‘I didn’t lie to you’, Cardiff University chief tells Senedd Committee

Martin Shipton

The Chair of Cardiff University’s Council has written to the Chair of a Senedd Committee denying that he lied when giving evidence to it last week.

Nation.Cymru published an account of a meeting of the University Senate last week by one of its academic members, who asked not to be named.

The account included an allegation that the University Council’s Chair, TV executive Pat Younge, had lied when he suggested that members of staff were supportive of the university’s cuts programme.

‘Thoughtful’

In a letter to Buffy Williams MS, who chairs the Senedd’s children, Young Persons and Education Committee, Mr Younge stated:“I am writing to thank you for the opportunity, along with our Vice Chancellor, Prof. Wendy Larner, to address the committee last week, and to directly respond to your questions about Cardiff University.

“Public accountability of this kind is important, and I’d like to thank the committee for the thoughtful and considered conduct of the meeting.

“The committee may be aware of an article, quoting an anonymous source, that claims I ‘lied’ in my evidence to the committee. Cardiff University doesn’t usually respond to stories based on anonymous sources, but lying to and misleading a Senedd committee is a serious allegation; to my personal integrity, the university’s reputation and the standards we all aspire to for the conduct of public affairs and therefore need to be addressed.

“In these published comments, it was claimed that I told the CYPE Committee that “everyone bought into the vision [of ‘Academic Futures’], but nobody likes cuts to their bit [of the university], it is natural.”

“A review of the remarks in question would show that I was explicitly giving my view on the preceding strategy development exercise, Y Sgwrs Fawr – The Big Conversation. I was also explicitly clear at the end of my remarks that I was offering no view on Academic Futures other than it was necessary. This is clear from the draft transcript:

Patrick Younge: Council’s role in this is quite specific because council’s job is to—. We are the internal regulator, we’re not the management, we’re not involved in the day to day. We ask ourselves some basic questions. Does what’s proposed align with the strategy? We spent a whole year doing the ‘big conversation’—a massive participatory exercise across the university. One of the outcomes of that exercise, which I think everybody bought into, was that Cardiff University needs to be a slightly smaller, more focused university with better experiences for staff and students. And I think everybody buys the vision, but nobody wants their bit to be the bit that gets smaller, and that’s natural and that’s human. Has the process been rigorous? What is the evidence that the process will deliver? Are we going to be compromising quality? How do we ensure that, having done this, we can secure continuous improvement? How would we build the culture, and will it let the university fly? Will it let the university really achieve what it can? Those are the questions we asked ourselves at council, and having been shared the—. We weren’t asked to approve Our Academic Future before it went out to the university. That’s management’s job, but we had an informational session with them, as did the unions, as did others, and we will now look at what’s come back from that, and then we will take a decision. So, I won’t give you a view on anything that’s in Our Academic Future, apart from the fact that it is necessary, because Council doesn’t meet until next week. (Para 110, our emphasis)

“In our oral and written evidence, we explained that our strategy is based on the outcomes of our Y Sgwrs Fawr – The Big Conversation, a year-long participatory exercise across the university and beyond. I would be happy to provide further information on Y Sgwrs Fawr – The Big Conversation if that would be helpful for the committee.

“I would also note that, in response to a question from Cefin Campbell MS, the Vice-Chancellor informed the committee of the Senate debate, the outcome of the Senate vote and that Council would be informed of the advice provided by Senate.

“I am sorry that I feel the need to write to the committee in these terms, but misleading a Senedd committee is a serious allegation, and I wanted to take the opportunity to rebut the allegation directly and promptly.”

Critique

Meanwhile the University and College Union branch at Cardiff University has published a critique of the university’s latest cuts plans, which are due to be considered at a meeting of the University Council on June 17.

The UCU critique states: “UEB [University Executive Board] plans draw on reserves to rapidly facilitate restructuring. The university has a strong balance sheet even aside from endowment funds and the bond repayment fund, with more financial resources (adjusted for size) than the vast majority of the sector and the Russell Group.

“ UEB is planning to use some of this reserve to restructure the university on a short, high-risk timeline with the continued risk of compulsory redundancies. We suggest the same reserves can be used to restructure in a measured and prudent fashion.

“A more measured timeline would enable careful management of programme reforms, marketing, academic workload and efforts to increase research income generation for REF2029. This would pose significantly less risk to academic sustainability and reputation which are vital for the university’s mission and financial health.

“The Academic Futures plan advocates Student Staff Ratios that are well outside of current sector norms. This significant sudden change risks serious damage to academic programmes’ attractiveness and to league table positions.

“The plans contain no market analysis and no proposed academic portfolios to evidence that the markets sought and financial returns targeted are realistic and justified. Staff report increasing workloads, chaotic administration as services are also restructured, and further breakdown of already frayed trust, a fundamental risk to sustainable business.

“The formal collective consultation remains incomplete. Staff and senate have not received:

The evidence-based business cases, market analyses, and financial details to justify high Staff-Student Ratios across all Schools under Academic Futures;

The evidence-based business cases, market analyses, and financial details to justify proposed School mergers;

The justifications, risk assessments and due diligence for TNE;

Any specifics of the academic portfolios or programmes for all merged Schools;

The justification for the closure of some degrees (German, Religion, Ancient History) that have higher student numbers than some that are being maintained (Chinese);

Any agreed minutes of collective consultation meetings with the trade unions, including any minutes at all of the university-level collective consultation meetings;

Any minutes or decision-making notes from the Academic Futures Task and Finish Group to justify decisions made on revising proposals;

There has been no written feedback on counter-proposals submitted;

There have been no responses to many of the external stakeholder submissions to the consultation process, including regarding programmes set for closure.

‘In scope’

It continues:“Proposals to allow UEB to move staff back ‘in scope’ on an indefinite timeline (Academic Futures final business case p. 37) risk creating conditions for constructive dismissal and risking legal action. ACAS has also informed UEB that this is bad practice. UCU is seeking legal advice on potential breaches of the law in relation to meaningful consultation.

“There is a risk that current plans may not align with the University’s charitable objectives, potentially exposing the institution to regulatory scrutiny.

“The University is already subject to Health and Safety Executive reporting based on a staff survey demonstrating the extreme adverse impacts and health risks of the Academic Futures process, with potential for further investigation.

“Transnational education projects (TNE) are high-risk on the university’s own risk matrix, including the proposal for ‘flying faculty’ from September 2025. It is unclear who is funding the TNE project in Kazakhstan and staff have seen no risk assessments or due diligence.

How has council satisfied itself that the proposed TNE with undisclosed financial partners does not pose a reputational risk to Cardiff University, and is not a threat to the assets and purposes of Cardiff University and its charitable objects?

“It is premature to present these plans to Council for final approval. We recommend Council advise a pause to implementation to allow for a full consultation and risk assessment.

“In line with its responsibilities to the efficient management and sustainability of the university, Council should recommend a more measured period of reform, reducing risks to academic sustainability, staff wellbeing, and student satisfaction. This would not necessarily incur higher costs than those required by a fast pace of chaotic change and expensive redundancy processes. Financial viability of more cautious and carefully-implemented reforms would be secured by a short-term revision of targets that would bring them back in line with A1 creditor norms.

“Council should recommend that UEB rebuild trust in its governance through transparent and meaningful engagement with its academic staff in the Academic Futures reform process.”