Thank you, Chair. We received substantial evidence from HEFCW suggesting that powers were inflexible and hard to use—I think HEFCW called them 'threatening'—saying that they make sanctions difficult to use and so on. Are you satisfied that HEFCW's powers are useful on a preventative day-to-day basis?
If I may disagree slightly, I don't think their powers are frightening. It's very clear what powers are available to HEFCW, and they're certainly more than just the ability to, maybe, lean on an institution. Clearly, there is a system by which there is the ability to, you know, ramp up and escalate levels of intervention in the sector by HEFCW, but I certainly wouldn't describe them as inflexible or not having weight.
I think they were saying it was difficult to use for swift interventions—they found it a bit cumbersome. They explained to us that they often take informal measures or actions in their role as regulator, and they've explained that the small size of the sector enables good relationships to be developed. How can such measures work in the tertiary education body when there clearly will be many more than the 10 providers?
Well, looking ahead to the new Bill, I would want to see and be very keen to ensure that there are sufficiently flexible—did you use the word soft—and soft regulatory powers that the commission could exercise. Those powers, for instance, could include the ability to offer advice and guidance, rather than, maybe, punitive interventions, and powers to undertake enhanced monitoring of institutions to ensure compliance with regulatory conditions. So, I would expect the commission to be able to have a series of abilities to intervene, from the soft, flexible type, which is non-punitive but actually allows people to go in and support institutions, through to something that would be, as I said, more punitive, if they felt that an institution was in danger of not providing quality or financial failure.