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
Column Number: 116
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.
Mrs. Campbell: Without questioning the veracity of the hon. Gentleman's statement, I wonder what attempts he has made to check the information with the college. In defence of the university, which I represent, it probably has one of the best student support schemes for deprived students. Those from a low-income background who want to go to Cambridge university will be extremely well supported. It is a myth that Cambridge is an expensive university for such people; I find it difficult to accept what the hon. Gentleman says.
The Chairman: Order. The Committee will know that it is my custom always to allow a reasonably wide-ranging debate, but even by my generous standards the debate is beginning to get a little wider than this large group of amendments.
Mr. Willis: The hon. Lady will remember that I made the specific comment that we cannot do anything unless we have all the facts. The purpose of raising that example was to explore the idea of having an ombudsman rather than an independent adjudicator. I look forward to the Under-Secretary's response.
11 am
Mr. Collins: This is an important group of amendments. The point made by the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough deserves a considered ministerial response. Why have the Government decided to create an Office of the Independent Adjudicator rather than an ombudsman? We all deal with local government ombudsmen and the parliamentary ombudsman. I am sure that there will be no party political difference on the matter; the ombudsmen are regarded as having operated successfully.
Column Number: 117
Jonathan Shaw: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, in making his case, the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough took the example of the £50,000 for Cambridge at face value? We all like to use examples to advance our causes, but there is no evidence that there is any truth in that case.
Mr. Collins: I am extremely keen to stay in order, Mr. Gale, so all that I shall say is that there will be discussions and possibly an exchange of correspondence between the hon. Members for Harrogate and Knaresborough and for Cambridge. I would welcome the provision of that correspondence, when it is completed, to all Committee members. We should like to know the facts.
To return to the amendment, I was trying to build on the comments of the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough about the case for an ombudsman model rather than the model that the Government have chosen. There may be detailed, sensible and thought-through reasons for the Government having chosen the latter. I suspect that, in part, they will relate to their legitimate wish to build upon the arrangements that are being put in place by the university sector. This might be an example of their genuinely seeking not to be over-prescriptive and over-interventionist, but to put on to a statutory basis the arrangements that the universities have established.
The model that the Under-Secretary advances has the warm support of Universities UK but, as the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough rightly pointed out, other groups and organisations with a great deal of involvement in higher education would prefer a different model. It would be welcome if the Under-Secretary could explain why the Government have gone for one model rather than the other. Could he go beyond that and indicate that they are prepared to keep the matter under review?
The Government are understandably unlikely to introduce a new higher education Bill in the next six months or so—I suspect that that would not commend itself to the Cabinet or to Education Ministers—so we can safely assume that this will be their only piece of higher education legislation for some time. Therefore, I suggest that they review the matter not after six or 12 months, but in the short period beyond 12 months and before the next election. After that, they will not have to worry about such matters.
If, during that short period, the Government were able to assess whether their model were working successfully or whether the ombudsman model would have proved superior, that would be welcome. We know that, to an extent, we are legislating on the basis of hope rather than of knowledge. I hope that, if the model is put in place, it will work. It is not in anybody's interest for there to be a period, however brief, in which something relating to higher education is less than wholly successful. If the provisions do not work, it would be helpful for the Under-Secretary to say at this stage that the Government would keep matters under review and would be prepared, should they want to introduce further legislation, to amend anything that might prove—however surprisingly—unsuccessful.
Column Number: 118
Finally, I want to refer our amendments, which are along the same lines but not identical to those tabled by the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough. Our amendments would delete the word ''corporate'' from ''body corporate''. That is in part designed to tease out why the Under-Secretary has decided to go for the corporate body model.
There are a number of respects in which it is sensible for the OIA to be an organisation with several people working for it. We understand that it is therefore likely to be a body as opposed to an individual, although the ombudsman model demonstrates that it is possible to have an individual with named responsibility with researchers and others working for him. However, if it is to be a body, why do the Government feel so strongly that it needs to be a body corporate? What are the implications of that phraseology, with its well established role in commercial and practical law?
What do the Government expect the office to do initially or down the line? Do they have proposals that would enable or expect the OIA to get involved in other activities over a period of years? In other words, is the provision intended to leave the door open for other measures in due time, is it being introduced because it is standard phraseology, or has it been specifically requested by the existing voluntary arrangements set up by the universities? It would be helpful if the Under-Secretary could clarify that point.
Our amendments are largely intended to be probing amendments. It would be interesting, however, to see whether the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough wishes to press his amendment to a vote. We shall wait and see. I am sure that he and other members of the Committee will wait with anticipation for the Under-Secretary's reply.
