Ian Sollom
MP for St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire · Liberal Democrat · United Kingdom
“The Oxford-Cambridge growth corridor is one of the Government’s flagship regional growth priorities, with a ministerial champion in Lord Vallance to ensure joined-up delivery, yet if reports that option D is being taken forward for Cambridgeshire are correct, the Government will be choosing a structure with no realistic path to viability,…”
“The functional economic geography of Cambridge extends well beyond Cambridge city and South Cambridgeshire district, as the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough independent economic review established back in 2018. The boundary drawn here does not follow the task; it follows two administrative areas.”
“I will be voting against the order today, not because I oppose growth in Cambridge or the principle of strategic intervention where it is justified—I hope the Minister appreciates that I try to engage constructively with him on growth and infrastructure in my constituency; there are lots of brilliant opportunities there and it is a great…”
“The powers and functions order, which will determine what it actually does, including any planning powers, comes later in the autumn. We are being asked to vote on an institution before we know what it will be for. That is not just a procedural quibble; it goes to the heart of whether development corporations actually work.”
“We are establishing what will be the largest urban development corporation of its type, covering an area almost double that of all 17 previous urban development corporations combined, and the specific infrastructure it will deliver has not yet even been outlined, never mind detailed.”
“The greater Cambridge area already has planning permission for 37,000 homes that have not yet been built. The evidence is clear that planning is not the barrier at that level. Water, sewerage and transport—those are the barriers, and none of them is fixed by changing who determines a 250-home planning application.”
The complete record
Every one of 453 lines we hold for Ian Sollom, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 3 of 10.
“The proxy appears effectively to be graduate salaries. Graduate salaries are a poor measure of what society gains from a degree. Nursing, teaching, social work and creative arts all underperform on salary data while delivering enormous public value, so what logic are the Conservatives applying? Even on salary terms, cutting arts places would damage science, technology, engineering and maths, not protect it, as one Labour Member mentioned. Arts courses are relatively cheap to deliver and cross-subsidise expensive laboratory provision. The Institute for Fiscal Studies explicitly found that reducing arts funding may, perversely, reduce funding for STEM.”
“We would go further by doubling degree apprenticeships in priority sectors and introducing skills co-operatives specifically to help small businesses to pool resources to take on apprentices they could not otherwise afford. However, the question is whether the motion as a whole represents a serious plan, and I am afraid that it does not. Specifically, it calls for “controlling the number of places on university courses where the benefits are significantly outweighed by the cost to graduates and taxpayers.” Let us be clear about what “controlling the number of places” means. It means cutting. The courses they have in mind are arts, humanities and creative subjects. The argument rests on a definition that sounds objective but is not: which courses have benefits that are significantly outweighed by their costs?”
“I am grateful to the Opposition for this debate. In the recent Westminster Hall debate on this topic, we heard powerful testimony about the reality that graduates face in making repayments every month and watching their balance grow, with their plans deferred and lives constrained. I am sure we will hear more of that today, and those stories deserve to be heard and to receive a clear response, not a political runaround. Parts of the motion are not wrong. The plan 2 threshold should be unfrozen, and while we may disagree on the specific change proposed, the interest structure does need reform, as the Liberal Democrats have said clearly. The motion also calls for more apprenticeships for 18 to 21-year-olds, and we welcome such investment in principle.”
“It is, as I have said before, a counsel of despair dressed up as policy. Then there are the creative industries: over £100 billion a year to the British economy; one of our most successful global exports; built on a pipeline of arts graduates. The answer is not to stop training the people on whom the whole pipeline depends. Ultimately, the value of an education cannot be read entirely from a graduate’s salary. The capacity for critical thinking, empathy and cultural participation are public goods, hidden in plain sight, that show up nowhere in write-off rates. A party that asks only “What does it pay?” has already decided something important about what it values.”
“I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his intervention, because that is one part of the argument I am making. There is a very important point about that, which is that it could equally be an argument for making the loan system fairer in its repayment terms to reflect that. There is a deeper problem, too. The graduate earnings premium has declined in Britain, but not because we have too many graduates; it is because we have too few skilled jobs. That is a demand-side failure and a Conservative legacy. Our peers in OECD countries have expanded graduate numbers while maintaining the graduate premium, because they built the industries and invested in the regions that generate high-skilled employment. Cutting student numbers accepts our economic underperformance as permanent.”
“The system has been treated as a fiscal convenience rather than a social contract by the previous Government, and now by this one. Graduates deserve better.”
“The £1,000 grant reaches about 10% of students, restricted to specific subjects. I think we can do better on maintenance policy: grants must be available regardless of subject, and the parental income thresholds that have been frozen since 2008 must be urgently uprated. Thirdly, we would establish a royal commission on graduate finance, including plans 2, 3 and 5—plans 3 and 5 have terms that are, in several respects, even harsher. All those plans should be in scope. It should also have independent oversight of key parameters. That is not to delay, but to look seriously at fairer interest structures, total repayment caps and progressive repayment rates, and, critically, to build the cross-party settlement that is the only real protection against the next Government squeezing graduates again.”
“Graduates will bear a real and immediate burden in their payslip for the remainder of their loan for a cash-flow improvement that is modest in this Parliament and does nothing at all for the Chancellor’s balanced Budget rule. Of all the choices in November’s Budget, why did they make this one? I note that the Government’s amendment today welcomes a commitment to making the system fairer, and such commitments should be welcomed. However, graduates are waiting for action. Let me therefore set out what the Liberal Democrats would do. First, we would unfreeze the plan 2 threshold immediately and tie it to earnings, as was originally promised. Secondly, we would restore meaningful maintenance grants. Students from the poorest families can borrow £1,284 less today in real terms than in 2020-21.”
“Before the election, the Education Secretary promised that graduates would pay less under Labour, as the shadow Minister said, and, in their first Budget, the Government left the threshold rising. Then, in their second Budget, the Government froze the threshold for three years from 2027. Ministers have cited a £5.9 billion figure as the yield of this change, but we should be clear about what that figure is: it is the discounted present value of extra repayments across nearly 30 years, with the bulk sitting in the 2030s, 2040s and 2050s. The annual cash impact during this Parliament is relatively small, and the change barely moves the needle on the Chancellor’s own fiscal rules.”
“Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I will turn to the threshold and the interest rate—areas on which we do substantially agree with the Conservative motion’s diagnosis, if not its proposed remedy. In the system as it stands, the interest rate matters financially only for those who repay in full, which most graduates do not. That is by design to share the costs between the graduate and the state. It means that the largest benefit of the Conservatives’ proposal would flow to the highest earners—those who repay completely. As analysis from the Institute for Fiscal Studies has shown, it would be regressive in its distribution, which is why more thought is required on interest structure. On the threshold, the picture is more straightforward.”
“I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way; I did not cover myself in glory when I responded to his point earlier, and I would like to take another bite of the cherry. The point I was trying to make was that simply basing it on salary value is not the only way to assess value. The right way to do it is through the regulator, the OfS, and to take that as just one element of many. The OfS should drive that. Would the hon. Gentleman make salary value the primary driver for all courses? [ Interruption . ]”
“At the moment, young people can see that those questions do not have satisfactory answers, and that is why we have called for a royal commission on graduate finance to address them properly. Reform of student finance is only half the picture. We are also clear that fee increases should, in return, come with clear expectations on universities about demonstrable financial sustainability, transparent reporting of how money is spent and accountability on student outcomes. None of that conditionality is on offer here. Asking students to pay more while the underlying system remains unreformed, without clear accountability for how the money is used, is not something we can support.”
“It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship today, Sir John. I will speak briefly. The Liberal Democrats will not be supporting this draft instrument. We understand why the Government brought it forward: universities are under severe financial pressure and the sector needs sustainable funding. We absolutely accept that problem, but that does not mean that we accept the solution. Our position continues to be that any changes to fee limits must be part of a wider package of reform. Students deserve to know not just what they will pay but whether repayment terms will be fair, whether the system as a whole will treat them honestly and that the terms will not be changed against them when it is convenient.”
“The Minister has made that point in several debates. I would just like to explain that the commitment was to raise thresholds from when the first cohort graduated, which was in 2016. That was indeed why Martin Lewis investigated the issue and considered judicial review in 2016. There was no freezing of thresholds prior to that. They were due to rise from 2016. I am sure the Minister did not mean to misinform us.”
“T5. With nearly a million young people not in education, employment or training, the growth and skills levy is due to launch in less than a month, but as few as eight courses have been confirmed, with no funding rates, no duration and no assessment detail published. How is anyone—a young person planning their future, a college planning its provision or an employer planning its workforce—supposed to act on a blank page?”
“We want to see that best practice become universal, with investment proportional to school size and fees, and schools expected to demonstrate their contribution through the inspection process. Faith schools in particular often have a strong tradition of community service that goes well beyond the school gates. We should recognise that and see it built upon. The Government must look seriously at the negative impact of VAT on faith and non-faith independent schools, the impact on the state sector, and the very real financial burden on families who have already paid tax into the system. I look forward to hearing from the Minister how the Government intend to address the concerns expressed today.”
“In Kent, for example, nearly 100 state school inquiries were made in just 48 hours, after the independent Bishop Challoner school announced its closure. The state school system is already struggling with large class sizes, declining teacher numbers and increasing numbers of pupils with SEND. The Government cannot expect the state sector to absorb the pressures that these increased numbers will bring. The Liberal Democrats, however, do believe that independent schools benefiting from VAT exemptions should give back to their local communities. Indeed, many already do, through shared facilities, joint programmes and genuine partnerships with neighbouring state schools.”
“It must be noted that parents of children with special educational needs and disabilities often turn to independent schools, because support is not available in local state schools. Independent schools educate more than 100,000 children with SEND. That number tells its own story. In the past year alone, 100 independent schools are reported to have closed their doors and a further 26 are predicted to follow this year. A small number of those were part of the natural churn, but the majority were not. They include primary and secondary schools, sixth-form colleges and special educational needs schools. The Liberal Democrats remain concerned that such ongoing closures will have a knock-on effect in some areas of the country, which will see an increase in pupils applying and entering the state school system.”
“Some, alongside many others across the country, have struggled to find a local state secondary school place for their child and have been offered one many miles away. That has meant that they have had to resort to private school, while they sit on long waiting lists for places that will never become available, leaving them under considerable financial pressures. Many other parents have been failed by the school their children attended, which has not provided the support that they need. They have been forced to move to the private sector, again at considerable cost. That has not been a choice, but something they feel has been forced on them, because of issues with the school system. Any parent making that choice, however, for whatever reason, should certainly not be penalised with more taxes.”
“Our position applies equally to all independent schools, but I acknowledge that for many parents, choosing a faith school is not primarily a financial calculation; it is an expression of deeply held conviction about how their children should be raised, and about community and belief. The Government should be mindful of how the policy bears on those for whom a faith education is not a luxury but a matter of conscience. It must be the choice of parents to decide where their children are educated. We understand that the choices parents make have many reasons, and it is parents’ right to make such choices without being subject to further taxes. I have heard from several of my constituents on this issue, none of them wealthy but all of them working hard and wanting to do the very best for their children.”
“It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Alec. I thank the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for bringing forward this debate. It is well established that the Liberal Democrats oppose taxing education, whether that is independent, faith or non-faith schools. We did not support the Government’s decision to end the VAT exemption for independent schools, nor them treating such schools differently from other independent education providers for VAT purposes. Neither did we support the Government’s policy to remove private schools’ charitable business rates relief of 80%, for those that are charities.”
“According to the Office for National Statistics, 3.8 million people report feeling lonely, with young people consistently among the loneliest groups. Is it any wonder when we have seen youth centres shuttered and libraries boarded up, and the very places that bring people together hollowed out? The Liberal Democrats have a plan to change this by creating a new wave of third spaces centred around something simple but incredibly powerful: shared hobbies. We want to bring people with shared interests together, creating places where they can thrive. What is the Minister doing to tackle loneliness through rebuilding community life and shared experiences? Will she seriously consider our proposals for a bold new wave of hobby hubs to help restore the social fabric of our communities?”
“Cutting student numbers accepts that failure as permanent, but that is a counsel of despair. It also fails on its own terms. Setting aside the inherent value of the creative arts—many have made that point—that sector contributes enormously to the economy and enriches all our lives. Arts and humanities courses are also cheaper to deliver, and help to support expensive, lab-based science, technology, engineering and mathematics provision. Cutting 100,000 arts places would not simply reduce the loan book; it would undermine the financial model of the very STEM courses that the Conservatives claim to prioritise.”
“Cross-party consensus with independent oversight of key parameters is the only protection against that happening again. I would like to directly address the suggestion made explicitly by the official Opposition that the answer to fiscal pressure in the student finance system is to have drastically fewer students, and to cut courses, close departments and focus support on degrees whose graduates earn enough to repay quickly. That gets the diagnosis backwards. The graduate earnings premium has declined in Britian, not because we have too many graduates but because we have too few skilled jobs. Many of our peers in the OECD have expanded graduate numbers while maintaining or even raising the earnings premium. We should be asking why those countries have generated skilled professional jobs in a way that Britain has failed to do.”
“We must build a system that also works for people studying flexibly and later in life, not just for 18-year-olds on three or four-year degrees. We are seeing more move to modular courses, so the system needs to be able to cater for that. Structural reform is needed, which is why the Liberal Democrats are calling for a cross-party royal commission on graduate finance reform. I anticipate that some will see that as a delay, but I do not think it is. We need action on the threshold action now, but the commission needs to address a different, harder question: how do we build a system that future Governments cannot quietly dismantle the moment that fiscal pressure mounts? Every change made retrospectively to the terms has broken a promise to people who made life decisions based on them.”
“The Government have reintroduced £1,000 grants for maintenance for certain subjects, but the full reintroduction of meaningful maintenance grants for the most disadvantaged students must be a priority. The most urgent action on repayments requires no review, but a decision: reverse the threshold freeze over the next three years and tie it to earnings, as graduates were originally promised. I hope the Minister can give graduates that commitment today. For the structural reform that the system genuinely needs, we need to go beyond any single parameter. We need to design interest and repayment structures that are genuinely progressive across the income distribution, including by ditching the discredited link to RPI.”
“I hope we do not lose sight of the plan 2 or plan 5 cohort in this debate, because any serious reform of the system must address both. Before I move on to what can be done about loan repayments, I want to say something briefly about students who are struggling right now. The abolition of maintenance grants after the coalition ended in 2015 loaded the highest debt on to the students least able to bear it. Those from the poorest backgrounds now graduate with significantly more debt, not from their fees but from the additional maintenance borrowing. The level of support has fallen 10% in real terms from its peak. Students skip meals, work hours that damage their studies, and are unable to participate fully in the education that they are notionally receiving.”
“RPI, the basis for the interest rate, exceeded 13%. There was a cap on interest rates during that period, which in principle was welcome, but it was implemented too late, and the cap was set too high to make a meaningful difference for most borrowers. Meanwhile, graduates’ starting salaries barely moved in real terms. Interest-linked to a discredited inflation measure running hot, while earnings stood still—that combination has been toxic and the system had no mechanism to correct it. Although plan 2 graduates suffered from the accumulation of damage caused by those political and economic circumstances, the last Government introduced plan 5. Plan 5 graduates face a lower repayment threshold and a 40-year repayment period before write-off—terms that in many respects are harder than those faced by their predecessors.”
“In 2016, the threshold was frozen when it was supposed to rise, not because the economy required that, but because it was a convenient way to extract more from graduates without the political difficulty of imposing a tax rise. The threshold jumped significantly in 2022, but it was then frozen again, then raised again. Now the Government have given in to the same temptation, budgeting to freeze it for three more years. What graduates have experienced is not a coherent system operating as originally designed, but a set of rules that keep getting rewritten by whoever needs to balance the books that year. That is a core injustice. To that political failure, though, we must add an economic failure. In the early years of this decade, inflation ran at levels that few foresaw when the system was designed in 2012.”
“When the plan 2 system was designed, graduates were promised something specific: that they would repay only when earning above a certain threshold, that the threshold would rise with earnings, and that whatever remained after 30 years would be written off—a mechanism to share the cost of higher education between the individual and the state. A higher interest rate for higher earners was a deliberate feature—a progressive measure. Those graduates earning the most would contribute more, to make the system sustainable for those who could not. For many graduates at the time, that deal, however imperfect, felt manageable. However, there is a problem: successive Governments have treated those promises as suggestions.”
“It is a pleasure to serve with you in the chair today, Ms Lewell, and I congratulate the hon. Member for Ilford South (Jas Athwal) on securing this debate. As we have heard, there are many graduates in this country who make loan payments every month and yet they see their loan balances grow. They are young professionals whose loan statements bear no resemblance to the deal they thought they were signing up to. At the same time, there are students who cannot afford to eat and university finances are precarious across the sector. The systems feel broken, so this debate really matters, and those listening deserve a clear diagnosis of what has gone wrong and a credible path forward. Let me try to give both.”
“We face a choice: managed decline, fewer students, fewer courses, talent lost and regions left behind; or transformation—treating universities like the national assets that they are. Graduates and the country deserve better. I hope that the Minister can signal in his response that the Government are making a start on that.”
“I am not personally an architect of plan 2, but the former leader of my party did say sorry, and my party was appropriately punished at the 2015 general election. The decline in the graduate earnings premium is, at its root, a story about economic underperformance, and that points towards the solution. Universities are not simply places that people go to acquire qualifications; they are also research engines, regional anchors, training grounds for public services and drivers of the innovation that creates the skilled employment that graduates need. The answer to graduates being squeezed is not fewer graduates; it is more skilled jobs generated by the research, commercialisation and civic investment that universities are well positioned to deliver.”
“We want a rigorous, transparent confirmatory process for all significant public appointments, with proper parliamentary involvement from the outset, not as an afterthought, and not after the damage has already been done. We want an end to government by WhatsApp, with all official business on the record, all lobbying published, and no more deals done in the dark. Deference is not respect, silence is not discretion, and secrecy in public life is not safety—it is the condition under which misconduct flourishes. The documents we are asking for should have been in the public domain years ago. This House has the power and responsibility to require their release, and it should do so today.”
“The question of how Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor came to be appointed, against objections reportedly raised from multiple directions, and how he was then allowed to operate for a decade with expenses rubber-stamped and minimal oversight, is not ancient history. It is the context in which every subsequent failure of public appointment standards must be understood. Beyond this motion the Liberal Democrats are calling for structural reforms that match the scale of what has been revealed so far. We want a genuinely independent ethics adviser who is able to initiate investigations, not to have to wait for permission from the Ministers they are supposed to scrutinise. We want an office of the whistleblower, with real legal protections, so that the civil servant who was overruled when they tried to question an expenses claim has somewhere to go.”
“That is not because the rules prevented it; it is because the cultural gravitational pull of deference was so strong that to too many people the sustained rigorous scrutiny of a public figure who happened to be a member of the royal family felt simply not the done thing. The unwritten convention was as powerful, if not more powerful, than the written rule. That is not a procedural failure; it is a failure of political culture, and it is precisely that culture that the motion challenges today. I came to this place with a background in science, and in any field of systemic inquiry there is an important principle: we cannot correct a failure that we refuse to examine. Institutional failures do not disappear when we look away from them; they compound.”
“Members for Argyll, Bute and South Lochaber (Brendan O'Hara) and for Brighton Pavilion (Siân Berry)—she is no longer in her place—have said, the historian Andrew Lownie has spent years attempting to access those files through the proper channels. When asked what he made of that, he said simply: “Every single reason has been deployed to stop those papers getting out…You have to ask why”. Madam Deputy Speaker, we are asking why. Some may ask why, if Parliament has had the tools to scrutinise this issue through a substantive motion, it is happening only now. That is a fair question. No party in over a decade successfully used the parliamentary mechanisms available to force this issue properly.”
“All the while, his relationship with Epstein deepened—a relationship that the Epstein files now suggest may have been entangled with his official duties in ways that potentially breach both his duty of confidentiality and even the Official Secrets Act. The documents that might answer those questions should by now be in the national archives under the 20-year rule, but they are not. Every available exemption has been deployed to keep them sealed—national security, international relations, and more. Some, we are told, have been locked away until 2065, and most of us in the Chamber will not be here to read them if they are. As the hon.”
“That duty did not disappear when Thames Valley police opened their case files, so let us ask the question that this House should have been asking for years: how did Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor come to be appointed as Britain’s special representative for international trade and investment in 2001, and what did those responsible for that appointment know? Here is what we do know. The appointment was, by multiple accounts, controversial from the start. Concerns were raised within Government, within the Foreign Office and, reportedly, within the royal family itself, yet he was appointed. For a decade he travelled the globe on the public purse, meeting Heads of State and billionaires, on expenses described by former officials as lavish and poorly scrutinised. He was effectively given a rubber stamp.”
“By any measure, this past week has been an extraordinary one in British public life. Within five days, two people have been arrested on suspicion of misconduct in public office: one a former member of the royal family, and the other a veteran Labour politician who we now understand to be the man who championed the first’s appointment to his public role. This motion is not an attempt to prejudice a police investigation. We are clear that we must let the police do their work. That investigation must proceed on its own terms, free from political interference. Criminal law and parliamentary accountability are not the same thing, and they have never been mutually exclusive. Parliament has its own duty to scrutinise public appointments, to follow public money, and to ensure that the institutions of state are answerable to the people they serve.”
“T3. The B1050 between Earith and Willingham in my constituency is one of many peat-affected roads in Cambridgeshire. Such roads cost up to four times more to repair than others, and repairs last just a fraction of the time. The Secretary of State will know that the funding formula for highways maintenance is based on road length and does not take account of geological conditions. These roads are really dangerous to drive on, and my constituents are really frightened. Will she consider creating a special budget for peat-affected roads, or at least adjusting the formula to take account of geological conditions?”
“It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Sir Edward. I am grateful to the petitioners for bringing this important matter to Parliament, and to the hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Tony Vaughan) for leading the debate. The Government are right to say that settlement should be earned through contribution—few would dispute that principle. The consultation documents point to a system that contradicts those stated goals. I am sure the Minister will say that no final decisions have been made, but the direction of travel is clear. A 10-year baseline for most routes—15 years for care workers, as many Members have mentioned—with complex reductions based largely on salary, fundamentally misunderstands what settlement is for.”
“The moral stakes are clearest when I hear from Hongkongers in my constituency. While they may be exempted from the extension to 10 years, the consultation leaves unclear what “earned settlement” actually means for them—higher English requirements, income thresholds, whether any exemption is permanent. That is for people who fled political persecution based on our word to them. When we create uncertainty for people who follow the rules and contribute, it damages trust in British commitments. By all means, use the visa system for selection—we can have many separate debates on that—but settlement terms should enable the people we decided to welcome to commit to staying. The current direction undermines both our economic interests and our reputation for fairness, and I urge the Government to change course.”
“He is a skilled engineer; he chose the UK based on the clear five-year pathway. He tells me that had a 10-year route been the policy, he would never have come. That is the reality when we are competing for talent. The Government also claim that the changes will improve integration, but uncertainty is the enemy of integration. Someone who knows they can settle after five years will invest fully in their future here; someone facing 10 to 15 years of uncertainty will keep their options open elsewhere. Another constituent who has been in touch is an orthopaedic surgeon, a professional serving our NHS. He has three children in British schools. He tells me that if the rules change, he cannot wait for another six years. He will leave, and our NHS and our country will lose him and his talent.”
“I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend, and will shortly cite an example of that from my constituency. The key distinction to make is between selection and settlement. Our visa system is the selection mechanism; we judge whether someone has the skills we need, meets the thresholds, and fills a genuine vacancy. Settlement is about whether people can actually plan a future here and commit to staying. Five years of working, paying taxes, learning English and staying out of trouble is earning it. Extending it to 10 or 15 years does not raise standards; it just makes Britain unattractive to exactly the people our visa system should be welcoming. I will give a concrete example. I have a constituent who came in on the high potential individual visa, which is a route explicitly designed to attract the world’s best talent.”
“The Foreign Secretary has talked a lot about military co-operation today, less so about economic security co-operation. She will remember that the Prime Minister abolished the National Security Council sub-committee on economic security. I was pleased that the Minister with responsibility for economic security was here for a time, but he is not part of the National Security Council. How are these economic security questions and co-ordination with partners being handled and managed in Government?”
“The student mental health agreement, which facilitates the sharing of information, with consent, between universities and NHS services, must be implemented consistently across all institutions. Finally, the area that is perhaps hardest to address is the cultural change required among students, families and staff across universities. It is vital that students who are suffering feel comfortable and safe to disclose any issues they may have in order to seek and access the support and services they need. We can only do so by continuing to talk. We owe it to the families of those young people who are no longer with us to ensure that we adopt a system-wide approach to providing the best access to support and services at universities, as well as bringing about much-needed cultural change to prevent further tragedies in the future.”
“Importantly, the university’s approach is not just about counselling; it is about co-ordinating work across the institution to ensure that students with mental health conditions receive appropriate academic adjustments where necessary, that assessment practices are flexible when needed, and that support wraps around the whole student experience. As others have said today, it is important to recognise that universities cannot solve this problem alone. We need much stronger partnerships between universities and NHS mental health services. Students should not fall into gaps between university counselling and clinical NHS provision when they most need support. When students move away to university, they often lose the continuity in NHS services that may have supported them at home.”
“Universities must not only sign up to the charter, but demonstrate that they are adhering to a full strategy, with clear standards, regular independent assessment and consequences for non-compliance; providing details and evidence of direct signposting of services to students; dedicated individuals responsible for ensuring that well-structured welfare checks are carried out; and timely delivery of services when needed. I was going to give a couple of examples from the University of the West of England, as I have been really impressed by its leadership on the issue. It does not have a one-size-fits-all solution, which is food for thought for other institutions and the Minister. However, in the interests of time I will just encourage the Minister to look into that.”
“All universities are being asked to sign up by the end of this year. That should be encouraged, to ensure a base level of support for all students from the start of their higher education experience. To address universities’ duty-of-care responsibilities, a voluntary aspiration must evolve into a rigorous accountability mechanism. That means not just mental health services, but ensuring that institutional policies and practices properly support student wellbeing.”