EXECUTIVE SUMMARY of GuildHE response to BIS Technical Consultation

Overall:
•    We welcome the broad direction of travel set out by BIS, but in places the consultation proposals require further thought.
•    The scale of change is significant.  Existing strengths that underpin the success and excellent international reputation of English higher education must be preserved if any changes are made to regulation.
•    There may be tensions between some of the proposals for English regulation and the UK-wide regulatory aspects. 
•    To minimise turbulence and uncertainty, it may be appropriate to phase changes and to prioritise those that can be achieved without difficulty where existing arrangements facilitate this.  In particular, University Title changes should be brought forward.

On the relationships between the regulatory partners and HEFCE as ‘lead regulator’:
•    We welcome the emphasis on the independence of the regulatory bodies, as well as on institutional autonomy and diversity, and protecting the interests of students. 
•    We support HEFCE as lead regulator and stress the need for a balanced and mutually-reinforcing co-regulation between regulatory partners. 
•    Any changes should minimise the burden on institutions and be proportionate to risk.

On HEFCE’s role as a ‘student champion’:
•    We strongly support the central principle of protecting the interest of students, but we call for further clarification of the expectations students can have in the new system, both collectively and individually, as well as what defines the student interest given that students are diverse in their needs.  We will work with the regulatory partners on this. 
•    In particular, more consideration needs to be paid to the long-term nature of the relationship or ‘deal’ that students enter into with institutions, regulators and Government funders.  This relationship includes not only the student’s time at university but also before and after their period of study (for example, for loan repayments).

On the proposed introduction of a risk-based approach to regulation:
•    We welcome the introduction of a risk-based approach, and feel it will be crucial to reflect on what the categories of risk will be in the new system with greater diversity of providers and with more emphasis on the student.
•    The strengths of the existing quality assurance mechanisms should be retained where appropriate.

On a single regulatory framework for designation for student support and teaching grant:
•    We support the intention to create a level playing field for all designated providers.
•    But to protect all students, Government needs to give more consideration to providers that might fall outside of, or opt to remain outside of, the new regulatory framework.
•    Although research, innovation and other funding have not been addressed in the consultation, they are an essential part of the value and nature of higher education.

On a single gateway for entry to the HE sector:
•    A single gateway for entry into the HE sector is an important step in levelling the playing field for the diverse institutions in the sector. 
•    It should build strongly on the effective existing mechanisms for preserving and enhancing quality, accountability, sustainability, and the existing ethos of a higher education community. 

On the proposed reforms to Degree Awarding Powers:
•    The current criteria for receipt of Degree Awarding Powers (DAP) have rightly ensured a single, rigorous framework is in place to guarantee that high academic standards and a cohesive and self-critical academic community are at the core of degree-awarding organisations.  We believe this is still the right approach.
•    Providers seeking these powers in future will need to show how they meet these criteria.  An approach which allowed for different threshold requirements between different types of provider could severely damage the value and reputation of UK HE and existing degree-awarding organisations. 
•    We would also expect any body or organisation seeking powers relating to the award of UK degrees to be able to show experience and understanding of the norms and expectations that underpin UK higher education. 
•    In the context of a risk-based approach and given the emphasis on a level playing-field, and provided the changes are aligned with new arrangements for institutional review, we feel the proposals on renewable DAP are broadly appropriate. 
•    We would not wish to see the situation arising whereby offering shorter degree courses afforded a faster route to eligibility to apply for DAP.

On the proposed reforms to the numbers criterion for University Title:
•    We warmly welcome the proposed changes to the criteria for applying for University Title.  The existing threshold for the numbers criterion is arbitrary and the proposals will remove stigma and confusion to students and employers, support the creation of new specialist universities in areas of key economic importance, and could enhance the international attractiveness and diversity of the HE sector.
•    These changes do not require legislation and should be brought forward quickly.
•    The Privy Council and HEFCE should be recognised as the sole route to university title and DAP, for the sake of prospective and actual students and for the international reputation of HE in this country.