| Higher Education Bill
|
|
The Chairman: Order. I draw the hon. Gentleman back to the amendment, because I feel that he is also trespassing on the clause. Mr. Boswell: I am grateful for that, Mr. Hood. I think that it might just be helpful at this point for the Under-Secretary to say what is covered by the provision and how it chimes in with other areas including recourse through the courts. However, this might not be the place to do it and I leave it to his discretion and to yours, Mr. Hood. In addition, although I know that this is already subject to a separate amendment, there is a question about its interaction with the disability inclusion in the Special Educational Needs and Disability Act 2001, and how that is to work. I will make one final point about enforcement. In a sense this is prompted by my experience of SENDA, in which there are rather different regimes at school, college and university levels—one recourse being through the courts, and another through a special educational needs tribunal, for example. If there are different vehicles for recourse or redress, it may well be that according to the ease and cost of those, there are different take-ups of the particular remedies. They may work in different ways, and arguably may be inequitable. However, it is quite important that the Under-Secretary explains how redress will be achieved in those various fields, and how the adjudicator's judgments are to be reached and acted on. There may be good reasons for this, and I do not want to debate the substance of it, but if a college feels unable to comply with an adjudicator's decision we need to know who gives teeth to it and what further recourse is available. Those are genuinely motivated concerns on how this measure should work. I think that across the Committee we all want the measure to work in the best way possible. The only caveat that I issue to the Under-Secretary is that we need to ensure that the institution is adequately resourced and working properly before we think of extending it to cover further ranges of potential difficulty. Mr. Thomas: I will speak briefly, because I agree with many of the concerns already raised and I am looking forward to the Under-Secretary answering some of those. I have two points to make on what a qualifying institution is. First, what is the position of Column Number: 76 private universities? I think that there is only one in the UK at the moment, but in a tuition fee world there is potential for things to change.Mr. Boswell: I am sorry to come back so quickly. The Under-Secretary may also need to consider a point about which he and I have corresponded: the question of corporate universities such as Unipart university or Barclays university. They exist within companies, but call themselves—if only for marketing purposes—universities, although they may not have the right to a university title. They might or might not be within the remit of the issue. Mr. Thomas: I assume from what the hon. Gentleman said that those universities award degrees from other institutions, but run the training themselves. I agree with him on that point. My second point is that it would be useful to hear about the position of overseas students and students from the European Union. My reading of the Bill is that there is no differentiation at all in relation to the origin of a student, and that an overseas student studying at a qualifying institution would have exactly the same rights as a European Union student. It would be useful to have that explained so that we know what the remit of the Office of the Independent Adjudicator will be. As we progress to the next couple of clauses, we will see that its work will grow and grow. Any Member who in their constituency capacity has dealt with a serious case of conflict between a university and a student, as I am doing at the moment, will know how difficult it can be to resolve such problems. Clearly, we need a clearer system of dealing with that. Some questions remain, and it would be useful if the Under-Secretary explained them. The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Skills (Mr. Ivan Lewis): I welcome this first opportunity to serve on the Committee under your chairmanship, Mr. Hood. I feel like a substitute who has just come off the bench towards the end of the game, with my team well ahead and the manager prepared to give me an opportunity. I also pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Minister for Lifelong Learning, Further and Higher Education for agreeing to assist me by taking on the less significant parts of the Bill, which will not generate any media attention. It was interesting listening to Opposition Members referring to advisory groups. The Leader of the Opposition is advised by his three immediate predecessors; we understand why Conservative Members would not be keen on too many advisory groups. Some important issues have been raised about the amendment. First, there is widespread agreement in the sector that this is a long overdue reform. That does not mean that there is unanimous agreement or total consensus, but there is sufficient agreement that this is the direction in which we ought to be travelling. We ought to applaud and commend the sector for having Column Number: 77 taken voluntary steps and gone a considerable part of the way so that we are able to have this debate.The points raised by the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale and others focused on what the amendment focuses on: the definition of higher education institutions. It is important that we clarify that. As defined in the Further and Higher Education Act 1992, they are universities—including colleges or institutions in a university, institutions conducted by a higher education corporation, and institutions designated for funding by a higher education funding council. In the context of the amendment, it is important to say that there are 23 designated institutions in England and Wales. It would be wrong arbitrarily to exclude students in those institutions from having access to the complaints process.
4.45 pmIn addition to that definition, it is important also to refer to higher education students in further education colleges who are taking courses leading to an HE degree if the complaint is relevant to a specific action of the HE institution. If someone is studying an HE course in an FE college and the complaint is to do with the actions of the FE institution, it would not be a matter for this complaints process, but if the complaint referred directly to the course of study, which is the responsibility of the HE institution, it would be covered by this complaints process. Any student studying in an HE institution, regardless of the course that they are taking, will also have access to this process. The hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale asked about publicity, promotion and clarity to enable students to understand exactly their rights and entitlements. The Office of the Independent Adjudicator for Higher Education, which is about to be established, will have responsibility. That will be part of its role, function and relevance. It will have a desire to publicise its activities to students. We also expect that individual institutions will make absolutely clear to all their students the different stages in addressing a grievance. Several other issues were raised: the definition of a complaint; the ability of students to get redress while a complaint is being considered; the actions and extent of the powers of the adjudicator; and the status of private universities. Those matters will be directly addressed by other amendments in the course of our debates on complaints, and it would be more appropriate to deal with them then. With that, I ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the amendment. Mr. Collins: We are delighted to hear from the Under-Secretary, who has broken his Trappist vow of silence. He has done so successfully and persuaded me that it would be sensible to withdraw the amendment. Therefore, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Column Number: 78 Mr. Willis: I beg to move amendment No. 51, in
May I say how delighted I am to see you in the Chair, Mr. Hood, and to see the Under-Secretary leap to his feet to defend the Minister? I have no wish to press to a vote any of the amendments that my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury and I have tabled. We simply wish to probe the Government on the whole issue of student complaints, and I hope that in that spirit we will have a good exchange and engage the Committee on several key issues. We have not tabled the amendments, which may come back on Report if a satisfactory exchange is not forthcoming, in order to say to universities or FE colleges that they are failing in their duty to address student complaints. It would be wrong to send out a message that massive numbers of complaints by HE or FE students are not being properly dealt with through appropriate procedures. It is fair to put that on the record. I assure the Association of Colleges that this amendment, about which it seems to be incredibly concerned, is not an attack on it. The association makes it clear that some 94 or 95 per cent. of its students say in survey after survey that they are very happy with the product they receive, and similar satisfaction appears to come out of surveys of HE institutions as well. The debate is about those on the margins, or on the edge. My contention is that the number of complaints is likely to grow as we enter a market in both further and higher education, and as the cost to the consumer—the person buying the course—increases, their need for satisfaction with what they are receiving will increase. I promise you that I am not straying, Mr. Hood—you would not allow me to. When OFFA is introduced into the system, and there will be plans and perhaps some social engineering in terms of how we get people into our universities and colleges, a whole area of complaint will arise around the issue of admissions. That is not tackled anywhere in the Bill, and certainly not in the clauses on complaints. What worries me about setting up an Office of the Independent Adjudicator simply for higher education is that it makes further education students seem like second-class citizens. It is clear that if, under section 72(1) of the Further and Higher Education Act 1992, 55 per cent. of students in an institution are on higher education courses, the institution is covered as far as the new adjudicator is concerned under the Bill. If the proportion is less that that, it will be excluded. That could give rise to a ridiculous situation whereby students from higher education institutions studying for foundation degrees in FE colleges are not protected. The Under-Secretary has constantly said that he expects the growth in numbers of about 250,000 people between now and 2010 in the higher education marketplace to be caused mainly by those on two-year foundation degrees, most of whom will receive their degrees in FE. Column Number: 79
|
| |
| ©Parliamentary copyright 2004 | Prepared 10 February 2004 |
