Rate This Page
Print
12-03-2010
Regulating HEIs as charities
Annex A
Consultation questions and how to respond
1. Responses to the consultation should be made by midday on Friday 12 March 2010, using the online form on the HEFCE web-site with this document at www.hefce.ac.uk under Publications.
2. We will publish an analysis of responses to the consultation. Additionally, all responses may be disclosed on request, under the terms of the Freedom of Information Act. The Act gives a public right of access to any information held by a public authority, in this case HEFCE. This includes information provided in response to a consultation. We have a responsibility to decide whether any responses, including information about your identity, should be made public or treated as confidential. We can refuse to disclose information only in exceptional circumstances. This means responses to this consultation are unlikely to be treated as confidential except in very particular circumstances. Further information about the Act is available at www.informationcommissioner.gov.uk.
3. The consultation questions are listed below.
Response from CIPFA
Consultation question 1: Do you agree that the public should have ready access to information about HEIs as exempt charities, equivalent to the information they can access about registered charities?
Yes
Consultation question 2: Do you agree that public information about HEIs as charities should be made readily available on HEIs’ own web-sites, linked to from the HEFCE web-site?
Yes
Consultation question 3a: Is the timing reasonable for such a web presence to be developed and live by 1 December 2010?
Yes
Comment: The deadline sounds reasonable, but given the other things done on an academic year basis, it may be helpful to have the time between December and July for checking.
Consultation question 3b: If not, what is the earliest achievable date?
Comment: N/A
Consultation question 4a: Is it reasonable for HEIs to assemble and report to HEFCE baseline information about their linked charities during 2009-10, and to report changes in subsequent years?
Yes/No
Comment: For institutions to comment as we are unclear how much work this would generate.
Consultation question 4b: If not, what alternative arrangement do you propose to enable HEFCE to regulate HEIs’ linked, exempt charities?
Comment: N/A
Consultation question 5: Do you agree that it is appropriate for HEIs to report annually on serious incidents that have arisen and the actions taken, including any strengthening of internal controls?
Yes
Comment: in CIPFA’s view it would be helpful to define clearly what is meant by ‘serious incidents’ to prevent uncertainty on reporting requirements. This should be tailored to the higher education sector.
Consultation question 6: Is it reasonable for HEIs’ audit committees to include in their annual report to the governing body discussion of serious incidents that have arisen and the actions taken, including any strengthening of internal controls?
Yes
Consultation question 7: If you consider the serious incident reporting system proposed in paragraph 46 to be unreasonable, what alternative arrangements might provide assurance that HEIs have adequate measures in place to identify and prevent serious incidents, and, if such an incident arises, that they have responded appropriately?
Comment: N/A
Consultation question 8: Is it reasonable for all exempt charity HEIs to include in the narrative section of their annual financial statements a description of how they have delivered their charitable purposes for the public benefit, including a statement that they have had regard to the Charity Commission’s guidance?
Yes
Comment: This can be reported on as part of the OFR.
Consultation question 9: Are the proposed changes to the annual assurance return, as outlined in paragraph 54, appropriate and reasonable?
Yes/No
Comment: We note that the requirement for the annual assurance return to be ‘signed as accountable officer and as a trustee on behalf of all of the trustees’ is consistent with the role of HEFCE as the regulator of HEIs as charities. We remain concerned, however, regarding the apparent confusion between the dual roles of HEFCE as regulator and funder of HEIs. We set out our thoughts on this issue in response to question 2 in our comments to HEFCE on the revised financial memorandum. In our view, HEFCE will need to think through carefully these two roles since they must be approached from quite different angles. With this in mind, we believe that assurances not required for charity purposes should be signed by the accountable officer alone.
Consultation question 10: Do you have any other comments?
N/A