< Previous page ^ Table of Contents Next page >

Third Report of the Board of Scrutiny: Notice

7 December 1998

The Council have considered the recommendations contained in the Third Report of the Board of Scrutiny (Reporter, 1997-98, p. 818) and the remarks made at the Discussion of the Report on 7 July 1998 (ibid., p. 933). They have agreed to respond as follows:

The Council welcome the Board's Third Report and acknowledge the detailed work which the Board have undertaken on behalf of the Regent House in reviewing the Annual Reports of the Council and the General Board, together with the Allocations Report and the Abstract of Accounts. Like the Board, the Council are concerned at the impression of 'mills grinding slowly indeed', which arises partly from the retrospective nature of the Board's operations. To the extent that that impression is based on the present machinery of the central bodies, the Council have reviewed their own procedures with a view to ensuring that they operate not only effectively but also in a timely manner. Further, the Council hope that there may be more contact through the year between the officers of the Board and those of the Council. Such a dialogue neither could nor should replace the statutory reporting requirements laid on the Council and on the Board, but it might aid the Board in their understanding of the way in which the Council need to respond to business, and might thus avoid the worst aspects of the retrospectivity to which the Board have drawn attention.

Before commenting on the Board's specific recommendations, the Council wish to refer to the Board's comments on the Council's Annual Report. Both the Council and the General Board are responsible for supervising a wide range of diverse activity. In the case of the Council, several of the institutions concerned are overseen by Syndicates which present their own Annual Reports to the University. The Council therefore do not see their Annual Report as a vehicle for reporting in detail on, for example, the work of the Board of Continuing Education. They consider that their Annual Report gives them an opportunity to reflect on a number of broad themes which have been significant in the year under review. The Annual Report of the Council for 1997-98 will refer to discussions about lifelong learning and the valuable contribution made by the Board of Continuing Education. The Council believe that this approach is preferable to an attempt to give comprehensive coverage each year of all the work of institutions under their supervision.

Turning to the Board's recommendations, the Council comment as follows, after consulting the General Board and the Finance Committee:

I. The Board recommend that, as an expression of their commitment to 'consistency and transparency', the Council publish by the division of the Michaelmas Term 1998 a Notice on the Vice-Chancellor's Committee to administer the scheme of merit awards to Professors, setting out that Committee's responsibilities along with the criteria, mechanism, and timetable for the appointment of its members.

Under the arrangements currently in force, decisions on awards continue to rest with the Vice-Chancellor. At the Vice-Chancellor's request, the General Board appointed an Advisory Committee in July 1998, which he will call on for advice. This Committee includes external members; its membership is as follows (members have been appointed to serve until 30 September of the year shown):

Dr O.S. O'Neill, FBA, Principal of Newnham (Chairman), Professor R.B. Heap, FRS, Master of St Edmund's (2000), Professor Sir Tony Wrigley, FBA, Master of Corpus Christi (2001), Professor R.K. O'Nions, FRS, Professor of Physics and Chemistry of Minerals, University of Oxford (2000), Dr J.M. Rawson, CBE, Warden of Merton College, Oxford (2001). The Secretary General acts as Secretary, and the Vice-Chancellor attends.

The membership of the Committee will be published each year in the Officers Number of the Reporter as a Committee of the General Board. The complete membership had not been determined in time for publication in October 1998, but will be included in the Officers Number to be published in February 1999.

The Committee's present membership is consistent with the General Board's current recommendations (see paragraph 35 of the General Board's Report, dated 3 June 1998, on the recruitment, reward, and retention of academic and academic-related officers, Reporter, 1997-98, p. 804). The Committee are responsible for advising the Vice-Chancellor on supplementary payments to Professors; they currently act in accordance with the terms approved in 1989 when the system of supplementary payments was first introduced. The criteria for these awards remain as set out in paragraph 9 of the General Board's 1989 Report establishing the scheme (Reporter, 1988-89, p. 756), which recommended that 'payments should be made available selectively to reward and to retain Professors who are making an outstanding contribution to the work of the University and to the furtherance of its aims'. If the General Board's current recommendations are accepted by the University the Committee will be able, with no change of membership, to adopt the new procedure proposed by the Board.

II. The Board recommend that the team responsible for the implementation of the new Management Information Systems be further strengthened in order to comply with the HEFCE Audit Code of Practice by the end of the Michaelmas Term 1998, with due attention to necessary security measures as well as to the concerns of end-users in University institutions.

The Council share the Board's concern that new management information systems should be introduced in the University as soon as is consistent with the complexity of the process and with the need to consult end-users. The Joint Committee on Administrative Computing have received regular reports on the development of the commitment accounting project, and on 4 November 1998 a full report was made to the Finance Committee. Planning continues, with a target implementation date of August 2000. The Council hope that the wording of the Board's recommendation was not intended to imply that the University does not currently comply with the HEFCE Audit Code of Practice. The Council have received an assurance from the Head of Internal Audit that there is currently no breach of that code.

The Council have previously made available resources for strengthening the administrative computing team within the University Offices. A new senior appointment of Director of Management Information Services has now been made and further appointments will follow.

III. The Board recommend that the Council offer the Regent House a justification of the rationale behind the policy of non-depreciation of the University's buildings, with specific explanation of the provision for full maintenance and its compliance with the Statement of Recommended Practice (SORP) for Accounting in Higher Education Institutions.

It has already been agreed that the policy of non-depreciation will be changed and depreciation introduced in the 1998-99 Accounts. It was not possible to make this change earlier because of the volume of work which needed to be undertaken in relation to the individual buildings comprising the University's operational estate. This work is now in hand. In relation to the level of maintenance expenditure, the Finance Committee and the University's auditors are satisfied that the University is currently spending at the level recommended by HEFCE.

IV The Board recommend that the next quinquennial survey of the University's buildings be carried out by an external surveyor.

The Council have consulted the Finance Committee about this recommendation. The Committee are not convinced that benefits would flow from the major expenditure that would be involved in employing an external surveyor, who would be no better qualified than in-house staff. Whereas external maintenance is the responsibility of the Estate Management and Building Service (EMBS), internal maintenance relies on defects being reported to EMBS by Heads of Departments. In order to obtain economies of scale and to reduce disruption of academic work, maintenance is often done in conjunction with a Minor Works project, in cases where this provides an opportunity for long-term internal maintenance to be carried out. EMBS will be instructed to continue to assess buildings against the categories of the KDK programme of backlog maintenance even after the completion of the KDK programme, and this will be monitored by the Finance Committee through the Maintenance and Standards Review Group. The advantage of these overall arrangements, whereby a number of different qualified surveyors keep records of buildings that they know well, outweighs any benefits that might be derived from surveys by an external firm.

V. The Board recommend that the General Board publish, by the end of the Michaelmas Term 1998, a statement on their policy and monitoring procedures on unspent Departmental reserves.

The General Board have submitted the following statement on their policy and monitoring procedures for 'unspent' Departmental reserves:

1. The concerns expressed by the Board of Scrutiny in paragraph 16 of their Report are in connection with the Departmental Reserves section of Note L of the 1996-97 Abstract of Accounts. The overall balance quoted of £28m relates to both General Board and Council institutions and comprises (a) income allocated from general funds (accumulated balances, equipment and furniture fund, non-recurrent grants from the UEF and Strategic Planning Reserve Fund, and savings on unpaid leave or the holding of a College office), as well as (b) income from trust funds and identified outside funds (including research grant overheads and self-financing activities, e.g. conferences and publications). The total also includes £4.7m of reserves of the Board of Continuing Education, which are not the General Board's responsibility. The 36 per cent increase quoted by the Board of Scrutiny is distorted to some extent by the once-for-all extinguishing of £2.5m of deficits in H8 accounts accounting for about one-third of the overall increase.

2. The officers periodically scrutinize print-outs showing the position of accounts in category (a). However, active monitoring of all such balances would be time consuming and would be of limited value, given the current accounting system and the amount of officers' time available. The General Board endorse the introduction of a user-friendly accounting system that can provide reliable up-to-date accounts and commitment information in a timely manner.

3. While recognizing that all such reserves are University funds it is appropriate to consider the two categories (a) and (b) separately. In respect of category (a):

(i) applications for non-recurrent grants are always charged to the accumulated balance, if available;
(ii) new non-recurrent grants are not authorized until balances in other grants have been scrutinized and are extinguished or accounted for;
(iii) this is reinforced by an annual exercise of writing to Departments in order to ascertain whether balances in grants are still needed or can be returned to source;
(iv) the General Board have under review the policy on savings accruing to F9 accounts from unpaid leave;
(v) it should be borne in mind that the commitment of funds and the incurring of expenditure do not always coincide, thus inflating the apparent balance.

4. The General Board's policy in respect of funds in category (b) is to take account of such balances when significant requests, e.g. for major capital expenditure or minor works are being considered, and routinely to expect a substantial contribution (e.g. 50 per cent) from such funds available at the discretion of the Head of the institution. The following reasons are adduced in support of such a policy:

(i) There is a need to provide an incentive for Departments to generate additional funding to support their academic work in the face of declining levels of public funding. Surpluses are not a problem.
(ii) It is desirable to devolve responsibility for the management of funds to institutional level thus enabling institutions to bear the risk of e.g. shortfalls in research grant funding or the catastrophic breakdown of major equipment.
(iii) The Board think it important that Faculties and Departments should not be encouraged to engage in unnecessary spending in order to avoid 'clawback' at the end of the year.
(iv) There is a need to enable Faculties and Departments to participate in self-financing activities related to their academic work, which may necessitate some form of contingency, without recourse to specific central provision.

VI. The Board recommend that, in reporting on the Local Examinations Syndicate and other associated bodies, the Abstract of Accounts should conform to the SORP for Accounting in Higher Education Institutions.

The Council believe that as a result of recent changes the published accounts of associated bodies now conform to current legal and other requirements. The Accounts of the University and of the Local Examinations Syndicate conform to the SORP laid down by HEFCE, and the Accounts of the University Press conform to the SORP laid down by the Charity Commission.

VII. The Board recommend that the Council publish, by the end of the Michaelmas Term 1998, a statement on the purpose and criteria of access by students and by academic and assistant staff to the auxiliary services such as the University Dental Service, the Counselling Service, the Nursery, and the Holiday Playschemes.

The Council accept that it would be helpful for this information to be published. Relevant statements are set out as follows:

University Dental Service

The aims of the University Dental Service are to provide as a matter of priority a NHS dental service for registered undergraduate and postgraduate students and their dependants. Additionally, the Service may provide treatment under the NHS for such members of the University staff as can be accommodated.

This means that members of the University staff and their dependants currently registered will continue to be seen under NHS arrangements. A waiting list will operate for members of staff not currently registered who wish to be treated as NHS patients; while they are on the waiting list it will only be possible to offer private treat- ment. Dependants of staff may be seen privately if they can be treated without impairing the service offered to students.

University Counselling Service

The primary aim of the University Counselling Service is to provide, as a matter of priority, counselling for undergraduate and postgraduate students, to enable them to continue to study at the University. Additionally, the Service may provide one assessment interview for members of the University staff if they can be accommodated, to help them to find suitable private therapy.

University Nursery

The University Nursery at Chaucer Road is available for the children of parents who have a contract of employment with the University and are paid through the University payroll. There are fifty places at the Nursery, allocated as far as possible to the following categories of staff:

16 for staff of the Local Examinations Syndicate

17 for academic staff

17 for assistant staff.

Applicants are assessed on a points system, and places at the Nursery are allocated to staff with high scores. Points are awarded on the following criteria:

Existing staff

In the event of a tie between two or more applicants for one place, length of service will be the deciding factor.

New staff

Universities' Holiday Playscheme (UHP)

The Universities' Holiday Playscheme (UHP) is a joint venture with Anglia Polytechnic University (APU) and University of Cambridge (UC) catering for the children of staff and students of APU and children of all staff on the UC payroll. If there are places available two weeks before the playscheme starts these places are open to University-linked staff (e.g. College staff), students, and the general public at a non-subsidized rate.

The UHP provides childcare for children aged 5-14 years during the state school holidays (excluding Christmas and Bank Holidays); it is open from 8.15 a.m. to 5.45 p.m.

The UHP aims to provide an enjoyable holiday time for school children in a relaxed but stimulating environment and to reassure parents that their children are safe and happy while they are working or studying.

These statements will be incorporated into the University website for ease of reference.

VIII. In connection with the next Research Assessment Exercise, the Board recommend that the General Board should, in the course of the academic year 1998-99, complete a general consultation with Departments, Faculties, and Schools, about the appropriate strategies, procedures, and funding priorities to be adopted, in so far as these can be known ahead of time; and should have in place, by the Easter Term 2000, the necessary administrative infrastructure.

The General Board have declared their intention to consult widely in advance of the next RAE. Once they have ascertained the extent to which the aims of the current savings exercise have been achieved, the Board may propose a scheme of strategic appointments in connection with the RAE, subject to funding. The Board are committed to the early provision of a significant level of support from the University Offices. Professor Skinner as Pro-Vice-Chancellor will chair a group which will be responsible for co-ordinating the University's submission to the next RAE; there will be special briefings for Chairmen of Councils of the Schools and those who are expected to hold office at the time of the exercise, particularly Chairmen of the Boards of Faculties not organized in Departments. Policy in relation to the RAE will remain the responsibility of the Board.

IX. The Board recommend that the Council and the General Board present to the Regent House, by the Easter Term 1999, a Report on their policies regarding the overall balance of support as between the University's various Schools.

The General Board consider that their Annual Report provides the appropriate mechanism for conveying information on the Board's policies regarding the overall balance of support as between the University's various Schools; they do not believe that a separate Report is necessary. The Council concur with the Board's view.


< Previous page ^ Table of Contents Next page >

Cambridge University Reporter, 9 December 1998
Copyright © 1998 The Chancellor, Masters and Scholars of the University of Cambridge.