Ministerial calls for more investigations into vice-chancellors¡¯ ¡°high pay¡± risk overstretching England¡¯s higher education regulator and undermining the autonomy of institutions, sector experts have warned.

In a guidance letter to the Office for Students (OfS) on 27 February, education secretary Damian Hinds highlighted the issue of the ¡°high pay¡± of university senior staff, stating that it ¡°must be justified by high performance¡± and that ¡°expenses and severance payments should, in all cases, be reasonable and justifiable¡±.

Mr Hinds also urged England¡¯s higher education regulator to ¡°consider carrying out independent reviews of the adequacy and effectiveness of management and governance¡± at institutions where ¡°issues with senior staff pay lead to concerns over governance¡±.

The advice comes after the OfS confirmed?that it was ¡°looking into a number of regulatory matters¡± at De Montfort University, which awarded a 22 per cent salary increase to its vice-chancellor Dominic Shellard last year.

É«ºÐÖ±²¥

Professor Shellard left the Leicester institution last month amid reports that he had a business link with the chairman of his remuneration committee.

Mr Hinds¡¯ call for the OfS to intervene more frequently in cases of excessive high pay raised ¡°serious questions about institutional autonomy and self-governance¡±, said Mike Shattock, visiting professor at UCL Institute of Education, whose book The Governance of British Higher Education will be published later this year.

É«ºÐÖ±²¥

¡°I do not think that the OfS is really set up to run lots of inquiries into whether vice-chancellors are overpaid or not,¡± said Professor Shattock, a former registrar at the University of Warwick.

¡°It has only two people on its board, other than its chair, with a university background, so I¡¯m not sure the OfS will want to spend time examining exactly how various institutions¡¯ governance?is arranged,¡± he added of the body, which has promised ¡°light-touch regulation¡± of established universities.

According to The , Mr Hinds has also urged universities to ¡°up their game¡± in taking more disadvantaged students, stating that globally competitive pay packets were deserved only if they were doing outstanding work in widening participation.

¡°That would seem a rather narrow criterion for remuneration committees,¡± said Professor Shattock.

É«ºÐÖ±²¥

If Mr Hinds¡¯ guidance is followed, it is likely to mean more reviews similar to that carried out by the OfS¡¯ predecessor, the Higher Education Funding Council for England, which highlighted ¡°poor governance¡± at the University of Bath, which was hit by scandals over pay and benefits for former vice-chancellor Dame Glynis Breakwell.

However, Eve Alcock, Bath¡¯s student union president, who investigated governance at Bath via Freedom of Information requests, said the university¡¯s own review had been most effective in increasing transparency.

¡°Universities themselves should be stepping up to get their own house in order so that they learn what best practice is and experience its benefits,¡± said Ms Alcock.

¡°This makes reform more sustainable and has increased conviction behind it compared to reform being imposed on institutions by a regulator [which] runs the danger of becoming a box-ticking exercise,¡± she added.

É«ºÐÖ±²¥

However, Michael Carley, UCU branch president at Bath, said that ¡°any move towards transparency is to be welcomed, especially where arrangements for pay collide with proper governance¡±.

¡°The one concern is with pay being justified by ¡®performance¡¯ [which is] measured by a set of metrics which do not reflect the intellectual and cultural values of higher education,¡± he added.

É«ºÐÖ±²¥

?jack.grove@timeshighereducation.com