Select committee: Industry and Regulators Committee
2nd Report - Must do better: the Office for Students and the looming crisis facing higher education
Published 13 September 2023
Industry and Regulators Committee The work of the Office for Students Report on parliament.uk ↗
At a glance12 recommendations and 68 conclusions · Government response published 28 November 2023 (deadline 27 November 2023)
The government's response
Summary written by Accountability Index from the government's response. It is not the government's own words.
The government "maintains its strong support for the OfS", disagrees with several of the Committee's criticisms, and says that many recommendations are ultimately for the OfS to consider.
- On the OfS's duties, the government says they are "clearly set out" in HERA, which "deliberately does not give the OfS primary objectives or prioritised duties". It does not agree that the OfS is micro-managing freedom of speech or sexual harassment.
- On regulatory duplication, the government "fully acknowledges and accepts the need to reduce regulatory duplication". It plans a piece of work, to deliver in summer 2024, to set out the full scope of data burden across the sector.
- On funding, the government says it "will set out its longer-term funding plans for the HE sector at or ahead of the next Spending Review".
- On graduate outcomes, the government "rejects this conclusion" that the OfS's measures run counter to widening access. It says it has commissioned the IFS to develop a course-level graduate earnings measure.
What the committee recommended 80
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
Sources
- 2nd Report - Must do better: the Office for Students and the looming crisis facing higher education ↗The committee's report, parliament.uk
- Government response to the Committee's report, Must do better the Office for Students and the looming crisis facing higher education, 27 November 2023 ↗The government's response, 28 November 2023, parliament.uk
Recommendations and conclusions 80
-
1
It is claimed that the OfS’ statutory duties are clearly set out in legislation, but... Conclusion (the committee's words)It is claimed that the OfS’ statutory duties are clearly set out in legislation, but they have been applied inconsistently and unequally. Given that the OfS’ duties are “have regard to” duties, with no sense of priorities, the regulator, and by extension the Government, have a large degree of freedom in choosing what to focus on. In our view, this creates confusion over the OfS’ objectives.
-
2
In particular, the OfS does not appear to have prioritised its duties to protect the... Conclusion (the committee's words)In particular, the OfS does not appear to have prioritised its duties to protect the institutional autonomy of providers or to have regard to the principles of best regulatory practice, causing friction between the regulator and the sector.
-
3
Moreover, the OfS appears to believe that having regard to its duties does not require... Conclusion (the committee's words)Moreover, the OfS appears to believe that having regard to its duties does not require it to demonstrate that it has given weight to the underlying objectives of those duties. This makes it more difficult for the OfS to be held accountable for its compliance with its duties.
-
4
When making changes to its regulatory framework, the OfS should make clear how it has... Conclusion (the committee's words)When making changes to its regulatory framework, the OfS should make clear how it has taken its statutory duties into account, and where it has not done so, explain why. It is particularly important that clear reasons are given for any limitation of institutional autonomy.
-
5
The OfS should improve its adherence to best regulatory practice through closer alignment with the... Conclusion (the committee's words)The OfS should improve its adherence to best regulatory practice through closer alignment with the Regulators’ Code. It should do so with respect to how it implements its policies and procedures, as well as how it develops them.
-
6
The Government should consider whether the OfS should be required to demonstrate that it has... Recommendation (the committee's words)The Government should consider whether the OfS should be required to demonstrate that it has taken account of particular objectives, rather than merely stating that it has regard to them.
-
7
The OfS has now become involved in the micro-management of issues such as freedom of... Conclusion (the committee's words)The OfS has now become involved in the micro-management of issues such as freedom of speech and sexual harassment. While undoubtedly important, these matters would be better dealt with by effective review of provider governance and disseminating best practice rather than through prescriptive regulatory requirements and time-consuming processes.
-
8
We note that the Government is committed to a public body review of the OfS. Recommendation (the committee's words)We note that the Government is committed to a public body review of the OfS. As well as considering whether the OfS’ work remains useful and necessary, the Government should review the activities of the OfS with a view to focusing on the strategic issues facing the sector.
-
9
The proliferation of regulators in the higher education sector has caused duplication and red tape,... Conclusion (the committee's words)The proliferation of regulators in the higher education sector has caused duplication and red tape, increasing the burdens on providers—particularly in the area of graduate apprenticeships, where at least four other regulators have responsibilities in addition to the OfS. This issue is exacerbated by the apparent lack of effective collaboration between regulators.
-
10
We welcome the Minister’s recognition of the problems created by regulatory duplication in the higher... Recommendation (the committee's words)We welcome the Minister’s recognition of the problems created by regulatory duplication in the higher education sector and his willingness to address this issue. In its response to this report, the Department for Education should set out in further detail the steps it is taking to streamline regulatory responsibilities within the sector, including its proposed timetable for this.
-
11
The higher education sector faces several financial risks. Conclusion (the committee's words)The higher education sector faces several financial risks. These risks are exacerbated by the freezing of tuition fees for home undergraduate students, the sector’s main source of income, especially at a time of high inflation. Higher education institutions now make a loss when teaching domestic students and conducting research. These shortfalls have led institutions to become increasingly reliant on cross-subsidy from international and postgraduate students, whose fees are not capped.
-
12
The contribution of international students to higher education is valuable and welcome but the sector’s... Conclusion (the committee's words)The contribution of international students to higher education is valuable and welcome but the sector’s dependency on their fees comes with risks.
-
13
There is a worrying complacency in some quarters that the premium from overseas students could... Conclusion (the committee's words)There is a worrying complacency in some quarters that the premium from overseas students could be banked for the long term. But this takes no account of a) the significant imbalance in where overseas students are coming from, particularly China, which concentrates the risks of geopolitical shifts; and b) an increasingly competitive international environment. It is therefore unclear why a student would pay a substantial premium to study in the UK, whilst in other countries, which may include their own, the quality of the offer is improving.
-
14
The current system of higher education funding is not sustainable and will lead to growing... Conclusion (the committee's words)The current system of higher education funding is not sustainable and will lead to growing issues in the coming years. The decline in the real-terms value of tuition fees has led institutions to make substantial efficiencies already, and the extent to which further efficiencies are possible is unclear. Further funding shortfalls will lead to risks for the breadth and quality of higher education provision.
-
15
Given the scale of these challenges, we were surprised by the OfS Chair’s assertion that... Conclusion (the committee's words)Given the scale of these challenges, we were surprised by the OfS Chair’s assertion that the sector’s finances are “in good shape”. This is not an assessment that we or most of our witnesses share. In our view, this remark is indicative of the insufficient attention the OfS has paid to the financial risks facing the sector.
-
16
While individual institutions are responsible for managing their own finances, the Government controls their main... Conclusion (the committee's words)While individual institutions are responsible for managing their own finances, the Government controls their main sources of income through the cap on tuition fees for domestic undergraduates, and through research funding, including via its approach to the UK’s association with Horizon Europe. It also has an influence over the level of international student recruitment, a key part of providers’ business models, through its immigration policy.
-
17
It is therefore the responsibility of the Government to put in place a stable funding... Conclusion (the committee's words)It is therefore the responsibility of the Government to put in place a stable funding model for higher education that enables institutions to plan for the long-term sustainability of the sector. It has yet to do this.
-
18
The Government should review how higher education is funded. Recommendation (the committee's words)The Government should review how higher education is funded. In doing so, it must provide sufficient clarity for institutions to plan for the long-term and set sustainable funding and delivery models for the higher education sector. This review should take into account the planned changes to the student finance model under the Lifelong Learning Entitlement.
-
19
The OfS’ targeted approach can mean it communicates little with institutions whose financial data appears... Conclusion (the committee's words)The OfS’ targeted approach can mean it communicates little with institutions whose financial data appears healthy. This limits the regulator’s knowledge of providers that are not in financial difficulties, makes it harder to identify risks that are not evident in financial data and means that relationships may have to be built from scratch if difficulties occur. It is welcome that the OfS has recognised this and introduced greater direct engagement with providers this year.
-
20
The OfS should prioritise holding discussions with providers more regularly about their financial situation, in... Conclusion (the committee's words)The OfS should prioritise holding discussions with providers more regularly about their financial situation, in particular those that are not considered high-risk.
-
21
It is worrying that some institutions would be unwilling to engage with the OfS in... Conclusion (the committee's words)It is worrying that some institutions would be unwilling to engage with the OfS in the early stages of falling into financial difficulty for fear of a punitive regulatory response, especially given the OfS’ risk-based approach to engagement. This hampers the ability of institutions and the regulator to plan together and take early action against emerging financial risks. Trust would be improved by greater mutual engagement between providers and the regulator, which could help improve the willingness of providers to discuss emerging problems. The OfS’ publication of case studies, providing more clarity for providers on its approach, is welcome.
-
22
The OfS has indicated that its role is not to bail out failing providers but... Conclusion (the committee's words)The OfS has indicated that its role is not to bail out failing providers but to support their students to continue their studies in other institutions. While this was successful in the case of a recent market exit by a small provider, there are questions as to the practicality of this approach in the event of the failure of large institutions or of large numbers of institutions. In these instances, it would be difficult to ensure alternative places for large numbers of students.
-
23
HEFCE, the OfS’ predecessor, had the ability to facilitate and broker mergers and consolidations of... Conclusion (the committee's words)HEFCE, the OfS’ predecessor, had the ability to facilitate and broker mergers and consolidations of providers where there were difficulties, facilitating planned solutions rather than disorderly exits. It is not clear whether either the OfS or the Government has taken on any strategic oversight of the sector in this vein, despite an apparent expectation of greater consolidation of providers through mergers.
-
24
The Government and the OfS should clarify whether there is any strategic oversight of the... Conclusion (the committee's words)The Government and the OfS should clarify whether there is any strategic oversight of the higher education sector’s long-term financial stability, including whether to encourage mergers and consolidation. If no such function exists, they should consider whether it is necessary and which body should take this responsibility.
-
25
Given the financial cost of higher education to students, we welcome that the OfS is... Conclusion (the committee's words)Given the financial cost of higher education to students, we welcome that the OfS is focused on ensuring their courses are of sufficient value and lead to positive outcomes. It is likely that this has already had some impact in focusing institutions on improving provision.
-
26
Value for money in the context of higher education is a subjective concept and is... Conclusion (the committee's words)Value for money in the context of higher education is a subjective concept and is difficult to measure. However, the proxies used by the OfS to indicate positive outcomes, particularly in relation to continuation and completion of courses and graduate outcomes, are simplistic, narrow and fail to reflect the broad value of the higher education experience and the skills needed for the future.
-
27
The OfS’ proxies also hold providers accountable for their students’ subsequent employment outcomes, which are... Conclusion (the committee's words)The OfS’ proxies also hold providers accountable for their students’ subsequent employment outcomes, which are often affected by many factors outside the providers’ control, such as students’ backgrounds. Focusing too heavily on regulating according to these outcomes has the potential to run counter to efforts to widen access to university, both by penalising institutions that take on students from disadvantaged backgrounds and by underplaying the benefits of courses that are less directly vocational.
-
28
The OfS should conduct and publish further work to assess the broader value of the... Conclusion (the committee's words)The OfS should conduct and publish further work to assess the broader value of the higher education experience, particularly for those from disadvantaged backgrounds. This should involve looking at the potential to measure the wider value added by higher education, as well as the outcomes that follow it. This work must be done in collaboration with stakeholders across the sector, including students.
-
29
It is important to remember that going to university is a very significant financial commitment... Conclusion (the committee's words)It is important to remember that going to university is a very significant financial commitment to make at any time, let alone as a young person. It is therefore imperative that students are given clear, accessible information on what they can expect as part of their course.
-
30
We heard that the information provided by higher education institutions can differ greatly in this... Conclusion (the committee's words)We heard that the information provided by higher education institutions can differ greatly in this respect and that it is not clear to students what their rights are or what they can expect from their courses. This lack of transparency is unacceptable given the level of financial commitment involved.
-
31
The OfS should ensure that when prospective students apply for a course, they receive clear,... Conclusion (the committee's words)The OfS should ensure that when prospective students apply for a course, they receive clear, digestible general information on the approximate contact hours they can expect to receive; the balance between online and in-person learning; the likely cost of living as a student on the course as it is running, including accommodation and hidden course costs; and the potential costs of student loan repayments over time for those on average graduate earnings. The OfS should hold providers to account for delivering this information, and should consider tougher regulatory consequences for those that do not. The OfS should also ensure that its approach is in alignment with the latest guidance issued by the Competition and Markets Authority on consumer protection.
-
32
We are concerned by England’s recent shift away from European quality standards, to the point... Conclusion (the committee's words)We are concerned by England’s recent shift away from European quality standards, to the point that the QAA was temporarily suspended from the European Quality Assurance Register for Higher Education. Given the financial importance of overseas students to higher education institutions, it is crucial to maintain the international reputation of the sector. However, the regulatory approach in England has unnecessarily raised questions about the quality of higher education provision, including by making it unclear whether quality and standards are being regularly checked.
-
33
When the HERA was passed, it was expected that the Quality Assurance Agency for Higher... Conclusion (the committee's words)When the HERA was passed, it was expected that the Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education (QAA) would fulfil the Designated Quality Body (DQB) role. It is understandable that the OfS and the QAA, which are different bodies in style and philosophy, would have some issues as they adapted to the new framework.
-
34
The OfS appears to have taken little responsibility for resolving these issues, despite frequent changes... Conclusion (the committee's words)The OfS appears to have taken little responsibility for resolving these issues, despite frequent changes to what it expected to receive from DQB reports. While the OfS has the power to give the DQB general directions, it seems to have given very specific directions with little regard to the expertise and impartiality of the DQB. It is disappointing that the OfS apparently views its own convenience and control as more important than preserving independent oversight of quality and standards. Nor is it clear why the OfS acted in the way that it did.
-
35
It is not clear whether the OfS has or will be able to develop the... Conclusion (the committee's words)It is not clear whether the OfS has or will be able to develop the capability to take on the DQB role smoothly. It is clear, however, that the OfS does not have the confidence of the sector in providing an impartial assessment of quality and standards. The current situation has the potential to be both impractical and a threat to academic independence.
-
36
The QAA has the confidence of providers and a strong international reputation. Conclusion (the committee's words)The QAA has the confidence of providers and a strong international reputation. By contrast, the OfS’ approach to quality has fallen out of alignment with international standards and called into question the international reputation of the sector. However, the circumstances of the QAA’s de-designation remain unclear and contested, and the difficulties we faced in getting a clear account of these issues is a problem in and of itself.
-
37
The OfS should work urgently to align its framework for quality with international standards, including... Conclusion (the committee's words)The OfS should work urgently to align its framework for quality with international standards, including by publishing all assessment reports and including students on assessment teams. The OfS should explore the extent to which its own assessment of risks as part of its risk-based framework and its broader regulatory activity can count as cyclical review.
-
38
The OfS should make the necessary adjustments to its framework to comply with international standards... Conclusion (the committee's words)The OfS should make the necessary adjustments to its framework to comply with international standards and respect the DQB’s need to make impartial assessments of quality and standards, with a view to allowing the QAA or another arms-length body to perform the role.
-
39
The OfS should provide a transparent estimate of the additional costs to be incurred by... Conclusion (the committee's words)The OfS should provide a transparent estimate of the additional costs to be incurred by taking on the DQB role and report annually thereafter on the cost and effectiveness of its performance of the role.
-
40
It is welcome that the OfS has provided new guidance to new entrants on its... Recommendation (the committee's words)It is welcome that the OfS has provided new guidance to new entrants on its registration process. After a suitable period, the OfS should review the impact of this guidance in encouraging new entrants into the sector, with the aim of streamlining the process and increasing innovation in provision, set against realistic targets. In a similar vein, the OfS should produce greater guidance on validation, outlining the likely requirements, costs and timescales of the process.
-
41
We welcome the proposed introduction of the Lifelong Loan Entitlement. Conclusion (the committee's words)We welcome the proposed introduction of the Lifelong Loan Entitlement. However, there are concerns that the OfS’ approach to regulation may stifle innovation and the prospects for a greater diversity of provision. It is also unclear whether the OfS is prepared for this substantial new role.
-
42
As it takes on its role in relation to the Lifelong Loan Entitlement, the OfS... Conclusion (the committee's words)As it takes on its role in relation to the Lifelong Loan Entitlement, the OfS will need to review whether its approach to assessing student outcomes is flexible enough to accurately cover short courses and diverse forms of provision without overly burdening providers.
-
43
Although the name and role of the OfS places students at the heart of its... Conclusion (the committee's words)Although the name and role of the OfS places students at the heart of its work, some student concerns, such as the cost of living, are not within its remit or ability to address as a higher education regulator. This is an inevitable limiting factor on its ability to act in students’ interests and can fuel a perception that it is not focused on students’ priorities.
-
44
It is far from clear to many in the sector how the OfS defines “the... Conclusion (the committee's words)It is far from clear to many in the sector how the OfS defines “the student interest”, and therefore how it addresses it. There is a perception among some that “the student interest” is defined by the OfS in line with the political priorities of Ministers rather than the priorities of students. Its recent focus on freedom of speech issues was cited by witnesses as a key example of this.
-
45
The OfS should conduct detailed scoping work on how it defines “the student interest” and... Conclusion (the committee's words)The OfS should conduct detailed scoping work on how it defines “the student interest” and how this informs its work. This work should be informed by engagement with students, and the results should be published in a transparent manner.
-
46
The OfS’ mechanisms for engaging students, such as the student board member, Student Panel and... Conclusion (the committee's words)The OfS’ mechanisms for engaging students, such as the student board member, Student Panel and the National Student Survey (NSS), are welcome and can provide valuable input. However, it is not clear how this input is used by the OfS or the extent to which it drives its work. The students we spoke to felt that the OfS did not always act on their concerns and suggested that it treated engagement as a tick-box exercise. There was also a perception that the OfS is more likely to take student input on board when it aligns with the OfS’ own direction.
-
47
It is positive that the OfS is now considering how the Student Panel can be... Conclusion (the committee's words)It is positive that the OfS is now considering how the Student Panel can be made more effective and impact more on the OfS’ decision-making. However, it is important that these reforms allow the Panel to continue to focus on student priorities as well as the priorities of the OfS.
-
48
It was deeply concerning to hear allegations that the OfS issued veiled threats regarding the... Conclusion (the committee's words)It was deeply concerning to hear allegations that the OfS issued veiled threats regarding the future of the Student Panel because members raised issues deemed to be of importance to students. This is precisely the sort of activity that the Student Panel would be expected to do, and it suggests that the OfS is not open or responsive to the feedback it receives from the Panel.
-
49
Given the OfS’ responsibility for defending student interests, it should refresh its approach to student... Conclusion (the committee's words)Given the OfS’ responsibility for defending student interests, it should refresh its approach to student engagement by opening up more of its work to co-creation with students. It should also consider deepening its engagement with student representative bodies, such as the National Union of Students.
-
50
The OfS should set out annually how it has gathered student input and how this... Recommendation (the committee's words)The OfS should set out annually how it has gathered student input and how this has driven its priorities and decision-making, either as part of its Annual Report or in a standalone report.
-
51
Student awareness of what the OfS is and what it does appears to be low. Conclusion (the committee's words)Student awareness of what the OfS is and what it does appears to be low. The OfS should do more to communicate its work to students, particularly the impact of its student engagement work.
-
52
The Student Panel must remain free to raise issues that are of importance to students,... Conclusion (the committee's words)The Student Panel must remain free to raise issues that are of importance to students, including where the views of students diverge from those of the Government.
-
53
Although the Student Panel is not designed to be a representative body, the OfS should... Conclusion (the committee's words)Although the Student Panel is not designed to be a representative body, the OfS should ensure the Panel encompasses the diversity of the student population to the greatest extent possible, in particular in the balance between undergraduate and postgraduate students.
-
54
We recommend that there are at least two student representatives on the OfS’ Board, to... Recommendation (the committee's words)We recommend that there are at least two student representatives on the OfS’ Board, to support those involved in feeling more confident to make contributions.
-
55
The OfS’ regulatory framework has become increasingly prescriptive over time. Conclusion (the committee's words)The OfS’ regulatory framework has become increasingly prescriptive over time. It is too willing to direct higher education providers’ operations and activities, showing little regard to the need to protect institutional autonomy.
-
56
The OfS appears to have given insufficient thought to the impact of its actions, requests... Conclusion (the committee's words)The OfS appears to have given insufficient thought to the impact of its actions, requests and decisions in adding regulatory burdens to providers. The OfS also makes frequent and often ad hoc requests for data that are both burdensome and, at times, duplicative of similar requests from other regulators—including asking providers for the same data submitted to other regulators, but in different formats.
-
57
In many areas, it appears unclear to institutions what compliance with the regulatory framework looks... Conclusion (the committee's words)In many areas, it appears unclear to institutions what compliance with the regulatory framework looks like or why the OfS requests data from them. This lack of clarity for providers extends to the OfS’ approach to investigations, where it is not clear what has triggered investigations, the process involved or the likely timescales and outcomes. Uncertainty over why the OfS acts in the way that it does has created distrust and friction between the regulator and the sector.
-
58
The Department for Education should reconvene the Higher Education Data Reduction Taskforce in order to... Conclusion (the committee's words)The Department for Education should reconvene the Higher Education Data Reduction Taskforce in order to address duplication and reduce unnecessary burden on providers.
-
59
When seeking data from institutions, the OfS should clearly state what use it intends to... Conclusion (the committee's words)When seeking data from institutions, the OfS should clearly state what use it intends to make of it. When requiring actions, the OfS should give a clear idea of what objectives are being served. A clearer statement of the goals being sought will reduce the need for the OfS to prescribe how to meet them and give institutions more flexibility in taking their own routes to compliance.
-
60
The OfS should publish its approach to investigations. Recommendation (the committee's words)The OfS should publish its approach to investigations. When the OfS investigates a provider it should indicate the basis for its concerns, and provide what detail it can on the expected timescales and outcomes.
-
61
The OfS’ publication of case studies in relation to financial monitoring has been welcomed, as... Conclusion (the committee's words)The OfS’ publication of case studies in relation to financial monitoring has been welcomed, as noted in Chapter 3. The OfS should consider the publication of similar case studies in other areas of its regulation to clarify its expectations and approach, with a view to sharing examples of best practice.
-
62
Relations between the OfS and the higher education sector have been poor, to the point... Conclusion (the committee's words)Relations between the OfS and the higher education sector have been poor, to the point of adversarial. This is in part because the OfS’ approach to providers to date has been overly distant and combative, giving the impression that they are looking to punish them rather than support them towards compliance. It is therefore welcome that the OfS has recently recognised the need for better communication and greater engagement with the sector.
-
63
It is concerning that providers do not know who to contact at the OfS with... Conclusion (the committee's words)It is concerning that providers do not know who to contact at the OfS with concerns and struggle to receive a timely or helpful response when they do. Providers need to be able to contact OfS staff who are responsible for regulating them.
-
64
Overall, we are concerned that the OfS focuses too heavily on analysing the huge volume... Conclusion (the committee's words)Overall, we are concerned that the OfS focuses too heavily on analysing the huge volume of data it requires from institutions and too little on understanding the context within which that data sits.
-
65
It is positive that OfS senior staff now intend to visit higher education providers more... Conclusion (the committee's words)It is positive that OfS senior staff now intend to visit higher education providers more regularly, as this kind of informal contact between institutions can provide valuable insights that cannot be gleaned from datasets.
-
66
The OfS should establish an annual mechanism for the sector to provide feedback to the... Recommendation (the committee's words)The OfS should establish an annual mechanism for the sector to provide feedback to the regulator, as is established practice within other regulators. This should involve a survey and an annual meeting with providers driven by the sector’s priorities, in addition to those of the regulator.
-
67
The OfS should rebalance its approach and spend more time engaging with providers, spreading the... Conclusion (the committee's words)The OfS should rebalance its approach and spend more time engaging with providers, spreading the good practice evident in its approach to access and participation. The OfS should clarify to individual providers who their named contact is and ensure that the contact offers a meeting to each provider at least annually.
-
68
Despite its own focus on value for money for students, it appears that the OfS... Conclusion (the committee's words)Despite its own focus on value for money for students, it appears that the OfS struggles to deliver value for money to providers. OfS registration fees may seem reasonable on a cost per student basis, but the OfS’ activities cause a much wider range of compliance costs for institutions, and it is not clear that the OfS is targeting its resources at the highest risk areas or delivering in a timely way for the sector.
-
69
It is galling for providers that an increase of up to 12% to the OfS’... Conclusion (the committee's words)It is galling for providers that an increase of up to 12% to the OfS’ registration fees for 2023/24 has been proposed, when the sector has faced an environment where home undergraduate student fees have been frozen.
-
70
The proposed uplift in fees is driven at least in part by the expected increase... Conclusion (the committee's words)The proposed uplift in fees is driven at least in part by the expected increase in the regulator’s responsibilities, including taking on the role of the Designated Quality Body (DQB) and the expansion of its activities into other areas such as freedom of speech and sexual harassment. This is particularly frustrating for providers: the OfS appears to be adding to the regulatory burden they face and then charging them more as a result.
-
71
The Government should examine how the OfS targets and uses its resources and how it... Recommendation (the committee's words)The Government should examine how the OfS targets and uses its resources and how it is held to account for this.
-
72
There is a perception in the sector that the Government’s guidance to the OfS in... Conclusion (the committee's words)There is a perception in the sector that the Government’s guidance to the OfS in relation to its regulatory activity is overly prescriptive, and that the guidance letters it sends are unusually frequent.
-
73
Government guidance on OfS regulation should be less prescriptive, and should be limited to higher... Conclusion (the committee's words)Government guidance on OfS regulation should be less prescriptive, and should be limited to higher level, strategic input.
-
74
The actions of the OfS and the prioritisation of its duties appear to be reactive... Conclusion (the committee's words)The actions of the OfS and the prioritisation of its duties appear to be reactive and driven by political pressures and input. While there are a small number of cases where the OfS has pushed back against the Government’s view, in too many cases the OfS has translated ministerial and media attitudes directly into regulatory demands on providers.
-
75
It is vital that regulators not only act with an appropriate degree of independence from... Conclusion (the committee's words)It is vital that regulators not only act with an appropriate degree of independence from the Government, but that they are perceived as doing so. This is evidently not the case for the OfS, where there is a widespread perception among providers, students and other stakeholders that it is not sufficiently independent.
-
76
In their responses to this report, the Government and the OfS should set out the... Recommendation (the committee's words)In their responses to this report, the Government and the OfS should set out the steps they each intend to take to support the OfS’ ability to operate independently from the Government.
-
77
The perception that the OfS lacks independence from the Government has not been aided by... Conclusion (the committee's words)The perception that the OfS lacks independence from the Government has not been aided by its Chair continuing to take the whip of the governing party in the House of Lords, whilst simultaneously claiming the organisation, as a regulator, is independent of the Government. Although he was under no obligation to do so, it would nevertheless have helped to ease concerns if the Chair had resigned the whip and become non-affiliated for his time in post, as others in similar positions have done in the past.
-
78
As a matter of principle, serving politicians should resign any party political whip they hold... Recommendation (the committee's words)As a matter of principle, serving politicians should resign any party political whip they hold before becoming Chairs of independent regulators. The Government should consider making this a requirement.
-
79
Political instability has meant that the OfS has had to work with seven Education Secretaries... Conclusion (the committee's words)Political instability has meant that the OfS has had to work with seven Education Secretaries and six Universities Ministers since it began operating in 2018. This ministerial churn has contributed to the wider sense of instability in the sector.
-
80
We welcome the publication of the Government’s response to the higher education policy statement and... Conclusion (the committee's words)We welcome the publication of the Government’s response to the higher education policy statement and reform consultation, which was long overdue. It remains to be seen whether this document will assuage previous concerns in some quarters that the Government’s higher education policy lacks strategic direction.