Diolch yn fawr, Llywydd, and thank you to Plaid for tabling this debate. I move our amendments.

Although we don't agree with everything in the motion, there's quite a lot we do agree with, which is why you can see what our amendments look like. Neither can we simply accept the complacency inherent in the Welsh Government amendment, because actually, yes, they are right in recognising that universities are independent and autonomous; that's why we can't support the more heavily interventionist approach in some of Plaid's motion. But higher education institutes are in receipt of public funds, and for those they absolutely should be accountable, and accountable not just for the spend, but how effective that spend is. We as Welsh Conservatives consider accountability to include universities explaining how spending that money, our money, contributed to the value of a bigger picture, not just what that money was spent on. And questions need to be asked, such as: what would have been lost had Welsh Government not invested, via HEFCW routes or other routes? What sources of other money might have been available for the work? How much could a university raise itself? So, in amendment 4, we do ask Welsh Government to tell us what it considers about the sector's own finances before setting its annual budget allocation, which goes hand in hand, I think, with point 2 of the motion. If the sector's in the trouble that the tone of this debate would have us believe, then it is Welsh Government’s decisions that need our scrutiny just as much, if not more, than those of higher education institutions themselves.

In tabling just one amendment, Minister, you have actually forced us to accept or reject the whole lot. So, I'm afraid we have to reject the whole lot, not least because Scotland might argue a different interpretation of your point 2a, and universities may want to challenge your assessment of their settlement in point 2b. I might also want to push you further on being able to commit to what sounds a little bit like multi-year budgeting for HEFCW. But, strangely, we can't do that for schools. But I’ll leave that teaser for a future debate.

Turning now to the motion itself, the challenges facing the higher education sector are exciting and frightening, I think in equal measure. Yes, some providers in the sector are making cuts; they're realigning finances. They have shrunk that deficit by a considerable margin, for which they should be congratulated, because we recognise that the level of public funds going into the sector has been very difficult for institutions in recent years—too difficult, perhaps, in 2016-17. But, going back to the point, universities are private bodies and they can only complain about public funding to a point. I’ll make this one exception, because, when it comes to research, I think an apparent drop in funding from Government says something about Government's confidence, and that can risk a faculty's, let alone a whole institution's, reputation for original working or partnership working.

The number of 18-year-olds has fallen. The demands of global economies are changing rapidly. Students taking on debt are far less forgiving of courses that aren’t value for money or unattractive to employers. Those Tony Blair 'degrees for everybody' days are now, mercifully, being displaced by a more sensible culture of degrees for those who can gain advantage from them, and something else of equal value for others. And institutions must respond. They must regenerate for the modern age or fail. Diamond and Augur spell out the problem that we are all paying for a supply that outstrips demand, so what universities supply needs to change.

The two universities in my region have been transformed in the time I’ve been an Assembly Member, bringing an atmosphere of ambition to Swansea. And now we may well want to examine whether doing that on the projection of a growth in numbers at a time of a demographic dip was wise, or whether building ambition on the promise of unsecured finances, which—. I'm talking about the city deal here. But I don't think it can be for HEFCW to make good bad bargains if governing bodies mess that up, hence the change in our second amendment there. 

But that doesn't let HEFCW off the hook, which is why we've not challenged point 5 of the motion, which calls the bluff of you, Minister, in point 3 of your amendment. Governance needs to keep up with changing ambitions—internally for institutions and for HEFCW. And, if something’s not right, and HEFCW needs more powers or more accountability to help get the sector onto an even keel, then we shouldn't ignore that opening.

I think good vice-chancellors are crucial to the success of universities—which is why we don’t accept point 4 of the motion—but greedy vice-chancellors don't help the reputation of institutions either, and that's something that institutions need to consider.

But I just want to finish on the role of Welsh Government here, because it's got a serious role here, and it's not just about money per se. If it could get a move on with degree apprenticeships, then universities could start offering those and ditch more courses that nobody wants any more. If they're confident in the governance, perhaps they could pick up on the pace of the Swansea bay city deal sign-off, make some of the payments that are due. That would show that some of these risks are worth taking. Show a bit more ankle, perhaps, on the Reid review, because I think our universities still can lead the way to us being an innovation nation, which does know what it’s doing on the economy.