Write the words of this act the way you think they should read. Solon shows your change as a redline against the published text and pins it to that exact text, so it can never be applied to wording you did not see.
Change 1
As published
60 Appeals against revocation of authorisation
(1) The governing body of an institution may appeal to the First-tier Tribunal against either or both of the following—
(a) a decision of the OfS to revoke, by an order under section 58(1), an authorisation, consent or other approval given to the institution to include the word “university” in its name;
(b) a decision of the OfS as to the date specified under section 59(6) as the date on which the revocation takes effect.
(2) On an appeal under subsection (1)(a), the Tribunal—
(a) must consider afresh the decision appealed against, and
(b) may take into account evidence that was not available to the OfS.
(3) An appeal under subsection (1)(b) may be on the grounds—
(a) that the decision was based on an error of fact;
(b) that the decision was wrong in law;
(c) that the decision was unreasonable.
(4) On an appeal under subsection (1), the Tribunal may—
(a) withdraw the decision;
(b) confirm the decision;
(c) vary the date on which the revocation takes effect under the order to be made under section 58(1);
(d) remit the decision whether to confirm the decision, or any matter relating to that decision (including the date on which the revocation takes effect), to the OfS.
(5) In the case of an appeal under subsection (1)(a), the Tribunal also has power to substitute for the decision any other decision that the OfS could have made.
(6) An appeal under subsection (1)(a) against a decision to revoke an approval may include an appeal against the decision mentioned in subsection (1)(b) regarding the date when the revocation takes effect; and in the case of such an appeal, references in subsections (2), (4) and (5) to the decision appealed against are to be read accordingly.
Your change, as a redline
60 Appeals against revocation of authorisation
(1) The governing body of an institution may appeal to the First-tier Tribunal against either or both of the following—
(a) a decision of the OfS to revoke, by an order under section 58(1), an authorisation, consent or other approval given to the institution to include the word “university” in its name;
(b) a decision of the OfS as to the date specified under section 59(6) as the date on which the revocation takes effect.
(2) On an appeal under subsection (1)(a), the Tribunal—
(a) must consider afresh the decision appealed against, and
(b) may take into account evidence that was not available to the OfS.
(3) An appeal under subsection (1)(b) may be on the grounds—
(a) that the decision was based on an error of fact;
(b) that the decision was wrong in law;
(c) that the decision was unreasonable.
(4) On an appeal under subsection (1), the Tribunal may—
(a) withdraw the decision;
(b) confirm the decision;
(c) vary the date on which the revocation takes effect under the order to be made under section 58(1);
(d) remit the decision whether to confirm the decision, or any matter relating to that decision (including the date on which the revocation takes effect), to the OfS.
(5) In the case of an appeal under subsection (1)(a), the Tribunal also has power to substitute for the decision any other decision that the OfS could have made.
(6) An appeal under subsection (1)(a) against a decision to revoke an approval may include an appeal against the decision mentioned in subsection (1)(b) regarding the date when the revocation takes effect; and in the case of such an appeal, references in subsections (2), (4) and (5) to the decision appealed against are to be read accordingly.
One line that says what changes, such as "Halve the dog tax".
Who it helps, what it costs, what it fixes. It is what persuades people to support it.
A proposal here is not law. Support on Solon is evidence that people want the change; the official route says what it takes to make it law.
Sign in to file your proposal. What you have written stays on this page.
Ask what your change would do, who would gain and who would bear a cost, and where something like it is already law. The assistant reads your draft as it stands, cites the law and the studies it finds, and takes no side. What you file stays yours.