Part 2: Proposals for new initial condition E7 - Effective governance

Question 1a

Do you agree with the proposal to introduce a new initial condition that would require a provider to have effective governance arrangements for the purpose of being a registered higher education provider?

Question 1b

Do you agree that this new initial condition should replace the current initial conditions E1 (public interest governance) and E2 (management and governance)?

Question 2a

Do you agree with the proposal that there would not be a direct reference to the OfS’s public interest governance principles in initial condition E7?

Question 2b

Do you agree with the proposal that initial condition E7 should include a requirement for a provider to have a set of documents which would enable the effective governance of the provider in practice? Please give reasons for your answer.

Question 2c

Do you agree with proposals for the governing documents that would be considered as part of the proposed requirement, and the information these should contain? These are:

• Governing body documents
• Any other documents that contain rules administering the operation of the provider’s governing body
• Risk and audit documents
• A conflict of interests policy.

Question 2d

Do you agree with the proposed requirements for each of the governing documents that would be considered in relation to this requirement? These are:

• Arrangements should be ‘appropriate’ to the size, shape and context of the provider
• Documents should be clear and consistent
• Documents should be deliverable in practice.

Question 2e

Do you have any additional comments on this proposal?

Question 3a

Do you agree with the proposal that initial condition E7 should include a requirement for a provider to have a business plan which describes the provider’s business, sets out its objectives over the medium term, and its strategy for achieving them?

Question 3b

What is your view of the proposed requirements of the plan?

Question 3c

Do you agree with the proposal that the business plan should cover a five-year time period?

Question 3d

If you think another time period is more appropriate, please explain what this time period is and why.

Question 3e

Do you agree with the proposed approach to considering a provider’s ability to deliver its business plan in practice?

Question 3f

Do you agree with the proposal that the business plan should include significant consideration of the interests of students? Please give reasons for your answer.

Question 3g

Do you agree that requiring a provider set out its plans for ensuring compliance with the OfS’s ongoing conditions of registration would provide assurance that the provider is adequately prepared to deliver higher education and has an understanding of the regulatory requirements?

Question 3h

Do you agree with the proposed information that would need to be included in the business plan?

Question 3i

Is there any additional information you think should be included as part of the business plan?

Question 3j

Do you have any further comments about this proposal?

Question 4a

Do you agree with the proposal that initial condition E7 should include a requirement for key individuals to have sufficient knowledge and expertise to ensure the provider, if registered, would be able to:

• deliver its business plan,
• comply with the OfS’s conditions of registration, and
• deliver its arrangements for preventing fraud and protecting public money?

Please give reasons for your answer.

Question 4b

Do you agree with the proposed knowledge and expertise requirement for each of the individuals that would be covered by this test?

If you think there are any requirements that should be added or removed, please explain your reasons.

Question 4c

Do you agree that holding interviews with key individuals would be the most efficient and effective way of testing this requirement?

Question 4d

Do you have any additional comments in relation to this proposal?

Question 5a

Do you agree that the overarching test should be based on an assessment of relevant individuals’ track record in relation to the protection of public money, the maintenance of the good reputation of the higher education sector and the protection of the interests of students?

If you agree, please explain why. If you disagree, please explain why and any alternative approach you would recommend.

Question 5b

Do you agree that a provider should retain responsibility for appointing relevant individuals against a published fit and proper test and related criteria?

Question 5c

Do you agree that the non-exhaustive list of matters in the proposed condition are matters which should be considered in the fit and proper test?

If you agree, please explain why. If you disagree, please indicate which matters you believe are not matters that should be considered and why, or which other matters should be included. 

Question 5d

Do you agree with the proposed factors to which we will give weight?

If you agree, please explain why. If you disagree, please indicate which other matters you believe should be included in this approach. 

Question 5e

Do you agree that the list of matters in Table 3 and draft condition E7D.4 are matters which should be considered as meaning an individual is more likely to not meet the fit and proper test, except in exceptional circumstances?

If you agree, please explain why. If you disagree, please indicate which matters you consider should not be considered and why, or which other matters should be included. 

Question 5f 

Do you agree that the fit and proper test should be applied to a specific list of relevant individual roles and interests, rather than a more general definition such as ‘beneficial owners’ or ‘senior managers’? Please explain the reasons for your answer.

Question 5g 

Do you agree that the list of roles contained in the definition of relevant individuals in the proposed condition is appropriate?

If you agree, please explain why. If you disagree, what roles would you remove or add and why?

Question 6a

Do you agree that initial condition E7 should include the two proposed tests (relating to arrangements a provider would need to have in place and evidence that the provider has a satisfactory track record in relation to fraud and public funds) in its requirements?

Question 6b

Do you have any comments about the proposed requirements for the arrangements that a provider would need to have in place to prevent, detect and stop fraud and the inappropriate use of public funds?

Question 6c

Do you think we have identified the correct minimum requirements to be considered as ‘comprehensive arrangements’? What else should be included?

Question 6d

Do you agree that a provider should have a satisfactory track record in relation to receiving or accessing public funds in order to be registered with the OfS?

Question 6e

Do you agree with the proposed factors that the OfS would use to establish a provider’s track record?

Question 6f

Do you have any additional comments on this proposal?

Question 7

How clear are the requirements of proposed condition E7 as drafted at Annexes C to G? If any elements of the proposed condition are unclear, please specify which elements and provide reasons.

Question 8

How clear and helpful is the guidance as drafted at Annexes C to G? If any elements of the draft guidance are unclear or could be more helpful, please specify which elements and provide reasons.

Question 9

Do you foresee any unintended consequences resulting from the proposals in this consultation? If so, please indicate what you think these are and the reasons for your view.

Question 10

Are there any aspects of these proposals you found unclear? If so, please specify which, and tell us why.

Question 11

In your view, are there ways in which the policy objectives discussed in this consultation could be delivered more efficiently or effectively than proposed here?

Question 12

Do you have any comments about the potential impact of these proposals on individuals on the basis of their protected characteristics?