future of Thames Water · Hansard source

  More

  Will the hon. Lady give way?

• 5 Jan 2026 · Rights of Women and Girls: Afghanistan · Hansard source

  More

  Earlier, my hon. Friend mentioned Fawzia Koofi, who spoke to the International Development Committee. In her evidence, she told us that “the main Taliban agenda is women.” Does my hon. Friend agree that that point, and the point that she is making, demonstrate why the UK Government and our international allies must stand and promote the agenda that she is describing?

• 5 Jan 2026 · Venezuela · Hansard source

  More

  I read this morning that a former Under Secretary of Defence for Personnel and Readiness has said that he is not aware of any plans for how the next few days will be managed by the US. May I ask the Foreign Secretary what specific reassurances she has received from US counterparts that that is not the case and that instead there is a plan in place? Will she tell us about the work that we are doing with our international partners, particularly from NATO, to ensure that support is provided?

• 5 Jan 2026 · Middle East and North Africa · Hansard source

  More

  On behalf of my constituents, I welcome the establishment of the Palestinian embassy in London today. Syria’s long-term stability depends on protecting its long-standing diversity and preventing sectarian violence, as the Minister said. In the light of recent violence and the lack of progress this weekend in integrating the Syrian Democratic Forces in north-eastern Syria into national institutions, what would the Minister say about the progress that has been made towards building an inclusive Syria for the future?

• 5 Jan 2026 · Agricultural Property Relief and Business Property Relief · Hansard source

  More

  I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I thank the Minister for his engagement on this issue over recent months—it has made a real difference. Given his engagement on this matter and rural issues, does he agree that this country needs a rural strategy, which this Government should be delivering?

• 17 Dec 2025 · Local Government Finance · Hansard source

  More

  On behalf of Nottinghamshire county council, I thank the Government for a £234 million—or 30%—increase over the course of this Parliament, which will make a huge difference, and for the 4.6% increase in core spending for my area, Rushcliffe. I previously raised with the Minister in writing the need to avoid cliff edges. The borough council was particularly concerned about the loss of the new homes bonus and similar mechanisms. Will the Minister expand on the decisions that have been taken? I also want to mention rurality, which really matters and drives up service costs; I hope she will meet me and other Nottinghamshire MPs to discuss that.

• 17 Dec 2025 · UK-EU Common Understanding Negotiations · Hansard source

  More

  I saw a good joke earlier—a one-liner—that says, “Lib Dem campaigning works!” I do not think so: it is this Labour Government who have delivered the change today. University of Nottingham staff in my constituency face considerable pressure due to ongoing restructuring. What would the Minister say to those staff, who are under intense pressure, about what this offers at an organisational level for our universities?

• 17 Dec 2025 · National Insurance Contributions (Employer Pensions Contributions) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I understand the justification for making changes to the salary sacrifice arrangements. The Minister mentions higher earners. Can he explain a bit more about the breakdown of those who are benefiting under the current system as a percentage of the whole? I do not know whether he has that data with him.

• 15 Dec 2025 · NHS: Winter Preparedness · Hansard source

  More

  At a Hanukkah event in Nottingham last night, I spoke to a medical undergraduate who welcomes the Government’s commitment to halving competition, and the offer that was put to the BMA. Lots of medical professionals, be they hospital doctors, GPs or allied health professionals, are struggling to find work. Will the Secretary of State outline how this offer, and the Government’s other work, would have helped those individuals?

• 15 Dec 2025 · Radcliffe-on-Trent to Cotgrave Greenway · Hansard source

  More

  I wish to present this petition on behalf of my constituents in Rushcliffe, especially those in Radcliffe-on-Trent and Cotgrave, who have signed it to signal their desire to see the public path and cycleway between Radcliffe-on-Trent and Cotgrave reopened. The public greenway linking Radcliffe-on-Trent and Cotgrave provides a vital link between the two villages for local residents, and is a valued public pathway that provides access to green spaces such as Cotgrave Country Park. The petition notes that since January 2024 the pathway has been out of action due to illegal work on its embankments. Over 2,600 residents have signed a local petition highlighting the frustration they have felt at the lack of action to get this cherished local asset reopened. The petition states: The petition of residents of the constituency of Rushcliffe in Nottinghamshire Declares that the greenway between Radcliffe-on-Trent and Cotgrave—used by walkers, cyclists and horse riders—is a cherished local asset which, since January 2024, has been out of action due to unauthorised work on one of its embankments; and further declares that almost two years on, despite frequent chasing by residents and resident groups, Parish, Borough and County Councillors, and the Member of Parliament for the impacted area, there has been no clarity provided about the likely costs and timelines for reinstatement, leaving residents in the dark. The petitioners, therefore, request that the House of Commons urges the government to work with Nottinghamshire County Council to provide much-needed public clarity about the status of the Radcliffe-on-Trent to Cotgrave greenway; to provide a clear timeline for a decision to be taken about the greenway’s future; to seek to hold the perpetrators who caused the damage to account; and to prioritise the reinstatement of this much-loved active travel asset as part of its budget setting process for financial year 2026/27. And the petitioners remain, etc. [P003150]

• 9 Dec 2025 · Net Zero Transition: Consumer-led Flexibility · Hansard source

  More

  I declare an interest: I worked on RIIO-ED2 for the Northern Powergrid and on its business plan for the current price period. The hon. Lady mentioned the pace and speed of flexibility, and the whole concept behind that plan was flexibility-first. Flexibility has been talked about for a long time in the industry. Does she agree that what we need now is real urgency to make it happen?

• 9 Dec 2025 · Net Zero Transition: Consumer-led Flexibility · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Gentleman is outlining a range of issues that make it difficult for people to reduce their bills. Does that not highlight the benefit of flexibility, because it would give people greater control, empower them and give them information, so that they can control their bill as best as possible? That is why we have to lead with a flexibility-first approach.