OfS insight on institutional closure lacks a firm statutory foundation

The Office for Students’ (OfS) insight briefing “Protecting the interests of students when universities and colleges close” is as much a timely reminder of where the law falls short when providers are at risk of closure as it is a briefing on how to protect the student interest under the current policy framework.

As we set out in our Connect more report which explored, among other things, the legal framework for institutional insolvency, market exit and/or merger, the role of OfS in any institution at risk situation is already unhelpfully ambiguous. Its concern may be the student interest, but it is not empowered to prevent institutional closure (even if, as is often likely to be the case, the student interest would be best served by completing the course they registered for at the institution they enrolled in) – or even to impose order on a disorderly market exit.

In the absence of express powers or an insolvency or special administration regime for higher education, OfS’ role becomes one of a point person, facilitating conversations with other agencies and stakeholders, but with no powers itself to prevent a disorderly closure. The tone of the briefing is collaborative and collegiate but, in a world where students are no better protected than any other unsecured creditor if a provider becomes insolvent, it’s doubtful that, under the law as it currently stands, the interests of students will be protected to the degree to which OfS desires.

While OfS may be primarily concerned with protecting students’ interests, the trustees of those providers that are constituted as charities have a statutory duty to act in the best interests of the charity and to pursue their charity’s purposes. This duty will, of course, encompass the needs of present students but will also encompass past students, future students, research activities and much more besides. While no one would disagree with the general sentiment that “throughout the process [of institutional closure] the interests of students, and their options for continued study, must be kept in mind” – and the briefing does offer lots of useful ideas for how to ensure sufficient attention is given to the many types of students who will be affected – the elevation of student interest to a pre-eminent concern is not what the law generally, nor what OfS’ statutory duties currently require.

University executive teams and boards may wish, therefore, to read OfS guidance in light of these realities, and be aware of the limits of what is realistically possible or likely to occur in giving consideration to the sort of scenario planning and preparation OfS advocates in the briefing.

A herd of elephants

OfS’ recommendations about the need to have suitably durable and maintained student records and to have entered into binding contracts with validating and subcontracting partners that contain clauses that deal realistically with the end of the relationship and contain adequate data sharing agreements clauses are all well made.

But once things actually start to get tricky in real life there is a level of reliance on transparency, for example, in sharing information both with OfS but also with other organisations such as funding or regulatory bodies, or government departments, or even other institutions who might be prevailed upon to welcome displaced students. In the absence of a systematised notification process, any ambiguity about whose role it is to liaise with the various potentially affected stakeholders or the timing of any such communication has high potential to create problems. There are obvious issues raised by disclosing or revealing another institution’s “at risk” status, some of which may have the effect of accelerating the very process everyone is seeking to avoid.

If OfS considers a registered institution is at risk of closure, it can impose a student protection direction under condition C4 of the conditions of registration. The briefing provides a helpful reminder of what a student protection direction might include and encourages regular thought about these issues to avoid the need for a provider to “improvise at speed and under stress if an institutional closure becomes possible.” That sounds very laudable at first glance, but it confuses the regulatory obligation with the real-world outcome. A provider at risk of closure may well come under pressure from OfS to produce a market exit plan and to map courses at a time when university teams have the least bandwidth to undertake such tasks. In any case, it is highly doubtful whether an insolvency practitioner would be bound by such planning in the event that a provider goes into an insolvency process.

In scenario planning, OfS moots the idea that higher education providers might consider setting up “agreements in principle” with other institutions “to take on relevant students if one or the other closes” or even “possibly multiple agreements, for different courses and subjects.” It is surprising not to see competition law mentioned in this context. The higher education sector contains a broad range of institution types, with varied teaching and delivery methods, attracting students with different needs and expectations as regards learning and study.

This means that in practice the providers that pair up to take on one another’s students in the event of institutional failure will need to be similar types of provider – precisely those that are in competition for students in the first place. As Kate Newman has argued in an article on the impact of competition law on higher education collaboration, it would be helpful if OfS and the Competition and Markets Authority could jointly consider these kinds of circumstances for the sector as a whole rather than providers having to navigate this complex legal territory on an individual basis.

We’re also concerned that any such “agreement in principle” will not be legally binding and will have been reached at a single point in time, when conditions may be quite different to the time when the institutions seek to rely on them. There is a very real risk that unless these agreements are refreshed annually (a time consuming and potentially collusive activity) they will turn out to be like the original student protection plans in being not terribly helpful.

A sector like no other

In issuing its briefing OfS argues that “this sort of risk and contingency planning is normal in other regulated sectors,” citing the examples of customer supply contingency plans for energy suppliers and the need for banks to have recovery and resolution plans. However, both of these sectors have highly developed insolvency regimes. Drafting recovery and resolution plans is much easier to achieve when there is a viable insolvency process in place. Both the energy and banking sectors have special administration processes in place and there has been much recent press coverage on the water sector special administration process, in light of Thames Water’s difficulties.

OfS encourages institutions to undertake extensive course mapping. However, given the scale of the financial pressures facing the sector, it’s doubtful how valuable such course mapping is likely to be where potential recipient institutions are perhaps equally likely to be at risk of closure. To be fair to OfS, the briefing stresses that mapping is particularly relevant for those institutions that offer specialist provision.

And here, of course, lies the essential problem. As OfS states: “We have drawn on our experience of managing two relevant cases at small and specialist higher education providers during the past year, and of instances where there was a serious risk of a closure which did not materialise.” The counterfactual – closure of a large and generalist provider which does materialise – remains the biggest elephant in the room. While OfS’ openness in sharing its insights is to be welcomed, it does nothing to diminish the need for urgent structural change.