Reporter 23/10/02: Report of Discussion

Report of Discussion

Tuesday, 15 October 2002. A Discussion was held in the Senate-House of the following Reports:

Report of the Council, dated 22 July 2002, on the construction of new cancer research laboratories at the Addenbrooke's Hospital Site (Reporter, 2001-02, p. 1254).

Dr G. R. EVANS:

Mr Deputy Vice-Chancellor, before I quote the words of the Press Office again, I ought to say a word about my speech last week and the Registrary's response. I respect and approve of his instinctive leap to the defence of his staff. It is selfless and courageous to put oneself in the firing line on so many matters. It may well be that I should not have given names, although the names of the Directors of Communications are there, plain to see, in the University telephone book. If I was wrong to indentify them personally, I apologize. The Registrary would not allow me to remove their names, although I offered. But when my speech is published tomorrow I hope it will be seen that I was trying to raise matters of constitutional importance, not in any way to attack individuals caught up in the administrative process and only doing their job. My questions concerned the appropriateness of the title of Director in this context and the important issues of proper supervision and authorization of what is said in the University's name.

That takes me to what I want to say on the present Report. 'Step forward for new cancer research centre' announced the Press Office on 16 September 2002. 'Plans for a state-of-the-art cancer research centre that will reinforce Cambridge as a world leader in cancer research took a step forward last week. The new centre will be a collaboration between the University of Cambridge, Cancer Research UK, and Addenbrooke's NHS Trust.' The local planning authorities have done the University proud once more. 'Cambridge City Council approved the creation of temporary car parking and a new link road at their planning committee meeting last Wednesday.' 'Situated in the north-west of the Addenbrooke's NHS Trust Campus; the development also includes a multi-storey car park and identifies a 'land bank' for future development of up to 280 staff residences to be provided by Trust.'

But when this 'exciting' announcement was made, this project had only got as far as the publication of a Report making the proposal. There was not even a date yet for it to be discussed by the University let alone a proposal for approval and a Grace to put the approval into effect. That date has arrived today, 15 October 2002.

And who is 'procuring' it? 'The new Cancer Research Centre is being procured by the University's Estate Management and Building Service who have engaged Anshen Dyer as architects for the project.' Of course EMBS did (4 October Press release) recently win that business prize for being a prize client. We have a top team there.

We have not yet been invited formally to allow a Grace 'that the Treasurer be authorized to accept tenders for construction for the buildings and all associated works'. But when we are, that will place the procurement in her hands not those of EMBS, surely? Someone supervising the Press Office should have picked that up. It is important to be clear. We are still allowing the Treasurer to accept tenders unsupervised when Professor Shattock identified our lack of tight, supervised procurement practices as one of the reasons for CAPSA.

'Subject to costs remaining within the budget and full funding being identified.' Is there the faintest chance that we shall ever know if those conditions are not met? Should not the Press Office or the Reporter be, as a matter of policy, reporting such things back, as in the case of the collapse of the FTK alliance which was a condition of the Grace to allow an e-M.B.A.? And once more we are taking on running costs, of nearly £1m a year, with no certainty about where they are to come from.

It is financial lunacy to proceed in this way, The Sunday Telegraph reported this week (13 October) on the cost to staff and students of our 'over-ambitious and piecemeal building programme'. The Board of Scrutiny suggest (paragraphs 69-72) that a university has a duty to tell the truth about itself in its comment to the press. What did 'a spokesman for the University' - a spokesman for us - say to the Sunday Telegraph? He/she 'insisted that the building programme was under control'. 'We do our fund-raising after a feasibility test and there is minimum cost outlay'.

Dr S. J. COWLEY:

Deputy Vice Chancellor, in the Discussion on 9 July 2002 on the Report of the Council on the construction of a new building for the Faculty of English, there was some confusion on the part of a member of the Regent House as to when a project is underway. Would the Council please answer the following questions.

• What is going on at the moment at the Addenbrooke's site and, if anything, what was the method of approval for that activity?

• Has the University advanced any funds towards the project?

• Does the University have any contractual liability as of today and, if so, how much?

• Why is money for a building, i.e. a multi-story car park, coming from the land fund (para. 9)?

Dr N. HOLMES:

Mr Deputy Vice-Chancellor, may I begin by making a declaration of interest in the construction of these new laboratories. I am a member of a Department which is heavily engaged in cancer research. I am personally involved in research related to some of that undertaken by the Cancer Research UK laboratories at Lincoln's Inn Fields, from where many of the groups who may occupy this building are likely to come. I therefore naturally welcome the opportunities that this new development may bring.

However, we are all acutely aware of the University's financial position, which is such that we dare not be complacent. Naturally therefore I read this Report with some care to inform myself about the cost of the project to the University. Despite having read it carefully, I am still unsure of the full answer to this important question. I am therefore asking Council to make it clearer to those of us who cannot follow the issue. Let me explain my difficulty more exactly. The Report tells us that the University is to purchase land from Addenbrooke's NHS Trust for £5.025 million. A previous Report, reported related land transactions including the purchase of land from Downing College for £8 million. Some of this land may be sold back to the Trust, though I note in passing that authority for such a sale is not included in the recommendations of this Report. That earlier Report, approved by Grace in November last year, authorized the sale of land at Laundry Farm to Downing College for £50,000. So, the land for this project will have cost roughly £13 million. Some of that cost is to come from the Land Fund but just how much is not certain.

Paragraph 7 of this Report tells us that the project budget is currently £40.4 million. One of my major confusions concerns exactly what is included in this figure. Now to my simple mind, if I decide to build myself a new house on a green field, the cost of the project includes the cost of acquiring the land, the whole cost of designing, building, and finishing the house and its detached garage, as well as all associated costs, e.g. access roads, utility provision.

As far as I can understand the position, the sole reason for purchasing this land is to construct the proposed research facility and associated works. So, I might suppose that the £40.4 million includes the £13 million cost of the land as well as the cost of the associated car park. However, I am not at all certain that it includes either. If it includes both, the cost of the research building looks exceptional value at £1,200 per square metre. I would be grateful if the project cost could be disaggregated to make these points clear.

The multi-storey car park also required will cost an estimated £11 million. The University will bear the cost of 129 of the 1,255 spaces. On a pro-rata basis, this comes to £1.13 million but the total financial commitment (paragraph 8) will be £1.842 million. The remainder of the cost of the car park will be funded by the NHS Trust and Cancer Research UK, but only some of this money will be paid initially, some will come through a revenue stream over 25 years. Could this be made clearer? Is the revenue stream rent or charges? Is it from the Trust, CRUK, or from employees (theirs and/or ours)? Most especially, what are the consequences for the University of this deferred funding in both the short- and long-term, and does this explain the difference between the £1.13 million and £1.842 million?

Paragraph 8 states that there is a funding gap of £5.606 million. Is this for the car park only (it might seems so as that is the context) or does it include the funding shortfall (of unspecified size) referred to in paragraph 7 as well? Is it additional to the £1.842 million or does it include that sum?

In Paragraph 10 the Council recommend 'that the Treasurer be authorized to accept tenders for construction for the buildings and all associated works subject to costs remaining within the project budget and full funding being identified'. Given the statements in the Report about the funding shortfalls and about financial costs to the University, what is meant by 'full funding being identified' in this context? I assume that full funding must include some contribution from University funds, but whether this contribution is to be limited to £1.842 million or some greater sum is not entirely clear to me. I have to say that I think this should be entirely clear to the Regent House if it is to approve this Report with a clear conscience.

In the future, I hope very much that Council will adopt Recommendation II of the Seventh Report of the Board of Scrutiny in full. Perhaps they could make a beginning straight away by including the following information in their Notice in reply to this Discussion: (1) an explicit total liability for the whole project, including land acquisition, to the University from its own funds; (2) the balance on all University funds which will be drawn upon for this project after the allocated amount is withdrawn; (3) a statement about the status of expected donations and commitments by external bodies; (4) a detailed explanation of the financial arrangements for funding the multi-storey car park and the consequences of the deferred revenue stream arrangements.

Joint Report of the Council and the General Board, dated 22 July and 10 July 2002, on the changes required in the University's current employment practices as a result of the European Community Directive on Fixed Term Working (Reporter, 2001-02, p. 1256).

Dr N. A. DODGSON:

Mr Deputy Vice-Chancellor, the legislation which led to this Report has been causing headaches in many Colleges as well as in the University. I congratulate and sympathize with those who had to work their way through our existing procedures to ensure that the Report covered all the fiddly details.

One brief point is worth making here. The science Departments depend on good researchers whose salaries are funded by a series of short, usually three year, research grants. University Teaching Officers spend a lot of time trying to get research grants in order to keep good people on.

These people are, of necessity, employed on a series of fixed-term contracts. While such piecemeal employment is not ideal, it is a consequence of the way in which research is funded in the UK. There is concern amongst some of us that these new regulations will make it much more difficult to reappoint a good Research Associate for a second or third time. It would be catastrophic if we lost good young researchers because of an overly strict interpretation of this European Community Directive. It would therefore be useful if the Council could put down a marker now, explicitly saying that it expects that Research Associates employed on a succession of separate, fixed-term, research grants will be covered by paragraphs 6(ii) and 6(iii) of the report. Such a statement could prevent a lot of trouble in the future.

Dr G. R. EVANS:

It is time something was done for those on short-term contracts in the University. Pity there is no will to make these protections applicable to those already on such contracts. They could, you know. 'The purpose of the Directive is to eliminate the misuse of fixed-term contracts (FTCs) in employment through the requirement that fixed-term employees must not be treated less favourably than comparable permanent employees just because they are employed on fixed-term contracts, unless such treatment can be objectively justified.' The University, characteristically, intends to do as little as it can get away with. It is not going to do the decent thing and simply protect the interests of the large number of staff, including Computer Officers who are members of the Regent House, who have been on a series of short-term contracts, in some cases for a long time. If I were in their position, I would be asking for the written statement of reasons for their less favourable treatment pretty damn quick. If by any chance - and could this possibly happen in Cambridge? - it is not supplied in twenty-one days or is 'evasive or equivocal', the University will be in trouble. For the University is full of examples of 'comparable permanent employees' and those on fixed-term contracts may wish to invite the Personnel Division to do some rapid, detailed, and exact comparisons.

Cambridge has also, characteristically, left this to the last minute, although it has been known for a year that something would have to be done. The Employment Bill was published on 7 November 2001. This Report has appeared only because the European Community Directive on Fixed Term Working has to be implemented in the UK by 1 October 2002. See Statutory Instrument 2034 for 2002.

Mr Deputy Vice-Chancellor, my fear is that if we approve this Report the effect of compliance with the European Directive on these terms will be to move the location of the termination of contracts from natural expiry of fixed-term contracts to the end of the probationary period for the category now affected.

I doubt if our new Vice-Chancellor on his short-term contract or the Pro-Vice-Chancellors on theirs will be subject to the new proposals about probation. I believe Peter Deer as Head of Personnel ought to be setting an example here. He has just entered his University Office and on Friday he will become a member of the Regent House at last. 'Subject to the satisfactory completion of a probationary period' we, the Regent House, his employer, may allow him to stay in it until he is 67.

Under the rules proposed in the Annex to this Report, Peter Deer's line-manager would assess his satisfactoriness. That will be the Registrary. But as far as I know he has had no training in personnel matters, so how is he going to judge whether Deer is up to scratch? Can it be acceptable that such power should go with line-management with no requirement of training or the demonstration of appropriate knowledge for judging the performance of others?

My point is that line-managers may not be in the best position to assess a probationer independently and expertly and therefore fairly. It is dangerous to have no quis custodiet custodes provisions.

True, there is talk of appeal. That involves using the grievance procedure. I repeat my question of last week. How long is it taking to operate the grievance procedure at present? A sacked probationer could wait two, four, eight years for someone to hear his appeal.

Today, after two years' wait, I received a letter from the Vice-Chancellor admitting that he does not even keep a file of letters he receives under Statute U.

The Employment Act 2002 will impose requirements about that, of which I see no mention here. I only wish I could wiggle my fingers in cheery greeting to Peter Deer or Sir Alec in the expressive way Stephen Cowley did last week when he mentioned Professor Malcolm Grant in his speech, and ask them to comment here and now.

'Where there is a concern that an individual may not be successful in passing the probationary assessment, he or she should be reassured that the remaining period of tenure of their existing contract of employment will be treated as an extension of the period of probation and that within that period probationary assessments will be made (my italics) with a view to establishing whether or not the officer may be offered a contract of indefinite duration', says the Report, confusingly. Note the passive verb. Who is going to do this and on what criteria and by what procedure? Training for the assessors and a proper procedure are essential to fairness.

Let us look at the probationary process as proposed in this Report. 'There are responsibilities for both parties'. The University as well as the probationer has to do certain things. It is supposed to ensure a proper induction process. Would that have included explaining enough about the University to a new receptionist in the Old Schools so that she had heard of the Regent House when a caller asked. Poor girl, she had to admit that she did not know how to put the inquirer through to 'someone in the Regent House'. Registrary, I give no names, and this is certainly not an attack on someone who was doing her absolute best to do her job but who had simply not had it explained to her how the University works before being left in charge of a key telephone number. (Then again, perhaps she had been rather well briefed, for the Regent House may soon exist only in name.)

Then comes a long list of requirements to explain what is expected of the probationer in the post. I think Peter Deer could have done with that, since I believe he was led to understand that he was coming to a position where he would have executive authority. If this is not happening, and job specifications do seem to be one of our most unreconstructed areas of continuing casualness, how can it be fair to assess the adequacy of a probationer's performance of duties which have never been clearly identified? The great McCabe Discussion in the early 1980s turned on the failure to identify the duties of a post so that it was subsequently impossible to show whether McCabe had or had not done what was expected of him. The Council never replied to that giant Discussion at all, although it overflowed the Senate-House into Great St Mary's. McCabe went off to a Professorship elsewhere and the Old Schools put the whole business into a cupboard.

What right will the appellant sacked probationer have to see all the things which have been said about him and the criteria he was measured against and to reconstruct the sequence of events which got him 'terminated'. Well, the Information Commissioner will tell you what your rights actually are. The new guidelines about employment records say that in connection with disciplinary or grievance procedures subject access rights apply, 'even when responding to a request might impact on a disciplinary investigation or on forthcoming proceedings'. Access rights also apply to opinions expressed about workers or to information indicating the employer's intentions in respect of them. They seem to have mislaid the instructions from the Information Commissioner which require them to allow access to all that. You just try to get sight of it. They may even try to make you sign away your statutory rights. It took direct Information Commissioner intervention this summer to get even a portion of a data subject access delivered, when the forty-day limit had long receded distantly into the past. That was another matter on which the Vice-Chancellor was deeply unclear in a letter to me this morning, flatly denying what the paper record shows.

And as for being told about adverse comments so that you may defend yourself before the adverse decision is taken, that is regarded as a quite unreasonable request in Cambridge - way over the top, although the Information Commissioner says it ought to be normal practice. I am not attacking the Data Protection Officer. The Registrary tells me he is personally responsible for all this too. Burdens of office, Tim.

Those facing probation should be very very concerned about those procedures.

The General Board's collective tongue ought to have been firmly in its cheek as it approved the words its Academic Secretary (I name no names, Registrary), put before it about situations where 'the purpose of the appointment is to undertake duties where it is uncertain how existing offices and posts will be affected by a reorganization' and where 'an office or post is temporary but there is a prospect that it may be made permanent and it is intended that an appointment to the permanent office or post be made after open competition'. The Times of July 17 reported scathing comments by the Public Appointments Commissioner about failures to ensure that jobs 'go out to open competition'. Shock horror. 'People were approached and offered positions'. One end of the Secretary-General-Academic-Secretary pantomine horse just emerged in time as 'Academic Secretary'.

Sorry, Sir Alec, 'unconstructive criticism' again. I just have what may be a quite naïve wish to see fair treatment for the little people if we are going to play fast track for the favourites. Are others in slots subject to 'reorganization' going to be protected with equal care?

As I said, if you are among 'the holders of academic offices and posts', a probationary scheme like this is shortly coming to a cinema near you. It is going to be in that much delayed 'Report of the General Board on the structure of academic offices', which will include the reform of promotion criteria but not, it seems, of the procedures. In the meantime, academic staff are already being subjected willy-nilly to probationary assessment with no procedures and no protections and no realistic appeal if their careers are arbitrarily cut off at the knees.

So please tear up the Annex and let us have a properly constructed probationary process put before us, before our former fixed-term contract staff find that it is not the end of the contract, but their mysterious failure to pass their probationary assessment, which obliges the University, with the utmost regret, to dispense with their services.

Notice by the Editor: The Discussion was concluded before all remarks were made on the following Reports:

Joint Report of the Council and the General Board, dated 22 July and 10 July 2002, on the ownership of intellectual property rights (Reporter, 2001-02, p. 1268).

Report of the General Board, dated 10 July 2002, on the establishment of an office of Director of Medical Education in the Faculty of Clinical Medicine (Reporter, 2001-02, p. 1271).

Report of the General Board, dated 10 July 2002, on the establishment of a Professorship of Financial Policy (Reporter, 2001-02, p. 1272).

Report of the General Board, dated 10 July 2002, on the establishment of a Visiting Professorship of Marketing, Strategy, and Innovation in the Judge Institute of Management Studies (Reporter, 2001-02, p. 1273).

Report of the General Board, dated 10 July 2002, on the School of Clinical Medicine (Reporter, 2001-02, p. 1274).

The Seventh Report, dated 18 July 2002, of the Board of Scrutiny (Reporter, 2001-02, p. 1306).

These remarks will be published following the continuation of the Discussion on 22 October 2002.

Table of Contents

•	What is going on at the moment at the Addenbrooke's site and, if anything, what was the method of approval for that activity?
•	Has the University advanced any funds towards the project?
•	Does the University have any contractual liability as of today and, if so, how much?
•	Why is money for a building, i.e. a multi-story car park, coming from the land fund (para. 9)?