Children, Young People, and Education Committee

I'm Dan Beard, chair of Unison's higher education committee.

I'm Lynne Hackett, the regional organiser for Unison and lead for further and higher education.

Gareth Lloyd, Wales official, the University and College Union.

Jamie Insole, UCU Cymru, policy and political officer.

Thank you. You're very welcome this morning. Members have a series of questions and I'll hand over to Cefin first, to start, please.

Diolch yn fawr iawn. Thank you very much indeed for coming in this morning. So, my first question is around social partnership, which we all believe is important, but could you explain to us what an effective social partnership between HE institutions and trade unions looks like?

Shall I start? First of all, we haven't got one. So, we've got partnership, but definitely not social partnership in higher education. We do have examples in further education, as most of you should know, but what it looks like is a movement forward from traditional partnership to a tripartite agreement—so, Welsh Government, the trade unions and the employer. But the impartial training is important. At the moment, IPA are used for further education, but other companies could become available to do that. That is really important. And why do we want independence? It's to futureproof. So, what might work today might not work if there's a change to the union group, if there's a change in Government, if there's a change in the employer. So, that's the sort of protection that we need long term.

Also, we've got a situation where industrial strife can be resolved through partnership, but we have to have an agreement at what level confidentiality is kept. So, that's where the independent training comes in. It's really important that everyone knows what they can and can't feed back to the membership. And one most crucial point of all is that it does not replace a JNC, a joint negotiating committee, or a joint consultative committee. So, it's not a bargaining group; that always has to come back to the collective union group with the employer. So, that's part of it, but I'm sure that my colleagues will have other things as well.

I'll hear a few more comments and then I'll come back to the one comment from you, Gareth.

Yes. Just to expand on Gareth's points, we're in a strange position in post-16 education, because we have social partnership in further education, social partnership is written into the Medr documents, but we don't have that formally with higher education. What we have in further education is the Welsh negotiating committee for FE, and so we work across colleges with ColegauCymru to have those discussions.

Now, we—I'm speaking for UCU as well—are not suggesting that we should have negotiating across HE in Wales—that's done at a national level. But what we lack are those overarching joint trade union and employer discussions, which would—. We wouldn't be negotiating pay, we wouldn't be negotiating policies, but it's that understanding of how we can work together across the sector, and I think that both trade unions think that would be helpful based on the way we work in further education, which isn't perfect—no criticism of anyone—but it gives us a different forum.

In terms of what's effective in social partnership—and to be fair, a lot of the universities are consulting and working well and Dan can tell you more examples of that—it's when, yes, we're not always going to agree, sometimes we're going to fall out, but those conversations and that trust, ahead of anything happening, for there to be an input, for there to be a discussion so that we can mitigate some of the losses, obviously, but also the effects on our members. So, there are a lot of benefits. When I say 'our members', I mean all staff, actually, because we're speaking for all staff, aren't we, whether they're in trade unions or not. So, I think the consultation and the process can be much improved by having those trusted conversations and developing that social partnership, because it's not as easy as saying, 'Okay, we're all friends, let's have a chat about this.' There are, actually, clear boundaries. So, I think that's how things could be better, without going into detail.

I think, just to pick up what Lynne was saying, there are two words there: 'trust' and 'trusted'. They are key to social partnership. In having high-level conversations, we need to be able to trust each other to have those frank conversations, understanding the challenges. That doesn't happen in the sector. There are some examples where it does happen. We could look at the much better arrangements we've got in Cardiff Met University and the University of South Wales, as two off the top of my head. But that comes down to trust—the employer's trust in us to have a conversation about really difficult things around finances and student recruitment challenges, and also for us to have trust that we can have those quite high-level conversations, disclosing things that we might not necessarily want to put in the wider remit yet, but to have those early conversations. That's what's missing from the sector. Trust, I think, is the key thing.

I'll come back to the word 'trust' in a minute.

That, incidentally, is a sage observation. In my experience, social partnership is better described than defined. So, if we look at Coleg Cambria, where we currently have a very successful partnership, there are two features we can refer to. The first thing, as Gareth suggested, is the presence of an independent party who curates the initial conditions of partnership. So, to have somebody who actually goes in and works with the branch and works with management in order to have almost a bespoke solution around their needs, that's very powerful, very effective. The other thing is, on the one hand, valiance and chemistry between the social partnership lead and the principal or the vice-chancellor, but having that relationship at the top and then seeing that relationship replicated throughout the organisation, at school or faculty level, whatever else, that is what things generally hang upon. So, really the social partnership rests at the top, because, obviously, the principal and the vice-chancellor cannot be subverted by anybody down. We have seen that—we have seen middle managers and other people who perhaps aren't as comfortable, and it's very good when the principal or the vice-chancellor can pull them into line. Thank you.

Okay. Can I bring Joel in here, Cefin? Is that okay?

Thank you, Chair. It was just a quick question for Jamie, actually. You mentioned there Coleg Cambria and also the work that the social partnership has been doing there. I know, in your written evidence, you mentioned it's been used to drive innovation.

Absolutely.

I was just wondering if you could cite some examples of what innovation, then.

I will be very brief, because I don't want to—. For instance, Coleg Cambria and UCU, along with Unison, embarked upon an initiative to use artificial intelligence to mitigate lecturer workload. Now, I can imagine that, under different circumstances, this would have triggered substantial resistance, but this is very much the sort of thing that we always talk about: how novel technologies can be used to augment jobs. And because the college—in fact, I think it was UCU who first proposed this—management worked so closely, Coleg Cambria is now substantially ahead in that area. So, nothing was imposed, nobody felt as if they were being subjected to anything; rather, we have this, I don't know, opportunity for solution-based collaboration.

Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Chair.

Thank you. Back to Cefin, please.

So, two points, as a follow-up. Gareth, you said quite categorically that there isn't a social partnership in existence; it is in name only, I think the suggestion is. So, I just want to tease out of you, why do you think it's broken, that kind of model? What needs to improve to make it better? Some suggestions we've had already. And then I'll follow that up with the word 'trust'.

Just first of all, it's not broken, but we're talking about social partnership. So, we have existing good partnerships in some of the universities, in the same way as you have them in other sectors—in schools, for instance, where you've got strong joint negotiating committees. The problem is it would depend on the relationship between individuals, rather than something that is set in stone that we can use for futureproofing. So, we haven't got social partnership, because we would say, as a union, and I know Unison would agree as well, you can't have social partnership without an early conversation about what it involves, because it's bespoke, to an extent. It has to fit the organisation, as Jamie was saying earlier on. So, we have not tried it yet. We have not gone through a process.

In FE, for instance, we're at the four colleges now. When each of them apply, we act as a broker in UCU to put them forward for IPA, and we work closely with the other trade unions. So, it's another step; it's just that that hasn't taken place yet. So, it's not a rejection of it, it's just not happened. What's creeped in is that language of 'social partnership'—it's sneaking in, but it's not a social partnership, because it's not followed the route that it has elsewhere: independent broker, Government being involved. It's just something that is, to an effect, an extension of a JNC.

Okay. I want to touch on the use of the word 'trust', which a number of you have used already. You will probably have seen Cardiff University here—was it last week or the week before, I can't remember; probably the week before—they referred to what they thought was a breakdown of that trust when UCU released a press statement during negotiations. Now, was that helpful?

Can I just respond directly to that? I mean, without going into the inner details of it, the members felt ambushed. There was no consultation early; it was just an announcement that went to the press from the employer. It didn't come from the trade unions. The trade union branch—we've got be careful of the language; when we say 'UCU', we're talking about Cardiff UCU branch—responded as they felt appropriate based on their membership, what their membership felt at the time. That didn't come from us as the national one, because, to an extent, they run their own branch.

I think it was the UCU branch they were referring to, yes.

Yes. So, in terms of that trust breaking down, the initial breakdown was because of the announcement that went out to the press—before it came to Government, before it came to Medr, before it came to anyone—that they were closing down. Once people's jobs are at risk, the trust is gone. If you don't go early to a group and say, 'There's a danger', or, 'Something might be happening', and you just go to the press—. I think it became very unfortunate what followed there.

But I like to move forward. So, at the moment, Cardiff's not in social partnership. It would be good if Cardiff was in a formal social partnership. You can move forward in partnership in strikes, because Coleg Cambria was set up when there were, potentially, compulsory redundancies. It managed to stop the compulsory redundancies, which led, I think, to the more positive social partnership model we have today.

Jamie, did you want to come in here?

Yes, just very quickly, with a couple of sentences. We have seen an occasional pattern of principals and vice-chancellors claiming that they are working in partnership, when this is clearly not the case. For the vice-chancellor at Cardiff University to claim that she was working in partnership with the UCU branch, I mean, you need only look at the newspapers in order to belie that particular, I don't know, statement. As Gareth said, we would like to get there. But social partnership has a clear definition and, unfortunately, Cardiff isn't there at the moment.

Any more?

I'm okay.

Thank you. Okay, we'll move on now to questions from Natasha, please.

Thank you and good morning, everyone. I'm going to be focusing my questions towards the UCU members on the panel, if that's okay. Please don't feel that I'm depriving you of any privileges in any way. I will come to you at some point, don't worry.

Cardiff University has been a hot topic for all of us. We have been made aware of discussions that took place at an ACAS-facilitated seminar. During the seminar, we were told, they confirmed they had taken the right approach:

'We did need to do what we have done in order to identify those areas of the university that were in scope.'

After this particular seminar took place, what were your reflections on these discussions that took place? Did they indicate that the right approach was taken by Cardiff University, or could they have done better?

We do not accept it was the right approach. I come from the school sector. I worked for the National Education Union previously. I was a teacher. I'm a governor in two local schools. On every level, discussion has to take place early on. You do not go to the press and make announcements and put people's jobs at risk. I've never come across anyone doing that before. The unions, if we'd done that, would have been highly criticised, and we didn't.

As for being in scope, they remain in scope, which I find unbelievable. So, while they've ruled out compulsory redundancies for 2025, they've kept everyone in scope, which there's no logic to. I don't understand why they're doing that. If you want to truly move forward in a form of partnership, and ideally social partnership, you have to remove those members of staff from scope. I like to focus on positives: they've ruled out compulsory redundancies. We've not even got into the issue of increased workload, the reduction of courses and the reduction of staff, because, can I just be clear, while they rule out compulsory redundancies, the impact on non-compulsory redundancies is still huge on the workforce? So, I don't accept Cardiff did the right thing.

I'm not going to say this happened, but what I don't want to see happen is people coming up with the worst-case scenario and always planning on giving us something a bit better. I don't play games like that, and we don't play like that in Wales. So, hopefully, we won't be seeing any more of that in the future.

And is that what you think is happening right now?

I felt there was an ambush, and I felt highly disappointed. And to go back to the point my colleague Lynne made earlier on, because we haven't got an equivalent of the Wales negotiations committee further education, or we haven't got an equivalent of the social partnership, there was no opportunity to discuss it earlier on. And the unions are very, very good at trying to avoid compulsory redundancies and offering pragmatic solutions, but we weren't given that opportunity. We were put on the back foot and we had to retaliate as our members felt appropriate.

May I come in? Just in terms of our Unison members in Cardiff University, with that announcement, the professional support staff, although we're not being consulted at the moment about effects on them, and there are no compulsory redundancies until the end of 2025, the anxiety it's created for them is tremendous. The branch secretary is having regular meetings where 80, 90, 100 people are turning up on Teams—it's great, isn't it—for lunchtime meetings because—. While the overarching message is, 'There's nothing happening at the moment', it's just created so much stress and anxiety for people. So, yes, UCU and Cardiff University, that's been the headline, but it's affecting the whole organisation. So, I just think it's important to say it's not just a UCU issue.

Can I just add one thing? On the rally we did, I think we attempted to do that in very positive vein, not to have any impact on the students, but anyone who spoke to the student nurses on the day—. I've never come across anything like it, and our general secretary was present and said, in all the years involved in trade unions, she'd never seen such genuinely upset students. And they weren't affected directly, some of them—they were final year, some of those students that turned up—but they wanted other students to have the same opportunities as them. So, the impact on the students, and the support we've had from the National Union of Students in particular, has been unbelievable. I just want to be clear: we're an education union. We talk about the impact on students as much as, if not more than, any other organisation. So, I just want to be clear that there was a further impact, not just on our members, but on the students of the university as well.

As a Member who's received hundreds of e-mails from students and their parents, I can totally appreciate what you're saying. I understand that view.

Just one thing to add to that—obviously, we work across every university—I know, from when the Cardiff University news broke, privately lots of senior leaders in other universities were aghast at the way Cardiff went about it, saying, 'We'd never do that here. Rest assured we would never take that approach here.' So, I think something to take from this as well is that, in the other seven institutions across Wales, they said, 'Well, that's the wrong way to do it.'

So, as a committee, we obviously met with Cardiff University in one of our previous sessions, and we were actually told categorically that the press reported it based on the leak that came from staff. What would your perspective be on that? They've stated that they didn't actually say it themselves; they didn't go to the press with the information or the news about what was going to be happening with the course cutting or any of that element. It was from the staff, or the top tier of staff in the university itself. How do you approach that with us?

Well, there was no consultation, so if it came from a top tier, it didn't come from a trade union group, so I can't possibly comment on that. But, I would add, if you're going to get your own staff leaking, then it's their problem. I'd be really concerned that, if they've got senior staff leaking information, that suggests that they're not happy with the information that's come forward. And what they could have done is called all the trade unions in, apologised and said, 'This shouldn't have come out', but they didn't. There was no response.

If you look at the gaps—if you type in UCU Cymru—and our responses, and how measured we've been throughout the entire process, we've tried to measure it gently, because we want people to go to Cardiff University, we want them to go to Welsh universities. We don't want to attack any of our institutions. I've had students approach me and ask if they should go to Cardiff. I've said, 'Yes, because they've got fantastic staff and fantastic courses.' The danger is, if we're not careful, it's going to have a real detrimental effect on students wanting to go there, and that really worries me, and is something we should all be really concerned about. I know we'll come to participation later, but that impact is not going to increase the number of courses.

I don't want to be too cynical, but I do worry about the courses that were dropped. I do worry about the lack of communication. The first social partnership that needs to be set up is between all the institutions, so we can look at things like redeployment, what courses we’re putting on. Competition can destroy schools, so let's try and work collaboratively in Wales, even if it doesn't occur elsewhere.

We know that other universities are in financial trouble. Let's be honest and let’s not sugar-coat it. We all know what we're here for today. Are there any particular universities in Wales, or perhaps even outside Wales, in your view, that have demonstrated an exemplar way of dealing with the current issues that they're facing financially?

It's difficult to say, really. I will speak to some of the issues around governance and historical missteps when the question is asked. At the moment, I note that Wrexham is in a firm situation.

Perhaps more interesting—and stop me if I overstretch here—Aberystwyth has found itself in incredible difficulty over the past two years. What it has done is opened its books, engaged in a frank conversation about where it is, worked very closely with staff. It's a small university, so I always compare Aberystwyth to an Athenian democracy, and then Cardiff is more of a sprawling, feudal set-up with various schools and other things.

So, I would be looking closely at Aber in terms of how a university can weather a financial storm, and looking at Wrexham and maybe Trinity to a lesser extent in order to discern the preparations and the futureproofing and whatnot.

An honourable mention for Swansea as well. That is largely predicated upon a very good relationship currently—currently; and I attached that caveat—between the branch secretary and the vice-chancellor, and as I said earlier, valiance is everything. Those relationships, and trust, are key.

So, the relationships and trust, you're saying, and the praise that should be given, is based on communication, basically. Is that what you're saying, essentially?

Communication, shared mission. Do you want to—?

I think Dan has been specifically involved in some work in the University of South Wales, and I don't say we have an exemplar, but we have some ideas of what could be exemplary practice.

I think that's where I was coming from earlier in my comment about trust. In the University of South Wales, they did something very similar to what Jamie's described in Aberystwyth—opened the books to us very early on before we even went into a consultation process. We knew exactly where the financial challenges were, there was a chance for early discussions and early sharing of ideas of how we could restructure while minimising the impact on staff. I'm not going to hide away—there have been job losses, mostly voluntary. But voluntary loss is losing a job, and there's a loss of capacity and what courses we can deliver. But again, that is based on really good, trusted relationships between the university executive and their recognised trade unions. That didn't happen overnight. That was joint effort on both sides, which is what we're not seeing across the sector, only in pockets. I don't want to over-egg it and say University of South Wales is the exemplar, because there is no exemplar in Wales at this moment in time, but there are pockets of good practice that could be embedded across the sector.

There are the high-level discussions, and they started with the meeting with the joint trade unions, with full-time officers and so on, but when it comes down to the consultation in small departments, small areas of staff, that's where really meaningful conversations happen at a different level. Because it's like, ‘Well, actually you're saying you want to do this, but what about this?’ and that could actually—. And there’s redeployment, so we can keep people in employment or make savings. It's top-down, but the important things can happen at a very local level then, and I think that's what’s lacking when it isn't started at that higher level.

From our perspective, obviously we're constantly told as a committee that universities are private entities, and that they are not run by the Welsh Government and we technically don't have a say—until we have to jump in and dive to save the day and try and get money from our Ministers and our Cabinet Secretaries to give them help. If we look at it like that—and I'm just playing devil's advocate; please don't think this is my stance alone, but I think this is a question that is rattling me from inside—if I was running a university, a private business, and I have to make some tough decisions in relation to courses, in relation to the way the world is going and certain courses may need to be there, maybe it should just be based on attendance and the fact that there just aren't students; there are zero students coming to a particular course. Is it hard to see the fact that, as a private entity, to open my books up to a union initially before even sitting there trying to get my head around it, would it not be seen as a little bit counterproductive to say that too many cooks spoil the broth almost—'Just let me make the decision for my own institution'? I'm just asking the question, but I'd love to hear your perspective on it.

I have no doubt that I won't be the only one who wants to speak on this issue. First of all, there's the element of governance—I still am a governor in two primary schools—so if we've not got trade union representatives or enough trade union representatives on governing bodies, for instance, then we don't get that early information at all. So, all they have to look—. And I really agree with what was said earlier on about if you look at good practices elsewhere, where they are opening the books, just look at the press. There are no attacks. It's all really positive.

Again, I keep on going back to participation. We've got some really good ideas. Our members have got some really good ideas on improving participation. We know there's a broken system. UCU nationally are fighting for this. It's something we're fighting for—maybe it's a wider debate—extra money from other areas. We knew. I'm not surprised there's a crisis. Like many people, I had a full grant. So, we've gone from a full grant to a tuition system. What a surprise—we're going to run out of money. It's obvious. Everyone tells you the same thing. It's not sustainable the way it is.

But I reiterate, if you go back to a social partnership, if you go back to trust—. For instance, Cardiff did eventually open the books to us. We looked at it. We had people come in to look at the information. None of that was shared widely. We didn't break any confidentiality. We kept to all of that. We only shared information that was in the public domain. So, I understand what you're saying about companies, but also, if you've got good trade union relationships and we're working on new courses, by cutting courses, you don't improve your finances. It's the same as a school. If you cut a course, if you don't do languages, you're not going to increase the number of students. It's a very short-term thought. But we've got some solutions as well. It's not all about this. Hopefully, we'll get a chance to discuss them as well.

Okay, so I'd love to know—what is your solution, then?

We've got a number of them. I know Jamie will probably want to come in on some of the funding issues, but a lot of them are connected to increased participation. My sheer frustration I could talk about forever. As an ex-teacher and being in rooms constantly with people who don't understand the other sector, it's really frustrating to have eight or nine people from different organisations talk to me about increasing participation, and no joined-up thought, nobody collating data on good practice. I'm a governor in two schools. I only just found out recently that they're working with universities. I Googled it, I checked it. No information on it whatsoever. It's not out there. So, all of this excellent practice—.

And I will jump in with an obvious participation one, which I keep on raising on the floors of every political party, and that is: why have we not got free transport on open days to all Welsh universities? Why, when you turn up, are there always nice cars in universities on open days? Why aren't there buses taking whole student groups? Why aren't there university lectures put on for primary and secondary pupils? Why aren't there college lectures put on where you can just join online, and when you go to the further education college, or when you go to a sixth form, or when you go to university, you meet the person who's been lecturing? When the general teaching council first came out, there were training grants. There were research grants; 'research'—that's the word that seems to be lost in education. I see 'research' written there, but it's really important.

There are lots of solutions we can talk about, but if we're not in the room, we can't, and I know Lynne feels the same. Our frustration is we can meet with eight or nine different people, and we have to re-explain, and they're working in the same organisation. No one person is taking responsibility for increasing participation in Wales. Let's go back to Wrexham. It sounds great, doesn't it? My son's friends, when they talk about it, they talk about Marvel, they talk about the impact on the town. It's unrecognisable. Good marketing, pathways—students don't know what they're doing.

We have a situation where people who don't get on to a dentistry course or medicine think there's no other option for them, so they take a year out. We have this ridiculous scenario where people don't know what they want to do because there's no pathways booklet. There's no glossy document. There are cuts to career services and so on. No-one's putting this information together. There's no HE in schools where there should be. You've got all these job losses. You could potentially put a lot of people to work, to outreach work, and there's some really good work in the north of England, I know, on this issue, where they speak to students about the potential for students to go on to university. Vocational courses, parity of esteem, parity of qualifications—all these things are really important.

And having the same people in the room. We've done fringes ourselves, with the National Education Union; we've done it with other education unions as well—the NAHT. We've talked about the importance of starting at three, all the way through. The solutions aren't in post-16. The solutions are much earlier. We have those solutions, but I'm getting a little bit frustrated that I have to keep on repeating them, because no-one's—. We have a brand new organisation set up; there should be somebody's responsibilities to do this information, and work closely with the trade unions on that. I know these are long-term solutions, some of them, but those long-term solutions are what we should be thinking about, because we could make a real impact.

Party politics aside, there's nothing you said that I could disagree with, personally and professionally. But I do want to ask you—. So, if I could wave my wand, give you everything you wanted, whose responsibility should all those things fall under, from your perspective? Who should be dealing with all of this? Who should be arranging all of these things, to make sure that they come true?

Just coming in very briefly—. You've asked a number of very good questions. Too many cooks spoiling the broth, as you know—an overmighty chef might destroy a restaurant. We've moved from a situation in the last 30, 40 years whereby we had a degree of collegiate governance—so, people at all levels in the university were collaborating with one another. Senate, which was sovereign in academic matters, was listened to and heeded, to a position whereby, in Cardiff University, for instance, now, Senate unanimously votes down plans, and yet they sail through council. There is dysfunction across the board. Back in the day, registrars were tribunes. They would be there, on boards of governance, and they could turn around and, not veto, but certainly raise concerns. For the most part, they've now been demoted to the status of clerks—no offence to any clerks today, but there we are.

We have seen a hollowing out of collegiate governance, which still exists, incidentally, in Oxford and Cambridge and Queen's University Belfast, and other places—that sort of university. They are perfectly collegiate, and they do very well indeed. We've seen a turn to corporate governance, largely in response to a smouldering financial crisis, and, as we will hopefully discover later, that has given rise to very questionable decisions. Gareth talks about participation. Putting it starkly, around 30 per cent of Welsh kids go to university. In Northern Ireland, which, I would suggest, is our closest economic comparator, it's around 40 per cent. In the greater London area, it's 50 per cent. Those figures speak for themselves. So, anybody who turns around and says we need less HE in Wales because kids aren't going needs to address that question.

To put it very bluntly, what we need is a presence—HE needs a presence in schools. When I went to school, I remember I saw the people with their sixth form ties, and I had something to aspire to. There was a common room. There we are. I knew that, if I did well, I would go into the sixth form, and I would go to university. Now, you might do an apprenticeship and get to university via a vocational route. That is the beauty of a tertiary system—people from a broad range of backgrounds reaching the same destination via a variety of different routes. That is how it should work. But think about it: if there's no university in Maesteg, in Torfaen, in Blaina, or in Tondu, the advantages of a university education are remote, they will not occur to people.

And that, incidentally, undercuts consent for international recruitment. International students are so important, not simply because they cross-subsidise research and teaching, but also because they bring expertise. They enrich our communities. There we go. But we all remember Brexit, when people felt that they weren't getting a good deal, and how they then turned around and took a particular position. If we have a situation where Welsh communities do not feel that their kids have a chance of going to universities, that undermines consent for universities, let alone international recruitment.

You talk about a utopia. That's an interesting one. We need to sort out governance. There's no doubt about that. We need to stabilise the financial situation. We have ideas about that, but that largely lies at the UK level. One thing that I would point out is that big business has massively benefited from the huge increase in access—all those productive graduates who produce a lot of profit. The cost of a degree is currently carried by those graduates, by the public purse, and, oddly, by our members, who are taking pay cuts and all manner of things. We think it's probably time for business to take a share of that too, particularly when you consider that, over the same period, their investment in workforce training has dropped by 50 per cent. We need more money. If we have more money, we have more opportunities. In the meantime, if we collaborate, we can possibly muddle through. Does that make sense?

It certainly does. So, when it comes to governance—. You've mentioned governance, you've mentioned international students, which we as a committee are all aware are coming down in numbers, basically. I appreciate what you said about Brexit, but we can't deny that countries themselves have built up such great educational platforms themselves that students don't want to go anywhere—let alone to Wales, to the UK, anywhere. So, that—I appreciate the immigration statuses that people have spoken about, and we've had evidence of that—I can take all of that on board. When you talk about governance, one organisation that we're constantly hearing about in this committee is Medr. I see a nodding of heads. Do you think that they have a bigger role to play in order to help resolve many of these issues that you've mentioned just now? So, when it comes to that body—

I know there are people who want to speak further, but I just want to be clear: it's great to have representatives here. But we have two trade union representatives—that's all. So, that's a significant issue. And it's the sub-committees that are really important as well, and we don't. The workload on our representatives from Unison and UCU—and I know that Lynne can speak to that far more than I will on this issue—is really important. I do understand they're new, and I don't want to go into being highly critical, but we need to know who we're speaking to, because they are speaking to us, but we're speaking to so many different people. We just need to be clear. There should be somebody we speak to on participation, there should be—. At the moment, there's a bit of an issue on clarity of roles, so hopefully that will improve. But it is their role; it's clear that it's their role. And although we can work with them—. Myself, luckily, I also have a role within the joint trade unions on the Wales negotiations committee further education. So, we're chair and secretary on that group as well. So, not only are we involved in higher education, but we both have a democratic role representing all of the trade unions who are active in the FE sector as well. So, we're in an ideal place to be able to do this and work with other unions. But, yes, Medr has a clear role, and we need a defined role on who we should be speaking to about what.

I'd just go back to the original question: why would the leader come to the trade union—you know, the leader of an organisation? I think because it is the ethos of the public sector, isn't it, that the people who work there all have a vested interest in it being really effective and working. People don't work in education these days—certainly in professional support staff roles—unfortunately, for the money, because that's, effectively, gone down over the years, but people really care. So, I think the people you speak to about how can we make this organisation work are the people who are working in it. As I say, the trade unions, we have members, but, actually, we're—. When they consult with us, we're speaking on their behalf.

And also something that just hasn't been touched on is that it's not just people who are 18 who go to university. So many people return to, or want to return to, education, and, historically, have. I was talking to some—. There's a number of theatre support workers in Aneurin Bevan who are currently being released to do their degrees, their nursing degrees; we have people in schools. But the route back into education isn't easy once you've got a wage, but I think it does come down to—. I think Medr, it's evolving, and we've developed fairly good relationships with them, and they've developed very good relationships across Wales, I think, but it's where is that role and how does it do it? But Dan is an associate board member with Medr, so I think he probably has a little more to say than I would.

Yes. Obviously, as a board member, I'm bound to support the organisation, to a certain degree—just to put it out there—but I do think there's a role for Medr in all this. It's a new organisation. I think it's transitioning from—because a lot of the staff are inherited from the Higher Education Funding Council for Wales—an organisation that was primarily focused on higher education regulation—financial regulation—into tertiary. It's not there yet, but it's on a journey, and I agree, I think there is a role for Medr.

Taking my colleague's point earlier on about whether there could be a place for a HE equivalent of the WNCFE, yes, I would see Medr having a role in that facilitation, or providing a conduit through the university employers. But the only thing—. I would want to take you back to your original question: why would a private organisation open their books up to us? I think it's fair to say that universities, as you pointed out, they're private sector when they want to be and they think they sit in the middle when they want, depending on what's on offer from Welsh Government. While they're not public sector, they are public service, delivering a service to the public, and they have a unique role, set within the Welsh Government's industrial strategy, in training social workers, training teachers, training police, paramedics, nurses, doctors—you name it. So, I do think it does sit straddling that middle between the public and private—and they do try to sit on the fence—but I think that's the reason why they should be opening books and being more transparent. Because most universities are funded, indirectly, by the public purse. Nearly all of them rely on—. Between 90 and 95 per cent of their funding comes from the tuition fee, which, in turn, comes from the public purse, indirect. So, that—. Just to go back to your original question.

Thank you for answering my question. And I apologise to the committee because I feel like I've hijacked this session—

We've run about 20 minutes over. So, if you could keep your contributions as concise as possible, please, because we are so far behind now.

I know. I realised that as I was looking at the clock while you were talking. So, my last question in relation to what we've just spoken about—. And I promise, Chair, I will come back to the HE stuff that I want to go on to as well. So, I want to just touch—. One final question. And you can just, please, answer in 'yes' or 'no', because I am conscious the Chair's going to be looking at me and giving me death eyes in a minute for going over time. Just 'yes' or 'no'. What you said about Medr, about not having a person or a direct contact in order to be able to communicate with when it comes to—. Having a clear-cut role—. I appreciate what Medr is there for; we all know what they're doing, we all get how much they're getting in order to be able to help all the different educational institutions that are out there to get that support. From your perspectives, have you got a clear-cut definition as to what they're doing, who they're dealing with and who you're to deal with when it comes to the roles that they carry out?

Yes.

Yes.

You do? Okay. That's fine. That's all right. That—

Just not on specific issues, like participation. But, generally, I've got to say, they're very accessible to us.

Okay.

And things are developing.

Fine. Okay. That's good. All right. So, let me come back to my HE questions now, that I was going to come back to. Evidence suggests that institutions are responding to the financial challenges they face in different ways—so they could be from redundancies to restructuring provisions. So, while you're clear you don't support compulsory redundancies, which is fine, what are your views on the other approaches that are taken by other universities?

Right. This is very complicated, and it goes back to that you have to engage with the workforce. So, my frustration in any of the opportunities is the lack of working together; as public services providing a public service, they don't work together. So, in schools, for instance, it can be frustrating, but we did have a redeployment situation across. There's no discussion on what types of courses they could run; there's no Welsh way. So, other ways they—. The types of things they have done are to put a freeze on recruitment—that can be quite positive—and realising that, if you give people an opportunity and the proper training, there is a transferability of skills—so that's been a huge positive—forward thinking, in terms of the types of courses and letting staff know earlier on that, 'This is the type of thing we're going to need in the future', so we can plan for it; working more closely with local communities. And some—in fairness—institutions are working with further education colleges to realise that's where a lot of these students are going to come from; so that's a really positive way of working as well. It's just that transparency of what the role is and futureproofing it—that's really, really important. But compulsory redundancies—. It's preferable, but that brings its own problems. It's a really difficult question to answer.

Okay.

Can I come in just for a second? Because in terms of—. Cardiff University have started their process with academic staff, whereas every other university we're dealing with have started with professional support staff. And so we have been through consultations that have, in the very main, resulted in voluntary severances, restructures, redeployment. So, that is preferable for the staff, because then at least the people who are interested in taking a voluntary package are able to. So, it's easier, I suppose, although—. But what really concerns us is that their job's gone. Their job's gone, that we're not going to—unless there's a huge turnaround—we're not going to get back. So, that works in terms of maybe making it easier for individuals—not everyone's selected for voluntary severance—and sometimes there's a small enhancement, which makes it easier for people, and it certainly makes it easier for people over 55 in terms of their pension. But there is no way that we can work at the moment that avoids people's jobs being cut and, again, recruitment freezes and so on. So, it can be done in a way that makes it more straightforward, but we'd rather not be in the position.

Thank you so much. Thanks, Chair.

Okay, thank you. We now have some questions from Joel, please.

Thank you, Chair. I'm conscious of the time, so I'll try and be brief. You've mentioned Medr quite a bit, and I just wanted to get a bit of a better idea about some responses you've made in your written evidence. Obviously, we've had Medr in in the past, and they've said that, in the short term, they don't see universities collapsing, but you've mentioned in your written response that you could definitely see a scenario of that happening, and I just wanted to get some clarification on that.

Obviously, you can have two statements that are opposite that could also be true on this. So, what we're saying on this one is that, without change, we will see universities collapsing or contracting significantly where they can no longer deliver what they deliver. And that then, if you read our response, ties into the industrial strategy of Welsh Government. If a university has to change and contract that significantly, can it then do what Welsh Government needs it to do, in terms of—I've talked about it a lot—social workers, nurses, the public sector expertise, really, coming in for our public services in the future? So, I think that's the point we're making.

Nearly all universities are making cuts to some degree or another. Some might not be saying, 'We're making voluntary or compulsory redundancies', but, when people leave, for example, the job is frozen, which then has an impact on the existing staff—you're doing the same with less staff. So, I think that's the point we're making. There's an impact on every single university, they're contracting, the financial base is shrinking and—I think we'll be talking about it later on—participation, and, talking about the long-term picture, participation needs to increase. Unless home student numbers go back up, we're going to be in this scenario of constantly contracting, because the international market, whilst it has seen some small increases, the political decisions made at Westminster have meant the market has collapsed.

That brings me on to a separate question, then, because we've also talked about what's happening at Wrexham University and, obviously, in your written evidence, you've said universities are making job cuts and you said they're contracting and everything, but, if we are to believe the media, Wrexham seems to be quite flourishing. And I just want to get some idea there.

Yes, and, having read Wrexham's report to the committee, then they are in a more favourable position, I think, than we originally were concerned about. But they're not replacing—. They're not filling jobs when people leave, that's what I'm trying to say. So, they have got a recruitment freeze, unless it's urgent, and, of course, they have been buoyed up, haven't they, by the nursing provision. But I think our overall concern is that—. And I think, us having this conversation, it doesn't help in terms of that view of Welsh universities, so I think we need to find, together, a solution that puts it back on a different footing really quickly. I don't know what that is.

Jamie.

I'm going to risk brevity, but I didn't have the opportunity to chat to governance, so I will now. One thing that Wrexham has done is avoided the missteps that we see in other areas of the sector. So, I'm going to speak in a rant, and not talk about any specific institution, however we have institutions that have included disastrous banking covenants, which specify staff savings—also known as 'they've agreed to get rid of staff'—at punishing rates of interest. And yet we have other institutions who have very favourable arrangements. That is a failure of governance, clearly. We also have situations where institutions have undertaken—I like this one—private finance initiative agreements on student accommodation and then find themselves indentured in the very, very long term. I wouldn't know how to start to enumerate some of the decisions that we have seen. What I would say is that Wrexham has looked to its own resilience and avoided any questionable moves.

Do you think its rebranding has been a part of that, then, as well?

Well, going back to what I said about participation, I think our marketing is appalling in Wales, I have to be honest, for our Welsh universities. I think a lot of work has got to be done, and it should be done for everyone. We should all be doing it. And we need to go back to schoolteachers, and they need to be saying—because I’m not convinced they are anymore—'University is a viable option for you, if you’re doing vocational courses, or if you’re doing academic—these are all viable options.' So, they need to know as well, they need to have trust that, 'Is it worth it?' As an ex-teacher, somebody came up to me and said, 'I’m not sure I want the debt.' Whether it’s debt or not, what would my response be? I’m not sure. I’m unsure myself, and I’ve never been unsure. I’ve been brought up in Merthyr Tydfil. My parents always said, 'Always go to university'—it was always the right thing to do—'It’s always your escape from poverty, it’s your way forward.' I’m not convinced, now, that I’d be able to argue the same thing. But I’m hoping, in a couple of years, if everyone listens to our ways forward on participation, that I will be able to say that again.

I think that’s a good point, because my parents are from Porth and Tylorstown, and they were very much of the same mindset. You go to university, you go on to a high-paying job, and, thankfully, I’ve gotten here. And like you, Gareth, I don’t necessarily think, if my child said, 'Shall I go to university?', I would necessarily be as strong in support of that as my parents were, if that makes sense.

If I’ve got time, Chair—

Briefly.

A final question, really, for Gareth and Jamie. My question is going to brief, but I suspect your response might be a bit long. You mentioned in your written evidence about the reaping, basically—the past financial mistakes that they’ve made. And you touched upon it there briefly. Do we have time just to get an idea?

I’m really very pleased because I have nothing to add to what I previously said. I mean, basically, we have a situation where institutions have misstepped, and that has been from the context of a boom and bust model, and the fact that fees haven’t risen—I know they have recently—for 15 years. The original sin was in 2010, where you had a situation whereby fees were politically capped. You couldn’t raise them, and then, of course, we had the huge inflation spikes of 2023, and whatever else, and prices went up. They didn’t come down again. I think we’ve all noticed that. And universities have done the best they can.

I could say a lot about Cardiff’s business model. That is in the evidence. I would refer you to that, because that would take a good five minutes, and I’m concerned that I might annoy the Chair. [Laughter.] So, if you have a look at the specific mention of Cardiff and their business model, they are an outrider, they are trying to do something else. Is that useful?

Yes.

Perfect.

Okay, thank you. We now have questions from me. So, can you please be as brief as possible with your answers?

Sorry.

That's fine. So, the written evidence from Unison notes a two-tier approach to Welsh higher education institutions' employees, where business and professional support staff suffer discrimination. Additionally, Unison note that support staff workers in Welsh universities have been the most vulnerable to job cuts, as the financial model for universities are based on changed. Is this the case across all HEIs and how can this be addressed?

Yes, I think there are obvious examples where some have gone further than others. Across the sector, you do have the case that professional support staff tend to be the first ones to be reviewed for job losses, not completely—[Inaudible.]—but they tend to be the first ones that tend to be lost. If academics are the lifeblood of an institution, support staff—professional support staff—are the artery, the veins that accompany that.

The exact example of a two-tier workforce is probably in your own constituency, which is the University of South Wales, which no longer employs support staff directly, and uses a subsidiary shell company to avoid pension arrangements—the local government pension scheme in particular. And we know other institutions have looked at that model and explored viability. We don’t want to give them ideas, but we expect something along those lines to be explored in the future as cuts continue, but that does bring you a two-tier workforce. In fact, you could even argue, because very senior managers are outside of national bargaining, you have a three-tier workforce. So, that’s the point we’re trying to make as a union that, in the main, represents professional support staff in universities.

If I can briefly add to that, Buffy, if that's okay, so with higher education pay, there's a set pay and grading system. We've now got the bottom four or five scale points all merged into one, because they're at the foundation living wage, which universities are signed up to, but doesn't have to be implemented until later in the year. We had four universities for the last pay year, which is just finishing, not implement the agreed pay offer—those were Trinity Saint David, Bangor, Aberystwyth and Cardiff Met—because of the financial situation. So, if you're looking at who loses the most with that, it's the people on the lower end of the pay scale.

The pay offer under consultation at the moment for HE across the UK is 1.4 per cent, which is actually a pay cut. Obviously, that's out for consultation. I know it's a sign of where the sector is, but who is going to have the least pay on 1.4 per cent? It's the lowest paid. Just to say, the thing is about our academic colleagues, much as we respect them, it's an easy measure, isn't it? They've got this many students, they're doing this many tutorials, they're doing this much research and they're delivering x amount of lectures. For our staff, the members we represent, we can just take up from 12 administrators to 10 and they can just do more work. It's very difficult to measure the amount of work.

Bear in mind as well that our residences members, our security members are reporting such an increase in the poor mental health and well-being of students. So, they are the front-facing people who are dealing with those problems. There are fewer of them, there's more pressure, and there are some issues, for example, with some of the residences because of the lack of funding. I would say it's different treatment as opposed to discrimination, if you wanted to take a legal term. But, yes, they are the easy targets, and I'm not criticising the employers as such, whereas if you say to the press, 'Cardiff University's cutting nursing', everyone's on that, aren't they? They're not on it when it's, 'We're halving the security staff on the campus at night.'

That's a fair point. Thank you for that. So, my next question is: our committee's report on mental health support in higher education was clear about the important role institutions have in delivering well-being support to learners and taking a whole-system approach to student well-being. Is there any evidence that student mental health has been affected by the recent turbulence at HE institutions, or that there are proposals to cut provision for learners' mental health due to the financial challenges facing higher education?

This is cross sector. This is everywhere. This is a crisis that everyone needs to be involved in. This starts at three all the way through, and wider into the public. We're talking about increasing participation, the worry is our participation is already low. But this is not going to help the mental health of our students. The pressure on them, the pressure on staff, the lack of available people to deal with it from the professional services side, from well-being sides—it's just an impossibility.

Student unions and campuses are inundated with far more issues than they've had before. I'm sure the NUS will be speaking far more widely on this as well. But the impact on everyone is demoralising, because I'm not saying it's not the same elsewhere, but there is a Wales way. There's a pride about where you go, a real pride if you go to a Welsh institution. When you read negative things about your institution, it really does impact people. It has a huge impact. But when they see the popular staff, staff they've given their time for them, not being there anymore, that's a huge impact, a massive impact. Wider, as I said, there is a huge cut, because it's the easy option to cut and pay lip service to. We've got a mental health crisis in this country, and other places as well, I accept. So, for me, it is having a huge, huge impact. But I'm sure we'll get more information from what's happening in institutions themselves.

Just very quickly, I think Natasha touched on this, the vice-chancellor, when she visited committee, said that with the staff suffering with mental health issues it is more personal than it is professional. I just wondered if you could give a comment on that.

Well, it's just not true, is it? It's as simple as that. A lot of our highly qualified academics can find work elsewhere—that's not the issue. They've got a lot of pride in the institution they work for, and it's back to what I said in that it's the same in every sector; teachers are very proud of—. You become embedded in the culture. But also, I'm not a doctor, so I wouldn't be brave enough to make a generic statement as to what causes stress for individuals; there are people far better qualified than me and far better qualified than people who make those statements as well.

Can I briefly—? Sorry. In terms of personal stress, I mean, everyone has different personal stresses in their lives. You know, our mental well-being is fluctuating, isn't it? But going back to the professional support staff in Cardiff University, who've now known for six or seven months that something's going to happen but they don't know what, yes, there probably is an impact on their personal life if they're disabled, if they're carers, if they've got family members who are disabled, or they're lone parents. So, yes, their personal circumstances will affect their stress levels, but I think it's offensive to say that anyone's stress is personal, because your work is part of your life, isn't it, and so I think she should rethink those remarks in the context.

Yes. I haven't got a lot to add to the Cardiff context, although I did speak to my colleague in Cardiff University who said, obviously, that the process has impacted them, and also the biggest reason for sickness in nearly all universities across Wales is now mental health-related, and you can link that directly to when the financial problems started hitting and universities started contracting.

Going back to your earlier question in terms of the impact on students and mental health, well, this goes back to my earlier point around support staff being normally the first to go. They normally look at the 'nice to have' and, unfortunately, some of the mental health support is seen as 'nice to have' and that has, in turn, put pressure on student unions to deliver some of it, but remember, in time, most student unions on campuses in universities get block funding from the university, which, in turn, is contracting and therefore it contracts the block fund as well. It's a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Okay. Can I go to Jamie next, please?

Yes, I'll be very, very brief. I mean, that was a remarkable assertion, and I enjoyed watching Wendy Larner's evidence. I'm going to make a blunt statement: look at the public and not-for-profit sector in Wales and, indeed, in the UK; where else do you find a situation whereby workers confront pay freezes or pay deferrals, the constant undercutting of their workforce and increased workload through voluntary redundancy and other schemes and now the threat of compulsory redundancies? Where else do we find that? Nowhere, I'm guessing.

In terms of the mental health impacts, you need only look at that. I mean, consider how many people within scope in Cardiff University—. I spoke to these people and they were terrified. Where are they going to find work, because other universities are doing the same thing at the moment? The sector is in shock. The sector is contracting, quite frankly, you know—. I won't say that the comments were—. It was quite absurd. There we are.

Okay. Thank you. We now have a final question from Natasha, please.

Thank you, Chair. I will keep it brief, because I am conscious of time as well. So, the report's highlighting—. We have been made aware in the committee that the UCU have reported Cardiff University to the Health and Safety Executive, so I want to ask: are HEIs doing enough to support the staff welfare in institutions across Wales, and if not, what improvements can be made?

In terms of the Well Aware project that UCU have been involved with, in terms of having reps on the ground to work, your health and safety legislation in terms of health and safety committees has become weakened over time, and, again, the cross-sectoral weakened. So, bringing that strength in—. A report, in itself, can I just be clear, doesn't have to be seen in a negative way, as long as you take on board the recommendations that come from that report. I would reiterate as well that if a report of that nature has come in, there's always a reason behind it. And there comes a point where you keep on cutting the workforce and cutting the workforce, and while we're fighting against compulsory redundancies, the workload is going to go through the roof, isn't it? There's no question about it. Because the idea that people weren't working hard before and suddenly you cut the staff is not sustainable. So, are they doing enough—

Sorry to interrupt you then. The argument would be that if we're cutting a course, those teachers, lecturers, professors won't be in employment because there won't be any students, therefore what workload is there? Where would the workload be increasing from?

Well, because of cross—. I'll give an example: my son is doing courses—you don't just do courses in your subject any more, so a lot of them are doing cross-subjects. My son will do history and Spanish. The two subjects are not linked. In fact, part of what he did in middle eastern studies wasn't in the history department. So, again, there's cross-working in very important ways, but there's also a lot of other things that are happening in universities that link together, in terms of lectures that are put on, as generic ones, across subjects. We're moving more to a model of not just doing the straight degree now; you're moving in models elsewhere. Most universities now are recognising this, and there's going to be more of a movement. But it's not just that; they don't close a subject and then all of them have gone, necessarily, because most university lecturers will be teaching more than one subject area.

Just to follow on from what Gareth was saying there, as professional support staff numbers are cut, a lot of them who supported academic delivery have gone, so the workload has gone onto the academics to do what the support staff used to do. It's all linked together. So, when you're cutting a course, it doesn't automatically mean the workload goes down, because there are other parts around the cross-linking of courses. Also, the admin work and all the other stuff going on is still at a high level because of impacts from previous cuts. So, that's the workload that we're talking about.

When we're talking about what I was referring to earlier on with professional support staff cuts, such as Lynne's example, with 10 administrators down to eight, the work hasn't gone away, and there's not actually a lot less work. If you go from 20 courses to 10, there's not actually a lot less work. It doesn't quite work as simply as maybe you think it would from being outside the sector. The workload is really high. That's the reason for the mental health and fatigue, because the work hasn't gone down. The number of staff doing the work has gone down, but the work still remains.

Thank you very much. Thank you, Chair.

We've just pulled it back—just. Thank you so much for joining us this morning. We really do appreciate your time. You'll be sent a transcript for checking in due course. Thank you, again. We'll now take a short break until 10:45. Thank you so much.