In 2007 the University was subject to Institutional Audit, in which the Quality Assurance Agency came to inspect us to provide assurance to the funding council that we had in place good procedures to manage the quality of the student experience. This year we have to produce an interim report on the development of our systems and strategies since then, because we are about half way between two audits - that of 2007 and the next one which we can expect to take place in around 2013.

QAA Institutional Audit is one of the regulatory mechanisms that applies to universities. There are many others.  Last week, at a conference in London, I was involved in a debate on a motion along the lines that "If they give us less public money, they should regulate us less."  The motion was proposed by Eeva Leinonen, Vice-Principal for Learning and Teaching at Kings College London, and me.  It was opposed by Stephen Jackson from the Quality Assurance Agency, and by Liam Burns, the President of NUS Scotland.  I am pleased to say (given the side I was taking) that the motion was won with a vote of (as I recall) 25 in favour, 8 against, and 5 abstentions.

But I am under no illusion that actually we are moving towards a more regulated environment.  Eeva and I argued that with students paying more it should be them that regulated us more, through the freeing up of numbers caps so that students flow to quality programmes and away from those that are less satisfactory.  But interestingly that was not how Liam saw things.  He wanted the student interest to be backed by a strong regulatory body to ensure that the promises universities make are actually fulfilled - and that students have a come-back against universities that don't deliver.

Lord Browne has commented that his review needed to usher in a new set of regulatory mechanisms for new times, and that the burden of regulation should be reduced.  But at the same time his report suggested more regulation of the teaching qualifications of university staff; of the delivery of widening participation strategies; and of methods of delivery in priority subjects. There will doubtless be a watchdog over the new Key Information Set which all universities will be required to produce.  I had calculated for the debate last week that the annual total cost of regulation and compliance at the University of Sheffield is probably around £800k, or around the cost of a small department in Arts and Humanities or Social Sciences.

Given the choice I would prefer the department, rather than compliance, and I would give students the power to vote with their feet against poor provision and in favour of good.  But I fear that this view will not prevail.  And thus, at a time of budgetary constraint, we will actually have to end up spending yet more on meeting regulatory and compliance burdens.  It is not a happy prospect.