Mark Reckless AM: I understand you don't direct, of course, but my question was about advising. You're overseeing, or monitoring—or whatever you like to describe the role as—quite a number of institutions, and presumably you therefore have particular expertise within your organisation, and I just wondered whether higher education institutions are doing enough to draw on that.
Bethan Owen: I think we can advise—we can advise based on data and information that we can see. We can advise based on our judgment. The big thing in this whole Brexit scenario is the uncertainty and the extent to which our speculation is better informed than the governing bodies or the sector collectively is probably the issue.
Dr David Blaney: I think that's right. So, there's a relationship with the sector and there's a relationship with individual institutions, and they are different. So, we have engagement collectively with the sector. Bethan meets with the finance directors, and I meet with the vice-chancellors. We actually have the sector and the funding council together on the Welsh Government's group. So, some of these conversations are happening in various ways, where we're all gaining intelligence about what might be a sensible set of planning assumptions. Then, if we see an institution that is manifestly giving signs of not being sighted on some of these risks, either through their forecast or through other assurance activity, we will challenge. We have an annual cycle, with two points in the year where we reassess the overall risks of individual institutions, and that's based on a whole range of hard data but also a range of soft data. Our links into institutions are many and varied. We have lots of conversations and we take all of that in the round and form an assessment about the financial sustainability of the institutions but also the extent to which we think their governance and management arrangements are properly sighted and facing properly the challenges that they face. In some ways, we say it's not about the challenges they face; it's about how they face the challenges. Our alarm bells really ring when we get the sense that, actually, either an executive or a governing body hasn't really noticed. We're not in that place, I'm really pleased to say. I'm not worried about short-term crisis with any of the institutions. There are medium-term real challenges, both because of Brexit and because of other contextual factors, but at the moment the sector is a managed sector, which is good. It's not always like that, but we're in, I think, a good place at the moment. So, our role is definitely to challenge where we don't think they are making sensible assessments, but it's not to say that their assessment is wrong and ours is right; it's just to have a conversation about, 'Why have you done this and what has informed your thinking?' It's slightly more one step back and slightly more subtle, but it is, as you imply, us using the intelligence we gain from all of those conversations when we talk to individual institutions as well.
John Griffiths AM: Okay. Llyr.
Llyr Gruffydd AM: Yes, thank you. We had evidence last week from some of the higher education institutions, including Cardiff University, and it's very interesting, in relation to Erasmus+ and the mobility funding for students that, I think, only 40 per cent of the mobility funding in Cardiff is paid for by Erasmus+. I note that you've been consulting on national measures for higher education performance and that one possibility is using international mobility as a performance indicator. I was just wondering whether you might go further and expect universities to actually make commitments to funding international mobility from their own fee incomes as part of that.
Bethan Owen: Again, reflecting on the latest fee and access plans, seven of the universities are referring to mobility—either they have targets in them or are explaining what their plans are—so they are including an element of it from their own income and fee and access income. However, Erasmus is such a well-established and long-term plan—if we were looking at a scenario where that infrastructure wasn't available, to implement anything similar to that would be much less efficient and much more costly. And to enable an infrastructure that allowed—. Ideally, you'd want something that all Welsh institutions could take part in, and that takes some investment and some co-ordinating. And, equally, you need to have the arrangements with your overseas and European institutions. I think it's easy to underestimate the accumulation of time that has gone into establishing Erasmus. So, I think replacing it would be a challenge.
Llyr Gruffydd AM: And the point was made clearly last week that the brand is internationally recognised. When you enter into Erasmus+, you know exactly what you're going to get, and all of that. But there have been criticisms as well about degrees of flexibility and this, that and the other, so I'm just wondering whether—and there is presumably going to be some change on that front although I'm hoping we can buy into it, as others have done who aren't in the EU—that emphasis on encouraging institutions to look more proactively at funding their own mobility efforts would be positive.
Dr David Blaney: I think the—
Llyr Gruffydd AM: Sorry—especially if it means that they do more of it.
Dr David Blaney: Indeed. I think the Welsh sector is definitely committed to trying to find ways of promoting and resourcing that sort of mobility. There are signs that some of the restrictive elements of the Erasmus programme are going to change anyway, because that's under development and that's positive. There have been positive noises as part of the Brexit negotiations about wanting to carry on being able to access the Erasmus programme. Nothing is agreed until it's all agreed apparently, so we'll have to see on that one. That would be far better, I think, as Bethan indicates, than trying to replace it with a made-in-Wales only, but you could have a made-in-Wales on top. All of these challenges also create opportunities because they stimulate thinking, and so the fact that seven of the eight universities are already now using their fee plans as a vehicle for thinking about this is positive, and I think we can take that on from there.
Llyr Gruffydd AM: Because that 40/60 split struck me as being the opposite to what I perceived the situation to be. A key part of your role is to work in partnership with students, so I'd just like to ask what work have you done with students, in terms of maybe protecting their interests as the Brexit scenario evolves?
Dr David Blaney: Well, as you say, we do work with students. We were the first of the funding councils in the UK to have a memorandum of understanding with the National Union of Students in Wales. We work very closely with them and the president of NUS is an observer on our council. So, we have close links with NUS Wales and we're very proud of that, and it's very productive. They don't have a vote, but they do have a voice and it really matters. We we're, again, ahead of the rest of the UK in requiring all HE providers to have student charters and there are elements of student protection within the student charter. The UK-wide quality code also has elements in it where arrangements have to be specified about the protection of student interests. That is particularly, in essence, around circumstances where a provider gets into difficulties and they might wish to close a course or something more drastic and then what arrangements are in place to make sure that those students who are in train are protected. So, that is there and we've worked hard with the sector and with NUS Wales to get those measures in place. There's more development work in train at the moment, so we've asked Universities Wales to construct a protection that takes account of the approach to protecting the student interests in higher education. We're also requiring further education institutions who are regulated and deliver higher education to do similar or the same, and that's very important. The students who are HE students in FE are absolutely not second-best, and they should have the same protections.