Clause 13 - Designation of operator of student complaints scheme
Higher Education Bill
10:45 am
Mr Phil Willis (Shadow Secretary of State for Education and Skills, Education & Skills; Harrogate and Knaresborough, Liberal Democrat)
You will be delighted to hear, Mr. Gale, that I am not going to speak to every amendment individually. [Interruption.] Well, if the Under-Secretary insists, I can do.
With these amendments, I seek to know why the Government are to introduce an Office of the Independent Adjudicator, rather than an ombudsman service. I have the support of the National Unions of Students, NATFHE and the Association of University Teachers, all of which are interested in exploring the idea of having an ombudsman for education services, rather than simply an Office of the Independent Adjudicator. Our discussions on clause 12, particularly those about applications, clearly lead us toward the introduction of an ombudsman service rather than the very limited OIA. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Nottingham, North is not in his place, because the debate will deal with the issue that he raises in amendment No. 186, which would amend clause 14.
The advantages of introducing an ombudsman service are simple. First, it would be provided outside the university system, and would be financed by the Government rather than the universities. Secondly, it would be in line with other ombudsman services in local government, Parliament, and the financial services. Thirdly, it would have widespread support from the public, students and academic staff.
I want to explore why the Under-Secretary refuses to go down that road and why the Government have turned themselves against it. Whether we like it or not, higher education is entering a ''commercial market''. I did not invent that phrase; it was first used by the right hon. Member for Barking (Margaret Hodge) when she was Minister for Lifelong Learning and Higher Education. She proudly announced that she wanted to see a market in higher education. She also said that some universities would go to the wall. That is what happens in a market—and the services provided by those universities disappear. It seems strange that we should have an independent ombudsman for financial services who deals with a complicated market
reasonably well. We are now moving to an educational services market, and I suggest that we ought to go down the same road. Admissions problems would clearly fit neatly into an ombudsman service.
A potential undergraduate contacted me recently to say that Cambridge university would not offer her a place to read medicine because she could not find the £50,000 necessary to guarantee her a place. It is appalling that a person who is entitled to student support funding and dependent on it should be turned away at the door because of her poverty. Allegedly, the master of the college said that he could not risk having students from a poor background reading medicine in case they were distracted by their poverty and because they might ask the college for financial assistance.
I cannot say whether that is a realistic position, or whether it is borne out by the facts. As a result of the Bill, however, that person will have no recourse other than to go to court or to apply for judicial review. By definition, if she is not on a course because she is poor and does not have the resources to do so, how on earth can she afford to go to court? An ombudsman service would be able to deal with that complaint easily and without cost to the individual or to the institution, and the result would be satisfactory for both parties.