Universities commissioner needed ‘to oversee mergers and cuts’

A higher education commissioner should be appointed to take responsibility for supporting universities before crisis strikes, according to a thinktank.

Andy Forbes, executive director of the Lifelong Education Institute, has called on policymakers to create a new role to help tackle the challenges caused by financial shortfalls and to prevent providers acting against the interests of the wider sector when responding to these problems. 

An equivalent position already exists in the further education (FE) sector; it was first introduced in 2013 in response to colleges’ deteriorating finances.

The role, which has historically been held by former leaders from within the sector, is responsible for intervening in struggling colleges and advising policymakers in the Department for Education. 

Writing on the Lifelong Education Institute’s website, Forbes says a team of higher education commissioners could help institutions overcome financial challenges, support mergers within the sector and address the issues of subject and institution “cold spots”. 

“Based on the FE experience, they would also have a beneficial impact, over time, on the quality of institutional governance, so often a critical factor in poor performance,” he writes. 

Speaking to Times Higher Education, Forbes said a higher education commissioner “would effectively work between the regulator and institutions in a sort of diplomatic function”.

“I don’t think we need any more regulation,” he said. Instead, a commissioner would engage with struggling providers and make recommendations to those involved including, if necessary, the Office for Students (OfS). 

“I think it preserves autonomy because it acknowledges that [the government and regulators] can’t just do things to you; that [they] want to work with you,” he said.

“FE commissioners were valued for bringing expertise, a lot of experience and insight,” he continued, including making suggestions based on their oversight of the entire sector.

“It’s not obvious what other institutions are doing, particularly in the semi-competitive market that we have; it can be quite difficult.”

As the higher education sector’s regulator, the OfS is generally responsive to problems rather than proactively intervening. Critics say this leaves the sector without any oversight when it comes to course closures and mergers. 

“Like all regulators, it tends to respond to specific situations retrospectively and reactively, rather than having a focus on developing and improving the overall system,” Forbes writes.

“The HE sector is facing a structural crisis, not a set of individual accidents. And hyper-regulation risks making it worse by clogging up decision-making, adding unwelcome administrative costs, and stifling innovation.”

In the case of the FE sector, there was also additional funding available that struggling institutions could access by working with the commissioner. “That’s another useful tool,” Forbes said, noting that this often incentivised providers to cooperate.

helen.packer@timeshighereducation.com