Lynne Neagle AM: Hefin David has some questions now on fee and access plans.
Hefin David AM: Are you concerned that neither the regulator nor the sector seem to have any confidence in fee and access plans?
Kirsty Williams AM: I think the concept of a fee and access plan is an important concept. Whether we can do them better, whether we can reflect on what's happened to date and create a better system of what's included in a fee and access plan and how those fee and access plans can be monitored, there's an opportunity to do that in forthcoming legislation.
Hefin David AM: So, have you been aware of specific issues yourself? Have they brought them to you?
Kirsty Williams AM: Well, no, not in the sense that they've brought them to me to talk about specifically. From my perspective, fee and access plans are focused very much on inputs, and, really, I'd like to think about outputs and outcomes, more importantly—what are the outcomes of the fee and access plan, not necessarily just how much money has been spent on them. I think, certainly, to really understand the success of the fee and access plan, you have to question whether an annual basis is an appropriate timescale for a university to be working to, and whether we could have something that was focused over a longer period of time. Because, when you think about it, you write the plan and then you're into it, and then, the next thing you know, you're writing your next year's plan. So, I think there's an opportunity there to look to restructure. So, do I see a place for fee and access plans going forward, as part of our outcome agreements? Yes, I do. Can we do them differently to make them more effective? Yes, I think we can.
Hefin David AM: So, why would introducing outcome agreements make them work any better?
Kirsty Williams AM: Well, I think they're going to be a part of an outcome agreement—part of that wider expectation. So, fee and access plans are there to address an issue around, primarily, changing the nature of people who go to university and making sure that nobody is put off from pursuing that. So, that's part of a wider piece of work that I'd want to see as an outcome agreement. But, as I said, I think looking at outcomes for students and outcomes of that activity, rather than the inputs of the activity, over a longer period of time, is probably a more effective way of doing it. I think it's still—. In a way, it's difficult to make a final judgment on whether fee and access plans in their current format have worked, because we need to know what'll happen to those students in the future. But undoubtedly, despite the limitations of them, I do think we're making progress in terms of access, but I don't think we can necessarily point to the fee and access plans as being the driver for some of those improvements.
Hefin David AM: No, I appreciate that, and some of the things you're saying reflect some of the discussions we've had, but what was clear is that the process and bureaucratic nature of the way you present fee and access plans doesn't work, particularly given the fact that, four years on, early fee and access plans are still being evaluated. There's a real problem there. So, what you're saying—can I just pin down what you're saying—is that we may be moving away from yearly fee and access plans to something that's longer term and outcome focused.
Kirsty Williams AM: That's my preference. So, I think the principle—I'd like to think we can all agree around the principle of what a fee and access plan is hoping to achieve, but I think there are better ways of doing it, and I think we should take the opportunity of reform to look at how we can do it better.
Hefin David AM: So, with that in mind, I think we're talking about the future of the Bill, the consultation on the PCET reforms closed in summer 2018—with these important issues in mind and things that are currently ongoing, have you had further dialogue since then with key stakeholders like, for example, Universities Wales and others?
Kirsty Williams AM: On the Bill or on fee and access plans in particular?
Hefin David AM: I'm thinking about fee and access plans as an issue that suggests that there is a need for deep consultation, so with that in mind, with things like that, have you had further discussion?
Kirsty Williams AM: Oh my goodness me, civil servants in the department are constantly in discussion with a range of stakeholders as we continue to develop legislative proposals. I meet on a regular basis with both HEFCW—I meet separately with the vice-chancellors, and I've been very keen to develop a stronger working relationship with chairs, and perhaps we'll come on to issues of governance later. So, we are constantly discussing with stakeholders all options for change—
Hefin David AM: I suppose the message I'm getting as chair of the cross-party group on higher education is that there could still be more direct consultation with stakeholders. That's the message I've received. Now, I've got no evidence to say it has or hasn't happened, but that's the message I've received.
Huw Morris: If I could just chip in for a moment, the Minister's outlined that there is very extensive, ongoing communication both ways with the sector, but the challenge of preparing a Bill is the balancing act between gathering in information—and there's been a general consultation process and a technical consultation process—and wanting to make sure that the Bill that's laid next year hasn't been discussed with anybody else before it comes to be considered by the Senedd. So, the broad principles have been discussed, but specific details of what goes into a Bill or policy instructions that inform a Bill haven't been the subject of consultation—
Hefin David AM: Because that happens at Stage 1.
Huw Morris: Indeed, yes.