Investigating Corporate Forms: taking
forward the recommendations of the report 2
RPG/53
19 November 2014
Agenda item 7
At its last meeting on 10 April the Regulatory Partnership Group received a draft plan on
how the recommendations of the report of the Corporate Forms and Structures Working
Group were being taken forward. A progress report can be found overleaf.
Regulation and risk
1
Recommendation
Action to date
RPG should undertake work to explore and
understand the risks arising from all dimensions of
transnational education connected with English
students and HE providers, drawing where
appropriate on the findings of the current sectorwide consultation.
Work led by QAA. In summer 2014, an Implementation Group was established, with
representation from HE providers, a professional, statutory and regulatory body, HESA, the
International Unit, as well as QAA. The Group is currently developing the detail of the quality
assurance process for TNE, based on the outcomes of the consultation. Updates and
recommendations are being presented to the TNE Steering Group comprising QAA (Chair),
the International Unit, HEFCE, GuildHE and BIS (as an observer), on an ongoing basis.
TNE Steering Group met on 30 October 2014, to discuss the progress and work of the
Implementation Group, and to agree future work and direction.
2
RPG should undertake a study of how HE
providers are affected by all aspects of regulation,
whether this is consistent across different types of
provider and what, if any, impact this has on
students and the public interest.
13
RPG should work with CUC on behalf of HEIs and
with other providers not in membership of CUC to
agree governing bodies’ specific accountability
obligations to students and funders.
Timeframe for completion: 2015
This recommendation has to some extent been overtaken by events. The Competition and
Market Authority (CMA) recently held a roundtable with a primary focus on variations in
regulation for different types of provider. As CMA is likely to propose or develop further work,
RPG may wish to await developments. A brief update will be given under agenda item 4 and
we are hoping that Helen Fleming, who leads for CMA in this area, will accept an invitation to
the next RPG.
This recommendation relates to governing bodies’ accountability to two groups:
 Students: Governing bodies’ accountability to students has been considered in the
revision of the CUC code which is currently in progress. Accountability to students is
also covered by the voluntary agreement on institutional designation, which describes
responsibilities that follow on from designation to receive student support.
 Funders: Governing bodies’ accountability to funders has also been considered in the
revision of the CUC code and in the work on revising HEFCE’s Financial
Memorandum. The Memorandum of Assurance and Accountability came into effect
on 1 August 2014.
The process to secure Specific course designation includes financial sustainability,
management and governance checks.
Timeframe: The revised CUC code is scheduled for publication in January 2015.
Information and Data
Recommendation
Proposed action
8
HEFCE should ensure that accessible
information concerning providers’ financial
sustainability should be included in the HE
register, drawing on ASSUR for relevant
providers but otherwise on providers’ own
assurances and HEFCE’s monitoring work.
The first version of the HEFCE register of HE providers is now available. It lists all providers
and explains the powers available for each provider and the assurance that is associated with
those powers; it indicates whether the provider has a Memorandum of Assurance and
Accountability or whether BIS has determined that it has met the criteria for specific course
designation, which include a financial sustainability, management and governance check.
10
RPG should undertake work to assess whether
it would be feasible to make student data
requirements more consistent across different
types of provider.
11
14
RPG should agree amongst its members
arrangements for the sharing of data [and
intelligence] wherever possible that enables (a)
effective risk assessment of providers of all
types and (b) appropriate timely action to be
taken.
RPG should conduct a review of the validation
and franchising arrangements in England and
the potential that such arrangements might have
to demonstrate the accountability of each
partner to the students involved.
Timeframe: ACTION COMPLETE
HESA is now collecting data from alternative providers.
HEDIIP’s Review of Student Data Collections is identifying the barriers and opportunities for
standardising and rationalising data collection in HEFCE-funded institutions
Timeframe: Ongoing
HEFCE has mapped how it receives and shares information with its regulatory partners.
Where appropriate, new protocols are being developed and existing bi-lateral agreements are
being refined.
Timeframe: ACTION COMPLETE
BIS has now provided definitions for these partnerships, although other definitions exist for
different purposes. The BIS definition of validation makes clear that it is the provider of
teaching that has the responsibility for students.
Work on the Register has demonstrated the complexity of partnership arrangements across
HE. The process supporting Specific Course Designation (SCD) will over time serve to
capture franchise arrangements with alternative providers, since these will need an SCD.
Timescale: Ongoing
Student Interest
7
9
UUK, GuildHE and HEFCE should consider how best to organise
support for students seeking to resume their study following the
closure of their provider.
RPG should initiate a detailed consideration of possible
arrangements to protect students in the event of the corporate
failure of their provider, including appraising different options.
HEFCE is providing some support for UKVI in dealing with students displaced
by withdrawal or surrender of tier 4 sponsor licences.
HEFCE will explore student protection issues in a series of workshops
involving HEFCE-funded institutions and alternative providers in
October/November 2014.
Timeframe Ongoing
Recommendations that will require legislation
3
4
HE providers that experience a change of ownership, control or
BIS has a policy on change of ownership in alternative providers with specific
corporate structure should be reassessed to confirm that they
course designation and a change of ownership assessment is carried out on
continue to meet designation requirements.
the department’s behalf by HEFCE
RPG should develop a set of minimum reasonable standards for
BIS officers are joining the conversation on student protection, hosted by
student protection and consideration should be given by BIS to
HEFCE, which is described under recommendations 7 and 9.
how these can be required for all forms of HE provider.
5
HEFCE should be given the responsibility for co-ordinating action
BIS is giving consideration to this proposal in its longer term planning
on behalf of students in the event of the corporate failure of a HE
provider of any type.
6
In the longer term, if circumstances require, BIS should give
consideration to whether it would be appropriate to introduce a
special administrator regime in HE.
BIS is giving consideration to this proposal in its longer term planning
12
The governing bodies of alternative providers should be required
There is an accountable officer in each alternative provider with specific course
to give an annual data assurance to regulators and funders as a
designation, who gives assurance on the data provided to HESA and HEFCE.
condition of student support funding.