31/05/2012 Dragon's Eye

Could Welsh universities be damaged by the UK Government's immigration

Good evening. The Education Minister, Leighton Andrews, says

he's "very concerned" that the ability of Welsh universities to

attract international students will be damaged by the UK Government's

immigration policy. Nearly 70 leaders from the university sector,

including many from Wales have written to the Prime Minister

warning that changes to student visas will discourage applicants

and deprive the economy of billions of pounds a year. The UK Government

says genuine students won't be affected. Here's Brian Meechan.

Welsh universities have become increasingly competitive on the

world stage in trying to attract international students and

academics. One in 10 of the student population here at Cardiff

University come from abroad. About a quarter of all those in Wales

study at this institution and this is one of the universities in the

country that is worried by the UK Government's policy. To be a world-

class university, we need to have students from all over the world.

If we lose those students, there is a risk that our reputation will

fall. There is a risk it will damage the local economy. Figures

released last week show that net migration into the UK is running at

about 250,000 people annually. That is more than the 100,000 people

that the UK Government wants. The main reason people come here is to

study. Cardiff University joined Bangor, Aberystwyth and Cardiff

Metropolitan University to raise concerns that the UK Government's

attempt to cut -- cap levels. Chancellors and cheers of

universities boards Express our view -- is clearly to the

government. When the policy of controlling population in and out

of the UK affects our international market, and even in a relatively

small university like Bangor, the overseas student population outside

the European Union is about 1,500 and that is around �40 million for

the er the city. The Education Minister has said he is worried

about the government plans. higher education institutions have

recruited overseas. A lot of them are looking to do it in partnership

with further education colleges. So we are concerned about the

financial impact and the reputation this could have on Wales. Foreign

students -- the UK Government is determined to stop the abuse of the

visa system. One senior Welsh Conservatives has rejected claims

the crackdown on immigration could harm universities. The Government

is saying you should have a high level of English. That is common

sense. When I was on the Home Affairs Select Committee, we looked

into bogus students coming here and I understand people from foreign

countries want to do that. I am not blaming anybody but it is an abuse

of the system which has to be stopped. The government has also

said its policy will not stop genuine students from coming to the

UK but others warned international students could go elsewhere.

Critics argue that the Government's immigration policy risked driving

international students towards our competitors in Australia, Canada

and Germany and the USA. They argue that risk would make universities

in Wales less high profile. reality is, we have a global market

for students. It is destined to grow enormously and other countries

are seeing the advantage of this new market so Australia, which had

an immigration policy similar to the one we're practising, has

decided to go away from it. We seem to want to close the hot. We want

the best and brightest from China to come here and steady but they

can always speak flawless English. What the government is trying to do

is to weed out those who can't even speak English and to claim there

are studying some sort of degree over here. That is just common

sense. Recent visa rule changes have increased restrictions. Some

want the government to go further but others saw one of the damage to

a university's international standing. With the billions of

pounds overseas students bring into the country, it seems ministers

will have to work harder to convince the education sector that

they are striking the right balance. I'm joined now by Bela Arora from

the University of Wales, Newport and Alp Mehmet from Migration Watch.

The Immigration Minister has sought to RIAS -- reassure the university

sector seeing genuine students will still be admitted. Tu accept those

reassurances? Hit only does partly to reassure the higher education

institutions. -- it only. We need to be thinking about what kind of

signal this sense to other countries and to prospective

students. They are the ones who we need to be concerned about. We

pride ourselves on being welcoming as well as offering a high Caliber

of dedication and surely that should be a priority. Is that an

important point? That this is a competitive market and UK

universities need to sell themselves to international

students. I can understand why people are concerned. But I don't

see the government has done anything to dissuade good students

from coming to this country. In fact, the Higher Education survey

today published in the Times suggested that the overall numbers

for 2012 and 2013 had gone up by an average of nine by 5%. Having spent

a lot of my professional career overseas encouraging and selecting

students to come to this country, I see no problem with what is going

on. They are attracted by quality and value for money. Sometimes,

universities and those who run them cry wolf too readily because what

they say in rubbishing our policies gets played back and the image

created is that we're not welcoming and that just isn't true. Bela

Arora, they have been examples of abuses of the system. Those need

addressing. Yes. But we need to remember that that is a minority

and so why do we need blanket restrictions that have far reaching

consequences? I was to take issue with the statistics because even

though they have been increases in some areas, we need to be aware of

the countries and the origins of the students. For example, Chinese

students are not affected by a lot of these debates partly because

they are less cost sensitive and they are more ranking sensitive. A

lot of students who are coming to Welsh Universities come from India

and Nigeria, where there are significant indications and even

during the process of these debates over the past year, we have seen a

decline in the number of students from both areas. What about this

suggestion that the sector came up with this week that students should

be treated as visitors rather than as permanent? They are not visitors.

They are here for all the rear and the international definition of

what constitutes immigration is someone who is here for longer than

one year. This is not something new. It was observed by governments

before this one. The point about the Chinese and the Indians,

there's nothing different that applies to the Chinese that does

not to the Indian perspective students and vice versa. In 2008,

there was a new system and in the first year alone, there was a 30 %

increase in the number of students coming here particularly from

countries like India. The Public Accounts Committee chaired by a

member MP came up with a figure recently that in that first year

alone, something like 50,000 students came here who have no

intention of studying. It is right that we should tighten the rules

and ensure that only the genuine students come here for a very

welcome and always have been. you both for taking part in the

programme. Downing Street says the Prime

Minister will not be referring Jeremy Hunt to his independent

adviser on the ministerial code. The Culture Secretary gave evidence

to the Leveson Inquiry into press standards today and Downing Street

says David Cameron believes Mr Hunt acted properly when he was

assessing News Corporation's bid to take over BSkyB. Earlier in the

week, Lord Leveson gave some insight into his thoughts on

possible reform of press regulation in conversation with Tony Blair.

The other side of the freedom of speech argument was presented with

force by the UK Education Secretary, Michael Gove. Tomos Livingstone

looks at how we got here and where we go next.

It is a sensational attack. The Prime Minister turns the tables on

the tabloids, accusing the attack dogs of acting like feral beasts.

I'm going to turn it says something which few people in public life can

say. A vast aspect of our jobs today, outside of the really major

decisions, as they give anything else, is coping with the media. Its

sheer scale, wait and hyperactivity. At point, it literally overwhelms.

But it sold news. Tony Blair gave that speech five years ago. The

former prime minister was back this week giving evidence to the Leveson

Inquiry. His views on the media have not changed much. But the

political context certainly has. There are a lot of people in

journalism and in the media who, if the framework within which they are

operating is different, it will also give them the freedom to do

their job properly. The so how did we get here, as luck phone hacking

by journalists at the News of the World became public knowledge in

2009. But it was the revelation that phones belonging to the murder

victim, Milly Dowler, that pushed the story on the page 1. I want

everything and I want everyone to be clear. Everything that happened

is going to be investigated. The witnesses will be questioned by H-

reg under oath. No stone will be left unturned. David Cameron

appointed Lord Leveson to look at the ethics of the media. The police

are still investigating two. They that sue police inquiries. They are

looking up from hacking and payments to public officials. As

with all good stories, there's more. News Corporation, the parent

company of the News of the world's, eventually gave up its bid to take

total control of the broadcaster BSkyB. But the takeover needed to

go ahead former Cabinet minister acting in a legal rather than a

little capacity. David Cameron took the job of the Vince Cable after he

suggested he had already made up his mind. The job went instead to

Jeremy Hunt. It has emerged since that he and his team were in close

call -- conversation with News Corporation. You set aside any

views that you have and you decide objectively on the basis of media

plurality and not on the policy considerations that had been my

preoccupation to that point. Lord Justice Leveson has had his work

cut out. At times, he must feel as if he's not just dealing with feral

beasts that Frankenstein's monster. So what will the headline writers

have to say when the report is finally published quite like there

are some hints already. Lord Leveson has said he is considering

a new regulator to advise papers on whether to publish sensational

stories before the presses start to roll. The final decisions on any

new regulations live with the politicians. Some changes are

likely but will they be toast dropping staff? Even politicians

don't want the press turned into a pool. -- Pool.

Joining me now is Ian Hargreaves, professor of journalism at Cardiff

University, the political commentator, Rod Richards, and from

our Swansea studio, Spencer Feeney, the editor of the South Wales

Evening Post. There was a fascinating exchange between Lord

Leveson and Michael Gove earlier in the week us where Michael Gove was

defending freedom of speech and suggesting that some abuses were a

price worth paying up. Lord Leveson challenge his assertions. They

exchange sums up the argument. -- their exchange. He did a bit cross

-- he got a bit cross and said he did not need anybody telling him

that freedom of speech was important. But he has made it clear

that he is looking for a balanced outcome which both get its

independence of a new regulatory system, independence from

politicians and the state, and independence from the people who

own the news media. That is a position that we have never managed

to get to in this country. The other thing I've heard him say over

and over again is that, I am not going to be afoot nut in somebody

else's book. So he recognises that this is the best opportunity that

there has been in the entire history of the news media to do

something different. He knows he can only recommend and I am sure he

is fearful that his work will end I wonder what your take on where

the balance should be struck lies? You have seen it from every angle.

You have been a journalist and politician and the subject of

tabloid attention. I think one of the problems Lord Leveson has his

defining public interest as opposed to what interests the public. One

of the interesting things Ken Clarke said is that much of what

the public are concerned about are already criminal offences, bribery,

hacking. I think the biggest problem that Lord Leveson is going

to have... I accept the argument we must have some sort of regulatory

body. Michael Gove says, leave things as they are. You must have

some form of regulatory body that does not have a politician anywhere

near it and has distanced from editors. Kenneth Clarke had

interesting things to say about journalists who may commit a

criminal offence in the public interest. Already the Director of

Public Prosecutions does not prosecute a journalist for that

offence. Lord Leveson's main problem is going to be with the

pressure that the media can exert on politicians and ministers and

Vince Cable in his evidence said that he had a source who had told

him that News International said that if Vince Cable did not play

the game as far back as they were concerned with the bid, his party

would be done over. That is the kind of threat that Lord Leveson

really has to address. How he does it is another matter. Let us bring

in Spencer Feeney. I know it back in a previous life you work for the

existing regulatory body, the Press Complaints Commission. From that

perspective as well as your perspective as a practising

journalist, what are your thoughts about how you create an effective

regulatory body that at the same time allows enough freedom for the

press to actually do their job of scrutinising be privileged and

powerful? I think the Press Complaints Commission itself, we

should not assume it has utterly failed. I think it failed in

regards to dealing with phone hacking but so did the Metropolitan

Police and so did the Crown Prosecution Service. If we want to

scrap the PCC because of that failure, logically, we should talk

about scrapping the net and the CPS which naturally nobody is. --

scrapping the Met. I think the PCC does a good job in swiftly

resolving complaints from the ordinary reader. Whatever replaces

it should maintain that part of its service. On top of that, however,

there will need to be some form of ombudsmen who has the power and

resources to investigate serious misconduct and I think to impose

tougher penalties than the PCC has been able to. That is an

interesting point. In his conversation with Tony Blair, Lord

Leveson talked about serious financial sections that this

regulatory body would be able to impose -- financial sanctions. Is

that something you would feel comfortable with? I would be very

cautious about serious financial sanctions. But I would not be

cautious about the principle of applying some legal or statutory

leverage around the powers that a revamped regulatory body has. There

is a way of doing that which does not get you into over regulating

the press. I think it is also the case that the press is asking for

an is right to be asking for a stronger public interest defences

to be written into a number of pieces of legislation where it is

currently lacking. The press needs the right legal framework right

across the board and it needs the right kind of regulator, a

regulator that the public have confidence own. The problem with

the PCC is that confidence has been lost. However unfairly, we can

debate, but it has gone. It has to be reconstructed. It is a hell of a

challenge for Lord Leveson. I do not agree with the idea of

financial sanctions. There is a world of difference... It depends

of the means of the offender. The Evening Post is not going to be the

same category of financial sections as the media empire. I think the

sanctions or the remedy has to be some form of punishment or sanction

that has some opprobrium attached to it. In the same way that a

doctor being struck off the register... It is bad enough that

he loses his job but there is opprobrium attached to it. Let me

ask Spencer Feeney your thoughts on the possibility of financial

sanctions. I think Lord Leveson may look at that. My theory is that

inevitably it involves suppliers and that would mean the new system

would be more bureaucratic and certainly more costly than the

system we are looking to replace. Gentlemen, thank you very much.

The Office of Fair Trading says it is planning to refer the car

insurance industry to the Competition Commission. It says the

practice of insurance companies getting referral fees from car-hire

firms and repair garages is inflating premiums. The decision

could have a big impact on Cardiff- based Admiral Insurance, Britain's

second-biggest insurance provider. Referral fees make up a bigger part

of its profits. Earlier I spoke to its chief operating officer. I

asked him for his thoughts on something we talked about in last

week's programme, the creation of an enterprise zone target in the

financial sector in Cardiff. What lessons have they learnt setting up

in the capital? We came to Wales in the early 90s and there were some

things that make a real difference. We wear a brand new company and

could have gone anywhere. The reason we chose South Wales was

transport links to London, partly a number of people in Wales did a

brilliant job of selling Wales to us and partly because it is a nice

place to live. We have to take the whole management team and we all

had to come to South Wales. The fact it is a lovely place to live

is also an important factor. terms of the lessons you could

apply from that experience to the discussions about how best to tempt

other big financial players to a financial sector, a mini Canary

Wharf in Cardiff, what would you say? I would say it is partly about

sales and marketing. The product that is Cardiff is a brilliant

product. There is so much going for it in terms of culture and shopping

and sport. And education facilities and everything that is interesting

for people who have to make a decision about where to live often

for the rest of their lives. The proximity to London and Heathrow.

These are valuable assets. The quality of the workforce. The fact

there are more financial graduates per capita in Cardiff than almost

any city in the UK. You have got to get the story out there to the

people in London who are making choices about where they are going

to locate in future. Culturally, Admiral Insurance is an innovative

business. It has a series of firsts to its name. The first insurance

company to have a website, for example. You also have a profit-

sharing system for staff. You have maintain that as you have grown

into a very big company. How do you do that, get big at while at the

same time maintaining the small- company dynamism? I will start with

another first. We came first in the great places to work for

competition which is great. We are really proud of that. It is

testimony to the efforts of all of the staff. One of the really big

challenges of growing from a start- up in the early Nineties to a

multi- site operation. We have sides in Swansea and Newport now as

well. How do you maintain the small company to be fun, enjoyable and

involving? Fortunately, over the years, we have been able to do that.

We have had to work at making people enjoying what they do and

feel a sense of belonging. Partly it is about sharing the rewards.

All of our staff get a minimum of �3,000 of shares a year. The fact

they are part of the success I think is really important.

there clouds on the horizon for Admiral Insurance given the

announcements today that it is thinking about referring the entire

car insurance market to the Competition Commission because it

says referral fees are artificially boosting premiums for customers?

Admiral Insurance relies more on referral fees than its rivals. Is

your business model under threat? Absolutely not. We welcome the

changes that are going to take place both on car hire which is the

current thing that the OFT had been focused on and on legal referrals.

It is a mad dysfunctional system that inflates the cost. We pay out

a lot more in claims because of this this functionality than we

received in referral fees. If you get the system working properly, at

the end of the day, we are very happy. It is a little bit of a

misconception that we rely on that business more than others. You are

confident that this would not make you more vulnerable than your

rivals? I notice your share price has taken a knock today. Or the

insurer has received this sort of income. -- all of the Insurers. It

is a bit of a misconception. The share price has only moved a little.

Are you able to put a figure on how much of your profits are down to

referral fees at the moment? make about �5 per policy holder per

year on the car referral fees. On the other side of the equation, we

pay more out in inflated car hire costs on our own claims. As I say,