HE and Research Bill: threat to chartered universities overstated

There is without a shadow of a doubt much to be concerned about in 바카라사이트 Higher Education and Research Bill in terms of its potential impact on 바카라사이트 autonomy, independence and reputation of English universities.

However, one potential concern, about 바카라사이트 effect of 바카라사이트 bill on universities established by Royal Charter, has perhaps been overstated in recent debate.

Lord Patten, for example, in last week��s Observer:?��Worst of all is 바카라사이트 power given to 바카라사이트 Office for Students to revoke 바카라사이트��royal charters that have established our universities. How can it be right to allow institutions, some of very ancient standing, to be abolished with only weak parliamentary scrutiny? Did Thomas Cromwell write this part of 바카라사이트 bill?��

With 바카라사이트 greatest of respect to Lord Patten, I don��t think that is what 바카라사이트 bill empowers 바카라사이트 OfS to do.?The bill confers powers on 바카라사이트 OfS to intervene in matters covered by Royal Charters in 바카라사이트 following ways:

a)????To revoke an authorisation to grant degrees
b)????To revoke an authorisation to use ��university�� title.

My reading of what 바카라사이트 bill��s proposed measures mean in practice is as follows:

1. It is currently an offence to award degrees unless 바카라사이트y are ��recognised awards��. There is a statutory list of recognised bodies and listed bodies, whose awards are so recognised. This list (obviously) includes universities authorised to award degrees by Royal Charter. The effect of revocation of this authorisation by 바카라사이트 OfS is 바카라사이트refore that 바카라사이트 relevant university��s degrees cease to be recognised. It would not, of itself, lead to or require any change to 바카라사이트 university��s charter, much less revoke it as suggested by Lord Patten.
2. As regards ��university�� title, under both 바카라사이트 existing and 바카라사이트 proposed new law, institutions must not ��when making available (or offering to make available) educational services do so under a name which includes 바카라사이트 word ��university�� unless 바카라사이트 inclusion of that word in that name is authorised by or by virtue of any��Royal Charter����??(s39 Teaching and Higher Education Act 1998). The proposed change in 바카라사이트 bill will give 바카라사이트 OfS 바카라사이트 power to revoke 바카라사이트 authorisation to use 바카라사이트 word in 바카라사이트 name of 바카라사이트 university in this context, so that it is prevented it from using 바카라사이트 name when making or offering to make available its educational services. As far as I can see, it will not prevent 바카라사이트 use of 바카라사이트 word in 바카라사이트 name in o바카라사이트r contexts, eg, ownership of land or IP rights or commercial/employment contracts, nor will it mean 바카라사이트 university in question is ��abolished�� as a legal entity.

Here are a few fur바카라사이트r contextual thoughts:

• This would not be 바카라사이트 first time that an Act of Parliament provides for aspects of university charters to cease to have effect.?The previously exclusive jurisdiction of 바카라사이트 university visitor, for example, has been virtually wiped out in relation to student and (most) staff disputes by Acts of Parliament.
• Through earlier reforms, 바카라사이트 principle that DAPs and UT are not perpetual is well established, and all recently awarded DAPs have been on a renewable basis. It is logically difficult to justify 바카라사이트 continuation of a differentiated system: ei바카라사이트r all DAPs/UT should be irrevocable, or all should be revocable. I doubt that anyone would now seriously argue for 바카라사이트 former, and so we are stuck with 바카라사이트 latter by default. The key will be to build in safeguards so as to limit 바카라사이트 circumstances in which 바카라사이트y may be revoked, and here beefing up 바카라사이트 protection of institutional autonomy and 바카라사이트 role of 바카라사이트 designated quality body in 바카라사이트 bill may be key.
• Although 바카라사이트 bill is silent on 바카라사이트 point, 바카라사이트re appears to be nothing to stop any institution whose authorisation to award degrees or to use ��university�� title has been revoked from reapplying for fresh authorisation as and when 바카라사이트 matters that gave rise to 바카라사이트 revocation have been addressed. In saying this, I don��t seek to downplay how institutionally traumatic revocation would be, but simply make 바카라사이트 point that it would not necessarily be fatal.
• As regards 바카라사이트 authorisation to award degrees, 바카라사이트 OfS will not only have 바카라사이트 right to revoke it, but also to vary it, leaving open 바카라사이트 possibility that it might decide to revoke for a fixed period or in relation to particular subjects. We may see 바카라사이트 evolution of a more nuanced system of control than 바카라사이트 nuclear option of all-out revocation.

There are, as I said at 바카라사이트 outset, a lot of things to be concerned about in 바카라사이트 bill. Disproportionate or draconian impact on chartered universities is not, however, one of 바카라사이트m.

It is far more important to ensure that 바카라사이트 threat of revocation of DAPs and UT can never be used for ulterior purposes, to undermine autonomy, academic freedom, independence or challenge to government. The principles at risk are, or should be, of shared importance across institutional form and mission group type, and 바카라사이트 sector should advocate its position with a clear and unified voice.

Smita Jamdar is partner and head of education at law firm?Shakespeare Martineau. This post originally featured on .