DEPARTMENT FOR EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT
SANCTUARY BUILDINGS GREAT SMITH STREET
WESTMINSTER LONDON SW1P 3BT
TELEPHONE 0870 0012 345
E-mail [log in to unmask]
BARONESS BLACKSTONE
Minister of State
Martin Linton MP
House of Commons
London
SWIA OAA
14 March 2000
Dear Martin
Thank you for your letter of 17 February on behalf of your constituent, Mr
Michael Chanan of 65 Albert Palace Mansions, Lurline Gardens, Battersea SW11
in support of his call for an ombudsman for higher education to investigate
complaints from students and staff.
I am very sorry to hear about the problems Mr Chanan has encountered at the
London College of Printing, which forms part of the London Institute higher
education corporation. It clearly has been a difficult time for him.
Mr Chanan's suggestion that an ombudsman for higher education might be a
more effective means of dealing with student and staff complaints once an
institution's internal complaints procedures have been exhausted is not a
new one. Both the Committee on Standards in Public Life (the Nolan
Committee) and the National Committee of Inquiry into Higher Education (the
Dearing Committee) considered the option of a full-time ombudsman for higher
education but did not think it could be justified.
Higher education institutions are legally independent corporate bodies and
as such the operation of their student and staff complaints procedures is a
matter for individual institutions to determine. The Government regards it
as important that institutions' own procedures for handling student
complaints include an independent external element although like Nolan and
Dearing we do not think an ombudsman is appropriate. We have encouraged all
institutions to take the necessary action in response to the Dearing
recommendation on this. The Dearing Committee recommended that institutions
review and, if necessary, amend their arrangements for handling complaints
from students, to ensure that: they reflect the principles of natural
justice; they are transparent and timely; they include procedures for
reconciliation and arbitration; they include an independent, external
element; and they are managed by a senior member of staff. I understand that
all 154 higher education institutions in the United Kingdom have reviewed
their procedures for handling student complaints in line with the Dearing
recommendation and only two have yet to complete their reviews.
Ultimately, it is up to the individual institution concerned how to include
an independent element into their staff grievance procedures and the
Government was pleased to see that the Committee of Vice Chancellors and
Principals (CVCP) in issuing guidance to institutions in September 1999 gave
its backing to the principle of independent review of the handling of public
interest disclosure complaints. Mr Chanan may wish to get hold of a copy
from the London Institute, or the CVCP, as it may be relevant to his
circumstances.
You mention that some institutions have no formal systems for handling
complaints. All higher education institutions have student complaints and
appeals procedures and, similarly, institutions have grievance procedures to
which staff may seek redress relating to their employment.
Yours
Tessa Blackstone
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|