Hefce plans new funding contract

Existing legislation fails to cover Student Loans Company cash

April 25, 2013

Source: Alamy

Keeping control: the funding council is developing a new regulatory system

England’s funding council is set to consult the sector on plans for a new contract aimed at wielding control over universities and their multibillion-pound injection of publicly backed student loans funding.

The Higher Education Funding Council for England has also warned that attempts to regulate the new system without a higher education bill - shelved indefinitely by the government - mean that current legislation is being “pushed to the limit”.

Under the old funding system of Hefce-allocated direct teaching grant, the funding council was able to attach terms and conditions to grants in the guise of the financial memorandum.

This allowed fines to be imposed on universities recruiting too many students, required sound systems of financial management and placed limits on the disposal of assets and on borrowing.

The switch to a different system - in which Hefce-allocated grant is replaced by funding routed via the Student Loans Company - means that Hefce must be given new powers if it is to exercise control over universities and their loans funding, backed by the taxpayer.

However, the government’s failure to introduce a higher education bill has put paid to its original plan to grant Hefce new powers under legislation. Instead, the funding council is undertaking its own work on a replacement financial memorandum.

Minutes of the March meeting of the Hefce-SLC Regulatory Partnership Group, published recently, say that a consultation on the new memorandum is expected to take place in the summer.

But an update on progress attributed in the minutes to Steve Egan, Hefce deputy chief executive, states: “The requirement to develop a new regulatory system…by administrative means rather than through legislation means that the provisions of existing legislation are being pushed to the limits.”

Dennis Farrington, co-author of The Law of Higher Education and visiting fellow at the Oxford Centre for Higher Education Policy Studies, said the discussion illustrated the major changes since 1992 when the Further and Higher Education Act established Hefce’s powers, “notably the rise of providers who do not receive public funding”.

He added: “The act envisaged Hefce being a body to administer a formula and be accountable for public funds, so [it] specifically prohibits it from imposing any conditions on funds which it does not provide.”

Dr Farrington continued: “Quite clearly, the legislation of 21 years ago is in need of overhaul, and this is what we [originally] expected.

“My opinion is that it would be a good opportunity to rationalise all the many laws which relate to higher education and create one framework within which all the institutions and agencies can operate effectively.”

john.morgan@tsleducation.com

You've reached your article limit.

Register to continue

Registration is free and only takes a moment. Once registered you can read a total of 3 articles each month, plus:

  • Sign up for the editor's highlights
  • Receive World University Rankings news first
  • Get job alerts, shortlist jobs and save job searches
  • Participate in reader discussions and post comments
Register

Have your say

Log in or register to post comments

Featured Jobs

Most Commented

Monster behind man at desk

Despite all that’s been done to improve doctoral study, horror stories keep coming. Here three students relate PhD nightmares while two academics advise on how to ensure a successful supervision

opinion illustration

Eliminating cheating services, even if it were possible, would do nothing to address students’ and universities’ lack of interest in learning, says Stuart Macdonald

Female professor

New data show proportion of professors who are women has declined at some institutions

Sir Christopher Snowden, former Universities UK president, attacks ratings in wake of Southampton’s bronze award

Reflection of man in cracked mirror

To defend the values of reason from political attack we need to be more discriminating about the claims made in its name, says John Hendry