Government needs to make better decisions for universities and their students

Published: 14th April 2021
Area: Uncategorised
UPDATED - On 13 April 2021 the government announced that students on all university courses in England will return "no earlier than 17 May", despite ONS research finding there is minimal evidence of COVID-19 being spread in face-to-face teaching settings such as classrooms and lecture theatres.

Universities UK's letter to the Prime Minister on student returns on 6 April raised some important questions about the government’s decision-making during the coronavirus crisis. The letter challenged the government’s failure to publish its plans for the return of the remaining students to campus, even as shops, spas and swimming pools were allowed to reopen, and in contrast to schools and FE colleges where the government has emphasised the importance to the individual and the social utility of encouraging a return to study as normal.

The government’s subsequent announcement that the return date will be “no earlier than 17 May” has done little to answer these questions.

Why are university students being treated differently?

The original justification for treating university students differently to other learners was “to reduce transmission by minimising the number of students who return to university and who access university facilities” - Students returning to, and starting, higher education in Spring Term 2021 ( However, the latest ONS survey (published 7 April) shows three-quarters of students (76%) are already living at the same address as they were at the start of the autumn term 2020.

As the UUK letter makes clear, universities have invested significant time and resource in ensuring that university facilities can be used safely in accordance with all recommended public health measures. Further, the ONS has found “minimal evidence of transmission happening in face-to-face learning environments, such as lecture theatres.”  So sanctioning a return to studies now would (a) no longer involve mass migration; (b) take place in the context of an environment where every recommended safety measure has been implemented; and (c) involve activities where there is minimal evidence of transmission.

The government may of course be relying on some other, hitherto undisclosed, justification for continuing the restriction, but if so, it should set it out so that those affected can understand it.

What legal principles should government decision-making during a pandemic comply with?

As many have commented, the coronavirus crisis has permitted the government to impose almost unprecedented levels of restriction on the ability of citizens to go about their daily lives. From a legal perspective, the decision to impose these restrictions must satisfy certain criteria even in a public health emergency.

The expectations are, broadly, as follows:

  • Proportionality: the restrictions need to go no further than is necessary to achieve a satisfactory response to the threat to public health.
  • Timeliness: restrictions need to be lifted as soon as the circumstances that necessitated their introduction have passed.
  • Transparency: the rationale for the restrictions should be comprehensible and/or capable of explanation to those affected by them, and should reflect the prevailing and relevant circumstances of the specific case.
  • Fairness: the restrictions should not disproportionately adversely affect particular groups without good cause.
Has the government met these standards?

For the reasons set out above, when judged against these expectations the government has failed to make the case in relation to its continued refusal to allow a return to study. It has thus left universities and their students bearing a disproportionate and unjustified brunt of disruption in the fight against the virus. Even within the student population, there has been inequitable impact: some students have been allowed access to facilities and face-to-face learning opportunities, whilst others may now reach the end of the academic year without any further access.

There may have been a justification for this differential treatment at one stage, but as the roadmap to ending lockdown has been rolled out, that justification becomes harder and harder to articulate. The government has recognised the impact that the pandemic has had on the mental health of students (see e.g. Letter to students from Michelle Donelan MP, Minister of State for Universities) and therefore should also recognise the need to support the return to campus study as soon as possible.

Universities and the vast majority of students have willingly and diligently respected government requirements and restrictions because they were necessary to tackle the pandemic. The failure to respect the basic legal principles of good decision-making and to lift these restrictions in a timely way could, unfortunately, lead to some of this support being withdrawn.  It’s time for government to fulfil its side of the bargain.

We’re here to support you

Our education team is on hand if you have any questions so please do get in touch with Smita Jamdar if you have any concerns.

Our updated guide to recovery and resilience covers everything you need to navigate your organisation out of lockdown, unlock your potential and make way for a brighter future. Further advice in relation to COVID-19 can be found on our dedicated coronavirus resource hub.  

From inspirational SHMA Talks to informative webinars, we also have lots of educational and entertaining content for life and business. Visit SHMA® ON DEMAND.

Related articles
Related services

How can we help?

Our expert lawyers are ready to help you with a wide range of legal services, use the search below or call us on: 0330 024 0333


Listen to our SHMA® ON DEMAND content covering a broad range of topics to help support you and your business.

Employment Breakfast: Disciplinary Processes – Getting them right

13 Dec

Nick Jones, Partner - Employment | Cecily Donoghue, Senior Associate - Employment
Employment Breakfast: Disciplinary Processes – Getting them right

Employment Law experts Nick Jones and Cecily Donoghue will guide attendees through an overview […]

Biodiversity Net Gains – new mandatory requirements for developers

30 Nov

Anna Cartledge, Partner | Louise Ingram, Partner
Biodiversity Net Gains – new mandatory requirements for developers

New mandatory requirements (introduced by the Environment Act 2021) will drive the delivery and […]

Directors’ Forum: Social Housing – In the eye of a perfect storm

23 Nov

Louise Drew, Partner & Head of Building Communities | Jon Coane, Partner
Directors’ Forum: Social Housing – In the eye of a perfect storm

Registered providers are facing more challenges than ever, with increasing demand conflating with growing […]

Leicester Curry Club – November

22 Nov

Lisa Botterill, Partner
Leicester Curry Club – November

Our next Leicester networking lunch of 2023 will take place on Wednesday, 22 November […]

Our Latest Thoughts

All the latest views and insights on current topics.