Sunday with Niall Paterson Interview with Sam Gyimah MP Universities Minister

ANY QUOTES USED MUST BE ATTRIBUTED TO SUNDAY WITH NIALL PATERSON, SKY NEWS

NIALL PATERSON: Traces of the nerve agent used in the attack on the former Russian spy Sergei Skripal have now been found in five separate locations and more than 200 witnesses have been identified. A huge investigation but the clamour for answers grows louder by the day. Joining me now is the Universities Minister, Sam Gyimah, a very good morning.

SAM GYIMAH: Good morning.

NP: Mr Gyimah, Theresa May on becoming Prime Minister promised to sup with a long spoon, that it would not be business as usual with the Kremlin. Given that, according to the Sunday Times, approximately £826,000 has been donated by Russian supporting sources, why has that happened?

SAM GYIMAH: Well I think we have got to make a distinction between British citizens or companies that are legally in the UK who can make donations to political parties. We have a very strict legal process in this country and government policy towards the Kremlin, government policy towards the Kremlin has not in any way been affected by what British citizens who are originally from Russia may or may not choose to do by donating to the Conservative party. Whether it is a question of sanctions, whether it’s a question of how we deal with diplomats or of our security co-operation – if you take the Litvinenko case as an example, the Conservative party and the UK government has always taken a robust view where our interests are at stake.

NP: But isn’t there a value judgement to be made every time a donation is offered to the party, first and foremost of course what the individual offering the donation might want to seek as recompense for it. The other angle is of course how it looks and it looks pretty bad at the moment doesn’t it?

SAM GYIMAH: Well there is very careful vetting that takes place of donors, but we also have very strict legal rules around donations to political parties in this country and obviously every donation has got to satisfy both tests. The key question though for the government is whether this has in any way influenced government policy towards Russia and it hasn’t, this government has taken a very robust policy towards Russia. We for example increased sanctions on Russia after their involvement with activities in Ukraine.

NP: But as I said, that’s not the only test whether or not influence is sought through donations to any political party, it’s how it looks and even before Salisbury, even before those allegations of Russian interference in the US Presidential election, the EU referendum, we had what appeared to be a state sponsored assassination of a former Russian spy, Alexander Litvinenko, on British soil. The Prime Minister, as former Home Secretary, would have been well aware of the investigation and the 2016 inquiry in which it was concluded that this was given the nod by Vladimir Putin. On that basis, why would the Conservative party want to accept hundreds of thousands of pounds from Russian donors?

SAM GYIMAH: The Conservative party has not accepted money from the Kremlin and as you said, where there is state sponsored activity, the UK government has to respond and you mentioned the case of Litvinenko and we made it very clear, we dealt with the diplomats, we suspended security co-operation and we imposed sanctions. We dealt with it in a tough and proportionate manner. Now yes, questions can be asked about donors and where they come from and that is a question of vetting and there is careful vetting that takes place before, when any donation is made to the Conservative party as I’m sure other parties do when they receive donations from all sources.

NP: In terms of those tragic events in Salisbury, what questions have been asked of the Russian government, of the Russian Ambassador?

SAM GYIMAH: Well I mean it is a very tragic but also a very serious situation. I think with these situations it is important and right that the government doesn’t rush to judgement but you can judge how seriously the government is taking this issue by the scale of the response in terms of the investigation. You’ve got major counter terrorism, people from the counter terrorism unit in the military but also the police are looking at this, there is something like 240 witnesses that are been questioned, the Home Secretary has been chairing Cobra and we are taking this very seriously and I think in due course you will see, or the British public will see the response from the British government to what is a serious situation that has happened on British soil.

NP: You just set out the parameters of the criminal investigation that is taking place, that would take place if the individuals involved were not somehow linked to the Kremlin. My question was what questions have been asked about Russian involvement of the Russian government or the Russian Ambassador?

SAM GYIMAH: There are many questions being asked. Obviously I don’t sit on Cobra or the National Security Council but I know there are many questions being asked but I think it is right that the government gathers evidence before making public statements in terms of how we deal with Russia and Russian officials in this country.

NP: Well if there is evidence to suggest Russian involvement, what should be the limits of our response? Expulsion of the Ambassador?

SAM GYIMAH: Our evidence says we always take a tough and proportionate response where a law is broken here and our interests are violated and I’m sure that would be the case.

NP: It’s just that on previous occasions in which there has either been an allegation or a very strong assumption of Russian involvement in situations like this, you describe the response as proportionate to the crime and a significant response, others would suggest that given we have seen a number of events of a similar nature, given that we have seen the Russian Embassy tweeting out sarcastically about the fact that Litvinenko was linked to MI6 and others were linked to MI6 and oh look, it’s all happened on British soil, it doesn’t seem as if the response is proportionate enough with respect.

SAM GYIMAH: Well there hasn’t been a formal response yet. When the response comes I think we will know it will be as tough as it can and should be, quite rightly given what has happened and how seriously we should all take it. This should not be happening on British soil, people should be protected in this country and we are very aware of that.

NP: Should we legitimise a government with which we have a number of issues, and not simply what has happened over the past week, but should we legitimise the …

SAM GYIMAH: I’m sorry, I lost the connection there for a second, could you please repeat that question?

NP: Of course I can, Mr Gyimah. Given the fact that we have long standing objection to many areas of Russian policy – Crimea, Ukraine and so on, events on our own soil, Litvinenko – should we legitimise the Kremlin by attending the World Cup?

SAM GYIMAH: Well let’s see what comes out of the investigation but I think we will take all action that is necessary to make it clear where the UK stands once we’ve got the evidence.

NP: It sounds like you are not ruling out going to the World Cup which I’m sure would please Scottish fans but not necessarily many English ones. I just want to turn to your brief for a second Mr Gyimah, exam season looks set to be pretty tumultuous for British students, do you understand why so many lecturers are willing to strike at that most difficult of times? Many are looking at some pretty significant changes to their income in retirement.

SAM GYIMAH: Well I am aware of the case. The USS pension scheme, which is the pension scheme that our lecturers belong to is the biggest private defined benefit contribution scheme. The lecturers union is in dispute over a move from defined benefit to defined contribution, it is a dispute between employer and employee. What I have done as Universities Minister is to urge them not just to talk but to resolve this situation as quickly as possible. I know talks are progressing under the auspices of ACAS who is an independent arbitrator. My concern, you’re right, is for the students and what I want to see universities do is actually compensate students and there are a number of ways to do so, where lectures are missed at this vital time, as you said exam time, I would want some of those lectures made up during non-strike time but also financial compensation for students who are now investing a significant amount of money in their education. I’d also like to see, on the other hand, given that talks are progressing, that the lecturers union, the UCU, suspend the strikes in the vital interests of students.

NP: It strikes me though that in terms of compensation there are two problems with that. First and foremost is that a large part of the student population are in fact in support of what the lecturers are doing and the other point is of course how do you work out the compensation that you give? Isn’t it the case that students on arts courses are in essence subsidising those in STEM subjects?

SAM GYIMAH: Well we have got some of the brightest brains in our universities, I think they can work this out. There are three ways of doing it, I can outline …

NP: They can’t solve the pensions issue, Mr Gyimah.

SAM GYIMAH: There are three ways of compensating students, two of which I have already outlined, I’ll repeat and add a third. The first is where lectures are missed they should try and rearrange them during non-strike time, that will be a form of restitution. Secondly, working out monetary compensation, King’s College London ha said it is going to be doing so but thirdly, I know Manchester University is putting the money saved from the strikes – of course lecturers are not paid on strike days – into a student hardship fund to support students. There are ways of doing this and I want universities to step up to the plate because this is in the vital interests of students.

NP: In terms of the ongoing review of the financing of our universities, do you personally feel there should be a limit to what individual students pay for their education? Is there a figure above which you feel that students should not go in terms of their indebtedness?

SAM GYIMAH: Well a good degree is worth the investment given that all the evidence tells us that your lifetime earnings are significantly enhanced with a university degree so I will not try and set a limit, I don't think it’s for me to do that. That’s why we’ve got a review and the review would look at all aspects of student finance, not just fees, it would look at support, it would look at access, it would look at high cost subjects and how these are subsidised and I think we should wait for the review before we actually try to design what the policy should be.

NP: Yes, but at a time when for example government can borrow money at record low rates of interest, I mean you’ve got interest rates in excess of 6% starting not at the end of your course but from the moment that you walk onto campus, before you have even ordered a pint at the student union bar. I mean even you must concede that interest rates in excess of 6% with 75% of students not actually repaying the full amount that they owe, screams of a system that is broken.

SAM GYIMAH: No, you have always got to give the full facts when you talk about this. There is no loan out there where after 30 years, whatever you have paid it gets completely written off. As of 1st April students will not pay a single penny unless they are earning £25,000 or above but also what it has done, it has helped our universities become better funded and today we have more disadvantaged students going to university than ever before. Could the system be improved? The answer is yes and that is why there is a review taking place but we have a system which is actually being worked in many ways very well, we just need to make sure that we improve it and that’s what the review is for.

NP: Have you had a word with the Chancellor, maybe asked him for a bit more money after the Spring Statement?

SAM GYIMAH: Well as you know, the Spring Statement is a no-frills statement, what it’s going to do is give an update on the public finances and we are sure that our public finances are significantly improving. The deficit has been reduced from the extreme levels that we inherited from the Labour party, it is down by three-quarters. The way forward not just for universities but of course all the public sector should be a balanced approach, that we pay down the debts but we are also investing in our future so that we can face the challenges and seize the opportunities that lie ahead.

NP: Sam Gyimah, many thanks for joining us.