Skip to main contentCambridge University Reporter

No 6209

Wednesday 12 January 2011

Vol cxli No 13

pp. 365–408

Notices

Calendar

18 January, Tuesday. Full Term begins. Discussion at 2 p.m. in the Senate-House (see below and p. 317).

22 January, Saturday. Congregation of the Regent House at 2 p.m.

24 January, Monday. End of first quarter of Lent Term.

25 January, Tuesday. Discussion at 2 p.m. in the Senate-House (see below).

8 February, Tuesday. Discussion at 2 p.m. in the Senate-House.

Discussions at 2 p.m.

18 January

25 January

8 February

22 February

8 March

22 March

Congregations

22 January, Saturday at 2 p.m.

19 February, Saturday at 2 p.m.

26 March, Saturday at 11 a.m.

Notice of a Discussion on Tuesday, 18 January 2011

The Vice-Chancellor invites those qualified under the regulations for Discussions (Statutes and Ordinances, p. 107) to attend a Discussion in the Senate-House, on Tuesday, 18 January 2011, at 2 p.m., for the discussion of the following topic of concern to the University:

The University’s response to the proposed changes in higher education funding, in light of the more detailed proposals following the publication of the Browne Review.

The request is supported by 169 members of the Regent House (see p. 317).

Notice of a Discussion on Tuesday, 25 January 2011

The Vice-Chancellor invites those qualified under the regulations for Discussions (Statutes and Ordinances, p. 107) to attend a Discussion in the Senate-House, on Tuesday, 25 January 2011, at 2 p.m., for the discussion of:

1. University Council: Annual Report, 2009–10 (Reporter, 2010–11, pp. 215–18).

2. Annual Report of the General Board to the Council for the academical year 2009–10 (Reporter, 2010–11, pp. 219–22).

3. Reports and Financial Statements for the year ended 31 July 2010 (Reporter, 2010–11, pp. 223–58).

4. Report of the General Board, dated 1 December 2010, on the establishment of a Department of Theoretical and Applied Linguistics (Reporter, 2010–11, p. 357).

5. Report of the General Board, dated 1 December 2010, on the establishment of an MRC Research Professorship of Cognitive Psychology (Reporter, 2010–11, p. 359).

6. Report of the General Board, dated 1 December 2010, on the establishment of a Professorship of Finance (Reporter, 2010–11, p. 360).

7. Report of the Council, dated 20 December 2010, on external financing for the development of its land holdings in North West Cambridge and other building projects (Reporter, 2010–11, p. 403–05).

Amending Statutes for Jesus College: Notice

10 January 2011

The Vice-Chancellor begs leave to refer to his Notice of 3 November 2010 (Reporter, 2010–11, p. 114), concerning proposed amending Statutes for Jesus College. He hereby gives notice that in the opinion of the Council the proposed Statutes make no alteration of any Statute which affects the University, and do not require the consent of the University; that the interests of the University are not prejudiced by them, and that the Council has resolved to take no action upon them, provided that the Council will wish to reconsider the proposed Statutes if they have not been submitted to the Privy Council by 10 January 2012.

Notice of benefactions

20 December 2010

The Vice-Chancellor gives notice that he has received with gratitude the following benefactions:

(a) a benefaction of £1m from the Li Ka Shing (Canada) Foundation. The benefaction will be used to contribute to the refurbishment of the Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology which includes the creation of a new ground-floor exhibitions gallery (see the Report of the Council, dated 31 May 2010, on the gallery refurbishment and new entrance for the Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology (Reporter, 2009–10, p. 942)). In recognition of this gift, the Faculty Board of Archaeology and Anthropology have agreed to name the Gallery as the Li Ka Shing Gallery

(b) a further benefaction of $1.5m from the Board of Cambridge in America to support Trophoblast Research. The benefaction is made possible following a generous gift from an anonymous donor. The terms of the benefaction allow for 80% to be used at the discretion of the Managers of the Trophoblast Research Fund (Statutes and Ordinances, p. 940) and for 20% to be added to the capital of the Fund.

Board of Scrutiny: Notice of a Bye-election

10 January 2011

The Vice-Chancellor gives notice of an election of a member of the Board of Scrutiny to fill a vacancy in class (c)(ii) following the election of Dr S. M. Oosthuizen as a member of the Council from 1 January 2011. The elected member will serve until 30 September 2013. Class (c)(ii) consists of members of the Regent House chosen without limit of age. Under Statute A, VII, 4 no person may be a member of the Board of Scrutiny who is a member of the Council, the General Board, or the Finance Committee of the Council, or who holds any of the University offices of Chancellor, Vice-Chancellor, Pro-Vice-Chancellor, University Advocate, Deputy University Advocate, Registrary, Assistant Registrary, or Secretary of a School. The Ordinances for the Board (Statutes and Ordinances, p. 116) further exclude Directors and Deputy Directors in the University Offices (Unified Administrative Service) and Assistant Treasurers.

In order to be eligible, a candidate must be nominated on a paper sent to the Vice-Chancellor at the Old Schools so as to reach him not later than noon on Wednesday, 26 January 2011.

The paper must contain (a) a statement signed by two members of the Regent House, nominating the candidate for election and (b) a statement signed by the candidate certifying that he or she consents to be so nominated. The candidate should also submit a curriculumvitae (see below).

The Vice-Chancellor would be obliged if nominations could be delivered to the Registrary in the Old Schools during office hours. Envelopes should be clearly marked as Nomination papers. Nomination papers may also be faxed to 01223 332332 or scanned (showing signatures) and sent by email to registrary@admin.cam.ac.uk. Nominations will be published as they are received. The complete list of nominations will be published in the Reporter on Wednesday, 2 February.

Regulation 3 of the regulations for the election of members of the Council (Statutes and Ordinances, p. 114) applies also to the Board of Scrutiny. Under this regulation, each person nominated for election is required to send to the Registrary, not later than noon on Wednesday, 26 January, a statement of her or his curriculum vitae for distribution to members of the Regent House with the voting papers. It is suggested that such a statement should be of not more than 500 words in length, and that it should cover the following points:

– the candidate’s present position in the University

– previous posts held, whether in Cambridge or in other universities, or outside the university system, with dates

– a note of the candidate’s particular interests within the field of University business.

Voting papers will be distributed, together with the statements provided by candidates, not later than Tuesday, 8 February. The last date for the return of voting papers will be 5 p.m. on Monday, 21 February.

Regulation 2 for the election of members of the Board of Scrutiny (Statutes and Ordinances, p. 116) provides that, if at any election insufficient nominations are received to fill the vacant places in either class (c)(i) or class (c)(ii), the Council shall appoint as many members as may be necessary.

Flying of the University Flag and ‘scarlet days’ in 2011: Notice

The Vice-Chancellor publishes for information the following list of dates in 2011 on which it is expected that the University Flag will be flown from the Old Schools:

6 February

Accession of HM The Queen

21 April

Birthday of HM The Queen

23 April

St George’s Day

10 June

Birthday of HRH The Duke of Edinburgh

11 June

Official Birthday of HM The Queen (tbc)

23 June

Congregation for Honorary Degrees

30 June, 1, and 2 July

General Admission to Degrees

1 October

Address by the Vice-Chancellor and Election and Admission of the Proctors

14 November

Birthday of HRH The Prince of Wales

‘Scarlet days’

Members of the University may also find it convenient to be reminded of the days appointed annually for the wearing of festal gowns, which are also days on which the academical dress of other universities may in general be worn. In 2011 these are:

24 April

Easter Day

2 June

Ascension Day

12 June

Whitsunday

19 June

Trinity Sunday

30 June, 1, and 2 July

General Admission to Degrees

1 November

All Saints Day

6 November

Commemoration of Benefactors

25 December

Christmas Day

In addition, the Vice-Chancellor has designated 23 June 2011 (Congregation for Honorary Degrees) as a ‘scarlet day’.

Annual Report of the Audit Committee for the financial year 2009–10: Notice

The Council has received the Annual Report of its Audit Committee for 2009–10. The report is published for the information of the University.

1 Executive Summary

For the 2009–10 Annual Report the Audit Committee has revised the template to follow a model advised by HEFCE to provide a comprehensive overview of its business during the Financial Year 2009–10.

This section provides a summary of the key opinions, assurances, and issues considered by the Audit Committee during this year.

1.1 Opinion – Risk Management, Control, and Governance

The Audit Committee has monitored the effectiveness of the University’s risk management, control, and governance arrangements and controls throughout the period. The Committee notes that there have been improvements across a broad spectrum of the University’s activities and found that the University and individual institutions are making transparent and sustained efforts to understand and incorporate best practice in governance, risk management, and internal controls. With respect to the governance of the University, the Committee wishes to note the value it places on the importance of clear and assessable arrangements. These must be appropriate, dynamic, and beneficial to a responsible, self-governing higher education, research, and collegiate institution. The Committee is satisfied that progress in this regard is consistent and incremental.

1.2 Opinion – Economy, Efficiency, and Effectiveness (VFM)

The Committee has monitored the effectiveness of the University’s financial controls throughout the period. It is satisfied that there is good evidence of the continuing adoption and improvement of arrangements throughout the University for promoting economy, efficiency, and effectiveness.

1.3 Opinion – Data integrity

The Audit Committee has monitored the effectiveness of the University’s management and quality assurance of data submitted to HESA and to HEFCE and other funding bodies. An internal audit review ‘Data quality – HESA return’ was carried out in the year for which full assurance was given. The Committee is satisfied that the management control and quality assurance of data submitted are effective.

1.4 Internal Auditor

The Audit Committee reviewed its internal auditor provider during the year agreeing that it should tender for internal audit services as a matter of good practice, with the result that Deloitte LLP was appointed as the internal auditors replacing Grant Thornton LLP in January 2010.

1.5 Internal Audit Reports

Thirty-two internal audit reports have been considered by the Committee during the 2009–10 financial year. Twenty-nine of these were conducted by Grant Thornton LLP and the Audit Committee was reassured that twenty-three of the reports were given an overall grading of either medium or low concern.

The three reports completed by Deloitte LLP all received a grading of substantial assurance.

1.6 External Auditor

PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP was reappointed as the University’s external auditor.

1.7 Key Issues for 2009–10

(a)Risk Management Policy

The Audit Committee proposed to the University Council that the membership of the Risk Steering Committee could be strengthened by including three members of the Council, a Head of School, and a Bursar. This proposal was approved by the Council.

(b)Value for Money

The Audit Committee reviewed the effectiveness of the University’s Value for Money Committee and agreed that the University’s Resource Management Committee was better placed to provide assurance that the University was getting best value for its expenditure. The proposal to dissolve the Value for Money Committee was passed forward to the University Council for consideration and was approved.

2 Introduction

The Audit Committee is required to prepare an annual report for submission to its own governing body and, in England, subsequently to HEFCE. The Audit Committee Annual Report should be supported by the internal audit annual report (Appendices A(i) and A(ii) – not published).

The contents and structure of this report follow the guidance set out in Appendix 6 of HEFCE’s Handbook for Members of Audit Committees in Higher Education Institutions (see Appendix B).

This Audit Committee Annual Report is for the Financial Year 1 August 2009 – 30 July 2010 and provides the opinion of the Audit Committee as to the extent to which reliance can be placed on the internal control and reporting systems of the University. The opinion is based on the Committee’s consideration of the internal auditors’ annual reports, a draft of the external auditor’s Management Letter, other work commissioned by the Committee during the year and on discussions at its workshops.

A copy of this report will be published in the Reporter for the information of the University.

3 Membership

3.1 Constitution of the Audit Committee

The Constitution of the Audit Committee is set out in Statutes and Ordinances of the University of Cambridge:

1 There shall be a standing committee of the Council, called the Audit Committee, which shall consist of:

(a)a member of the Council in class (e) appointed by the Council to serve as Chairman of the Committee;

(b)two members of the Council appointed by the Council from among its members who are members of the Regent House, provided that neither the Vice-Chancellor, a Pro-Vice-Chancellor, nor the Chairman of a Council of a School shall be eligible to serve;

(c)four persons, not being members of the Regent House or employees of the University, appointed by the Council with regard to their professional expertise and experience in comparable roles in corporate life, including at least two members with experience of finance, accounting, or auditing;

(d)not more than two persons, of whom at least one shall be a member of the Regent House, neither being members of the Council, co-opted by the Committee, provided that it shall not be obligatory for the Committee to co-opt any person or persons.

2 Members in classes (a), (b), and (c) shall be appointed in the Michaelmas Term to serve for three years from 1 January next following their appointment. No members in class (a), (b), and (c) may serve for more than eight consecutive years. Co-opted members shall serve until 31 December of the year in which they are co-opted or of the following year, as the Committee shall decide at the time of their co-optation.

3 No person may be a member of the Audit Committee who is a member of the Finance Committee of the Council. If a member of the Audit Committee becomes a member of the Finance Committee, his or her place shall thereupon become vacant.

5 No business shall be conducted at a meeting of the Audit Committee unless five members at least are present, of whom at least one shall be a member from class (b) and two shall be members from class (c).1

During 2009–10 the Audit Committee has continued to consider the restructuring of the Committee and has sent forward proposed changes to the constitution for consideration by the University Council and approval by the Regent House (see section 5.2 of the 2008–09 report, Appendix C).

3.2 Membership 2009–10

Chairman:

Mr Nigel Brown OBE

Secretary:

Dr Jonathan W. Nicholls, Registrary

Assistant Secretary:

Mrs Iris Hunter (until 31 December 2009)

Dr Holly E. B. Kinnear (from 1 January 2010)

Table 1: Members of the Committee, 2009–10

Class of membership

Name of member

Limit of tenure

(a)

Mr Nigel Brown OBE

31 December 2010

(b)

Mr Robert Dowling

Dr David Good

31 December 2012

31 December 2012

(c)

Mr Matthew Bullock

Mr Nicholas Martin

Mr John Shakeshaft

Mr Michael Starkie

Resigned July 2010

31 December 2012

31 December 2010

31 December 2012

(d)

Prof. Lindsay Greer

Dr Susan Lintott

31 December 2010

31 December 2010

3.3 Process of appointment

Members are appointed to the Audit Committee by the Council of the University of Cambridge.

(a)Current procedure

Current members of the Committee were appointed via nominations made by the Audit Committee to the University’s Council’s Committee of the Membership of Council Committees.

Vacancies on the University’s Council Committees have usually been advertised in the Reporter. Applicants for these vacancies may be considered by the Audit Committee prior to its nominations to the Committee on the Membership of Council Committees.

(b)Future procedure

For the next reporting period the process has been changed. The Audit Committee will make nominations to the University Council’s Advisory Committee of Committee Memberships and External Nominations.

3.4 University officers and auditors

The Audit Committee invites certain senior University officers and the University’s external and internal auditors to attend unreserved meetings. On occasion it may also invite other colleagues to attend for a specific agenda item.

During 2009–10, the Audit Committee also invited an external member of the University’s Council to attend the meetings to promote succession planning for the membership of the Committee and agreed that the Chairs of the Audit Committees of Cambridge Assessment and Cambridge University Press should also be invited to attend all meetings and to make biennial reports.

The Vice-Chancellor is invited to address the Audit Committee annually, usually at its January meeting.

Table 2: Senior officers, auditors, and other colleagues invited to attend meetings during 2009–10

Position

Name

Director of Finance

Mr Andrew Reid

Pro-Vice-Chancellor for Planning and Resources

Professor Stephen Young

Member of Council

Dame Mavis McDonald

Internal Auditor – Grant Thornton LLP

Mr Andrew Lees (until 31 December 2009)

Ms Claire Oliver (until 31 December 2009)

Internal Auditor – Deloitte LLP

Mr Mike Barber (from 1 January 2010)

Ms Kate Foster (from 1 January 2010 to May 2010)

Ms Maggie Gibb (from 1 January 2010 to May 2010)

Mr Richard Evans (from May 2010)

Mr Richard Neal (from May 2010)

External Auditor – PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP

Mr Everest

Mr Minards

Mr Ormiston

Mr Tapping

Mr Wyborn

Chair of the Audit Committee of Cambridge Assessment

Mr Bruce Picking

Chair of the Audit Committee of Cambridge University Press

Mrs Lonsdale (for November 2009)

Mr Richard Barker (from 1 January 2010)

4 Meetings

This section of the report provides information on members who attended the meetings, and those colleagues and auditors who attended at the invitation of the Audit Committee.

Table 3: Attendance at meetings, 2009–10

Members in class (a)

Members in class (b)

Members in class (c)

Members in class (d)

Senior officers and guests invited to attend

Auditors

Apologies

Quorate

15/10/09

1

1

3

2

4

Internal: 2

2

Yes

19/11/092

1

2

4

2

6

Internal: 2

External: 4

1

Yes

21/01/103

1

2

2

2

6

Internal: 5

2

Yes

11/03/104

1

2

1

1

6

Internal: 4

External: 4

4

No

13/05/10

1

2

2

1

7

Internal: 5

3

Yes

06/07/10

1

2

3

1

6

Internal: 2

4

Yes

5 Terms of Reference

The Audit Committee’s Terms of References are set out in Statutes and Ordinances of the University of Cambridge, and are as follows:

(a)to keep under review the effectiveness of the University’s internal systems of financial and other control;

(b)to advise the Council on matters relating to the external and internal auditors, including their appointment, the provision by the auditors of any additional services outside the scope of their regular responsibilities, the remuneration of the auditors, and any questions relating to the resignation or dismissal of auditors;

(c)to ensure that sufficient resources are made available for internal audit;

(d)to approve proposals for internal audit put forward by the internal auditors;

(e)to review annually with the external auditors the nature and scope of the external audit;

(f)to consider any reports submitted by the auditors, both external and internal;

(g)to monitor the implementation of any recommendations made by the internal auditors;

(h)to satisfy themselves that satisfactory arrangements are adopted throughout the University for promoting economy, efficiency, effectiveness, and risk management;

(i)to establish appropriate performance measures and to monitor annually the performance and effectiveness of the external and internal auditors;

(j)to consider, in consultation with the external auditors, (i) any financial statements annexed to the abstract of accounts, including the auditors’ report, and (ii) any statement provided by the Council on the governance of the University;

(k)to ensure that all significant losses are properly investigated and that the internal and external auditors, and where appropriate the Higher Education Funding Council for England, are informed;

(l)to oversee the University’s policy on fraud and irregularity, and to ensure that they are informed of any action taken under that policy;

(m)to make an annual report to the Council, the Vice-Chancellor, and the Higher Education Funding Council for England;

(n)to receive reports from the National Audit Office and the Higher Education Funding Council for England, and to advise the Council thereon;

(o)to forward minutes of their meetings to the Council.5

6 Internal audit

6.1 Name of provider

At its reserved meeting on 22 January 2009, the Audit Committee agreed that it should tender for internal audit services as a matter of good practice following five years since the appointment of Grant Thornton LLP (previously RSM Robson Rhodes LLP). At the following reserved meeting on 12 March 2009 the Committee approved the selection panel for the market testing exercise, and proposed to the University’s Council that Grant Thornton LLP’s contract be extended to 31 December 2009 to allow time for the production of the 2010 internal audit plan and to make the potential transition to a new term easier.

At the reserved meeting of 9 July 2009 it was agreed to accept the selection panel’s recommendation to appoint Deloitte LLP as internal auditors for the University with effect from 1 January 2010 until 30 June 2013, subject to satisfactory completion of contractual arrangements.

The move from one internal auditor to another mid-year meant that there was a need to split the Internal Audit Plan 2009/10 between Grant Thornton LLP and Deloitte LLP. The officers of the Committee considered a suitable split of the plan, in conjunction with Grant Thornton LLP. Deloitte LLP were content with the proposal.

The split ensured that an effective Internal Audit function operated for the full year.

6.2 Review of appointment

As January 2010 marked the appointment of a new internal auditor, a review of appointment has not taken place during 2009–10.

6.3 Review of internal audit annual report

With the appointment of a new auditor in January 2010, the internal audit annual report for the year 2009–10 is a collation of the opinion of Grant Thornton LLP, auditors for the period 1 August 2009 – 31 December 2009, and Deloitte LLP, auditors for the period 1 January 2010 – 31 July 2010 (see Appendices A(i) and A(ii)).

(a)Grant Thornton LLP

The Summary Internal Audit Report 2009/10 for the period 1 August – 31 December 2009 was received by the Audit Committee at its meeting on 8 July 2010.

The auditor did not undertake any work in relation to governance, risk management, value for money or data quality during 2009–10, but for all of these areas states that ‘there are no circumstances that suggest to us that the opinion given in 2008–09 would not be appropriate in the current year’.

The opinion for Internal Control is as follows: ‘the University has designed a satisfactory framework of control to provide assurance on the adequacy of the control environment and achievement in its objectives. Overall, that framework of control has been operating with sufficient effectiveness during the period under review’.

The Audit Committee was reassured by this opinion.

(b)Deloitte LLP

The Annual Report 2009/10 for the period 1 January – 31 July 2010 was received by the Audit Committee at its meeting of 18 November 2010. The Report noted that the 2009–10 Internal Audit Risk Assessment and Internal Audit plan was undertaken by Grant Thornton LLP with certain of the internal audits from the audit programme allocated to Deloitte LLP to complete in order to provide the required assurances.

Subject to the limitations of the work described in Deloitte LLP’s Report, the Internal Audit Opinion given was ‘We provide reasonable assurance that the University has an adequate and effective system of internal controls for the year ended 31 July 2010. The control issues identified during our work do not materially impact upon the opinion to be provided in respect of the adequacy and effectiveness for the University’s arrangements for corporate governance, risk management, internal control, and value for money.’

6.4 Review of audit reports

The Committee considers at its meetings all reports submitted by the internal and external auditors. Each internal audit report is assigned to a member of the Committee for detailed consideration. The member then presents the findings to the Committee.

Thirty-two internal audit reports have been considered by the Committee during the current year. The fieldwork for fifteen of these reports was conducted during 2008–09, but the final reports were not presented to the Audit Committee for discussion until the 2009–10 financial year.

Fieldwork has been carried out for other reviews and three draft reports have been issued. This report, however, refers only to the final reports that were received and considered by the Audit Committee for the year under consideration, 1 August 2009 – 31 July 2010.

The tables below summarize the opinions of the auditors for the thirty-two reports. More detailed information on each report, along with the views expressed by the Committee, is included in Appendices D(i) and D(ii). For simplicity, the summary has been split between the two auditors.

(a)Grant Thornton LLP

For each report Grant Thornton LLP provided an overall report grading, as follows:

A

Urgent: issues found which are very serious and systematic or are immediate problems for the University as a whole concerning reputation, financial security, integrity of processes or other threat, including fraud.

B

High: issues found which are serious in the context of the area reviewed or could develop into wider problems if not attended to.

C

Medium: issues found which need to be corrected but which are confined to one department / division.

D

Low: no real issues

Grant Thornton LLP classified their recommendations as follows:

Fundamental (F)

Findings that are fundamental to the management of the risk

Significant (S)

Findings that are important to the management of the risk

Merits Attention (MA)

Findings, which are relatively minor in nature, but represent the opportunity to improve the management of risk

Best Practice (BP)

Recommendations which are made solely to improve the operation of processes, based on the auditor’s experience of similar situations elsewhere within, or beyond the University

Table 4: Summary Review Gradings and Recommendations of Grant Thornton LLP Internal Audit Reports

Review Gradings

A

B

C

D

0

6

14

9

Recommendations

Fundamental

Significant

Merits Attention

Best Practice

7

77

81

7

(b)Deloitte LLP

Deloitte LLP provide an assessment of the adequacy and effectiveness of systems using the following definitions:

Full

There is a sound system of internal control designed to achieve the University’s objectives. The control processes tested are being consistently applied.

Substantial

While there is a basically sound system of internal control, there are weaknesses, which put some of the University’s objectives at risk.

There is evidence that the level of non-compliance with some of the control processes may put some of the University’s objectives at risk.

Limited

Weaknesses in the system of internal controls are such as to put the University’s objectives at risk

The level of non-compliance puts the University’s objectives at risk.

Nil

Control processes are generally weak leaving the processes/systems open to significant error or abuse.

Significant non-compliance with basic control processes leaves the processes/systems open to error or abuse.

Deloitte LLP classify their recommendations as follows:

Priority 1

Priority 2

Priority 3

Priority 4

Issues that are fundamental to the University, for the attention of senior management and the audit committee.

Issues that are fundamental to the area subject to internal audit, for the attention of senior management and the audit committee.

Important issues to be addressed by management in their areas of responsibility.

Housekeeping issues of good practice suggestions.

Table 5: Summary Review Gradings of Deloitte LLP Internal Audit Reports

Review Gradings

Full

Substantial

Limited

Nil

0

3

0

0

Recommendations

Priority 1

Priority 2

Priority 3

Priority 4

0

1

5

0

The Audit Committee was satisfied with the reports overall, however there were four reports which were of particular concern (Value for Money: Cleaning, Department of Haematology, Pension Management, and Department of Clinical Neurosciences). In the case of the report on the Department of Haematology the Audit Committee requested that the grading be changed from C (Medium) to B (High) to reflect the significance of the findings and the risks contained therein. The Audit Committee referred its comments on these four reports to the University Council.

6.5 Details of non-audit services

(a)Grant Thornton LLP

During 2009–10 the internal auditor Grant Thornton LLP carried out work in the following areas for the University:

(i)PCI Compliance

(ii)EU Framework 7 – Grant 1

(iii)A-133 Grant

(iv)Hauser Forum Grant

(b)Deloitte LLP

During 2009–10 the internal auditor Deloitte LLP carried out work in the following areas for the University:

(i)Green Car Scheme Consultancy

6.6 Internal Auditors’ Fees

Fees paid for work completed in 2009–10 are shown in Appendices E(i) and E(ii).

7 External Audit

7.1 Name of provider

PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP were re-appointed the External Auditors for the Financial Year 2009–10.

7.2 Review of appointment

In accordance with HEFCE’s Financial Memorandum an external auditor is appointed/re-appointed every year.

The Statutes and Ordinances of the University of Cambridge also require that ‘the accounts of the University shall be audited annually by qualified accountants appointed by Grace on the nomination of the Council’ (Statutes and Ordinances of the University of Cambridge, Statute F, Chapter II, Item 5).

A Grace submitted to the Regent House on 17 February 2010 recommending the reappointment of PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP was approved on 26 February 2010.

7.3 Details of non-audit services

During 2009–10 the external auditor carried out work in the following areas for the University:

(a)Pension advice in relation to the impact of changes in pension legislation in April 2011.

(b)Tax compliance services.

(c)TDA return work.

(d)Assurance over the valuation of the CUEF at 30 June 2010.

(e)Providing access to a web-based package providing material on accounting, reporting, and related law.

7.4 Review of the management letter

The External audit management letter 2009/10 submitted by PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP was received by the Audit Committee at its meeting on 18 November 2010. It was noted that it was the first year in which PricewaterhouseCoopers had been responsible for the auditing of the University as a whole, including Cambridge University Press.

The Audit Committee considered the Report’s remarks on auditing and accounting matters, detailed control observations and other observations from around the University group, and the management’s responses to the recommendations, which were considered satisfactory.

7.5 External auditor’s fees

Fees paid for work completed in 2009–10 are shown in appendix F.

8 Other work undertaken

8.1 Statement of internal control

The Council of the University of Cambridge has the responsibility for reviewing the effectiveness of the system of internal control. The Audit Committee plays a role in supporting the Council in this role through the following processes:

(a)The Council receives periodic reports from the Chairman of the Audit Committee concerning internal control and receives the minutes of all meetings of the Audit Committee.

(b)The Audit Committee receives regular reports from the internal auditor, which include the internal auditor’s independent opinion on the adequacy and effectiveness of the University’s system of internal control and risk management, together with recommendations for improvement.

(c)The Council’s review of the effectiveness of the system of internal control is informed by the work of the internal auditor. They operate to the standards defined in Accountability and Audit: HEFCE Code of Practice.

Through the consideration of reports from the internal auditor the Audit Committee is assured that the University’s system of internal control is currently effective and is able to report its reassurance to the Council for the year 2009–10.

8.2 Review of assurances received

Deloitte LLP has confirmed its reasonable assurance that the University has an adequate and effective system of internal controls for the year ended 31 July 2010. The control issues identified during its work do not materially impact upon the opinion to be provided in respect of the adequacy and effectiveness for the University’s arrangements for corporate governance, risk management, internal control, and value for money.

8.3 Review of institution’s Risk Management Strategy

(a)The University’s approach to risk management

The University of Cambridge follows good practice in Risk Management as given in the Turnbull Committee guidance, and endeavours to fully comply with HEFCE requirements.

The University’s view of acceptable risk is based on a balanced view of all the risks in its operating environment. It aims to ensure an appropriate balance between risk aversion and opportunity and gains.

Risks are prioritized drawing on qualitative and quantitative measures.

The strategy to achieve this is:

(i)A Risk Steering Committee (RSC) has been established to oversee the Risk Management process as a whole, on behalf of Council.

(ii)A Risk Policy was approved in 2002 and is reviewed annually.

(iii)The fundamental risks affecting the University have been identified and quantified in 2002, and reviewed annually ensuring that the full scope of the University’s activities are covered.

(iv)The extent and categories of the risks that the University regards as acceptable have been reviewed.

(v)Arrangements to manage fundamental risks have been put in place and the effectiveness of those arrangements has been examined. Where risk management is judged weak or limited in effect, controls have been and will be enhanced.

(vi)Responsibility for the management of risks has been allocated.

(vii)The review of risks and their management has been and will continue to be carried out at least annually.

(b)Risk Management Policy – The role of the Audit Committee and its auditors

The Audit Committee reports to the Council on internal controls and alerts the Council on any emerging issues. In addition, the Audit Committee oversees internal audit, external audit and management as required in its review of internal controls. The Audit Committee provides advice to the Council on the effectiveness of the Risk Steering Committee on the internal control system, including the University’s system for the management of risk.

(i)Internal audit programme

The internal audit process is responsible for aspects of the annual review of the effectiveness of the internal control system within the University. The internal audit strategy will be developed around the University’s objectives and use the assessment of the fundamental risks. The work programme includes an assessment of the effectiveness of the risk management process.

(ii)External audit

The external audit informs the Audit Committee on the operation of the internal financial controls reviewed as part of the annual audit.

(c)The Audit Committee’s role – 2009/10

(i)Risk Steering Committee

At its second meeting of the year the Audit Committee received copies of the Annual Report of the Risk Steering Committee and an up-to-date version of the key risk register. Members of the Committee were invited to bring their copies of the key risk register to future meetings, to help inform discussions of audit report and the impact on risk management.

Following discussion the Committee agreed to propose to the University Council that the membership of the Risk Steering Committee could be strengthened by including three members of the Council, a Head of School, and a Bursar.

From 1 January 2010 the Chair of the Audit Committee joined the Risk Management Committee as one of the new Council representatives.

(ii)Risk Register

At its meeting on 13 May 2010 the Audit Committee received the minutes of the Risk Steering Committee and a copy of the revised Risk Register.

It was reported to the Audit Committee that the current system of calculating and signalling risks was considered by the Steering Committee to be overly complex, and failed to identify risks that are perennially high but consistently well managed. A review of this system was underway, with the inclusion of a visual change indicator being a key proposal.

(iii)Internal audit

During 2009–10 the internal auditor, Deloitte LLP, conducted a review of the University’s Risk Management Strategy and provided an overall grade of ‘Substantial’, with only one recommendation (priority three): ‘It is recommended that risk management is addressed within the Financial Regulations to establish roles and responsibilities in relation to identification and management of financial risks. The Regulations should make reference to the Risk Management Strategy and Policy’.

The Audit Committee was impressed with the conclusions of the report and commended the work of the Risk Steering Committee.

8.4 Other work, for example VFM reports

The Audit Committee has a number of standing agenda items, for example Value for Money (VFM) and Fraud, on which it asks for regular updates from senior University officers and also seeks assurance from the internal auditors.

(a)Value for Money

The University has an explicit duty imposed on it by the HEFCE Audit Code of Practice and the Financial Memorandum with the HEFCE, as follows:

‘The governing body of the institution is responsible for delivering value for money from public funds. It should keep under review its arrangements for managing all the resources under its control, taking into account guidance on good practice issued from time to time by the Council, the National Audit Office or the Public Accounts Committee.’

The requirement placed on the Audit Committee by HEFCE, through ‘Accountability and Audit: HEFCE Code of Practice’ (June 2004/27) is that ‘members of the audit committee of each HEI, advised where appropriate by its internal audit service, must satisfy itself that satisfactory arrangements are in place to promote economy, efficiency and effectiveness.’

In addition, the HEFCE Audit Code of Practice requires the Committee to state formally in its annual report to the governing body (Council) whether or not it is satisfied with the arrangements in place to promote VFM. The HEFCE Audit Service believes that, to do this, the Audit Committee should oversee a VFM strategy or policy prepared by management, which shows what approach management has adopted to satisfy Councils.

(i)The University’s VFM procedure

In recent years the Council established a VFM Committee to oversee the value for money arrangements at the University under the guidance of the Council and the Audit Committee received the minutes of the VFM Committee.

The Audit Committee received the minutes of the VFM Committee and continues to have VFM as a standing item on its agenda.

At its last meeting of 2009–10, however, the Audit Committee supported a proposal from the Pro-Vice-Chancellor (Planning and Resource) that the University’s Resource Management Committee was better placed to provide assurance that the University was getting best value for is expenditure than the VFM Committee. It was also observed that many of the internal audit reports prepared on behalf of the audit committee took account of value for money, so there was some risk that duplication of effort was taking place between the VFM Committee and the work of the internal auditors. This proposal was later approved by the University’s Council.

To ensure that assurance will be maintained by the Audit Committee and University Council, following the proposed dissolution of the VFM Committee, it was recommended that the Audit Committee should receive a regular statement from the Resource Management Committee and that the internal auditor should give more explicit reference to VFM in relevant audit reports.

(ii)The Audit Committee’s role 2009–10

The University’s internal audit service takes VFM into account in its audit plan and some reports are explicitly related to VFM, for example during 2009–10 a review was undertaken on the value for money of the University’s cleaning contracts, whilst others will implicitly include VFM in their evaluation of an institution or operational process.

(b)Fraud

(i)University Council’s policy

When financial internal controls are operating satisfactorily within a department the likelihood of theft or fraud is reduced, although it cannot be completely eliminated.

It is the responsibility of the Head of Department, and for other senior staff within the Department, to establish suitable controls to both prevent and detect fraud. However, where there is suspicion of any financial irregularity, then any member of staff aware of such an irregularity should notify the Director of Finance immediately.

Departments are advised not to take action until the Director of Finance is informed and an appropriate fraud response plan prepared.

(ii)Definition of fraud and purpose of this procedure

For the purposes of these procedures, fraud is defined as the use of deception, or intentional misrepresentation, to obtain an unjust or illegal financial advantage or deprive the University of any value or property.

(iii)Audit Committee’s role and responsibilities

The Director of Finance may advise the internal audit function of any suspected irregularity and may request an investigation. The Director will report any cases to the Audit Committee and keep them informed of the findings of the internal auditors.

(iv)Audit Committee’s role 2009–10

A Cases of suspected fraud

The Director of Finance informed the Committee of two incidents of suspected irregularity:

(1) It was reported to the Committee that there had been a minor, non-material instance of cheque fraud, which had been dealt with satisfactorily.

(2) One possible risk of cash-handling fraud had been identified. The internal auditor had been asked to investigate this and will report any findings to the Audit Committee.

B Internal audit

The Audit Committee received a report on Anti-Fraud Arrangements which gave an overall opinion that ‘management has implemented various policies and procedures in relation to anti-fraud arrangements however further work is required to ensure that such arrangements are robust. We have made some significant recommendations that need to be addressed, in particular relating to the areas of strategy, code of conduct, key personnel, training, and the whistle-blowing policy.’

The Committee welcomed the guidance from the internal auditors, and agreed that it would be implemented as appropriate. It was noted that it was important for the University to guard against complacency and to consider more controls to prevent fraud. The Committee also advised that the possibility of fraud (defined broadly to include academic, financial and other forms) should be included within the risk register as an element running through many of the strategic risks.

(c)HEFCE

The Audit Committee considered a number of reports from HEFCE during 2009–10 and contributed its thoughts for inclusion in the University’s response, when required.

(i) Transparent Approach to Costing (TRAC) requirements

The Committee received the Key Risk Sign-off, and was assured that the processes described confirmed that the University has systems in place to ensure compliance to the TRAC requirements.

(ii) Revisions to Financial Memorandum Consultation

In January 2008 the HEFCE launched a consultation on changes to the Financial Memorandum Consultation, following revisions made in 2003. The proposals therein were discussed widely in the sector and a much-revised Financial Memorandum was published.

The consultation launched on 5 March 2010 was therefore met with surprise from the Audit Committee, which was dissatisfied that Academic Standards were being proposed as part of the revisions to the Financial Memorandum, as this appeared to be a replication of the mechanisms already in place for assessing quality standards as currently managed by the Quality Assurance Agency (QAA).

The inclusion of carbon and diversity also seemed unusual, as there are many other legislative requirements for HEIs to comply with, which are not included within the Financial Memorandum nor should be.

The number of consultations and revisions since 2003 have subsequently led to a much-revised Financial Memorandum which the Audit Committee considers far more satisfactory.

(iii) Audit of Higher Education Students Early Statistics Survey 2009–10 (HESES09) Return

The Committee received a copy of the HESES09, which confirmed that the HEFCE was able to place reliance on the HESES return and contained only three ‘lesser important’ recommendations and only one ranked as ‘high’.

(iv)HEFCE’s Assessment of Institutional Risk

The Committee received with assurance a copy of the letter from the HEFCE stating its opinion that the University is ‘not at higher risk’.

(v)Annual Accountability Exchange

Following the Quinquennial Review of 30 June 2008, the HEFCE had been convinced, to a considerable degree, that the University of Cambridge was an institution without significant risk. However, due to the differences of the University’s governance systems compared with the usual HEFCE approved model, the HEFCE had requested that an annual assurance visit would be required over the next three years. The first visit took place in March 2010 had been the first visit in this process.

On 26 March 2010 the Vice-Chancellor received the first HEFCE Annual Accountability Exchange, which concluded that ‘HEFCE is able to place reliance on the University of Cambridge’s accountability information’. Some observations and recommendations were included and were responded to (see Appendices G(i) and G(ii)).

The Audit Committee acknowledged the observations in Mr Knight’s letter and supported the University’s responses.

(d)Assurance on Colleges’ Use of HEFCE Funds

At its meeting on 19 November 2009, the Audit Committee received a note of a meeting to discuss procedures to provide assurance to the University on the Colleges’ use of HEFCE funds (see Appendix H). The Committee agreed to approve the procedures and it was noted that they would provide the Audit Committee with the necessary assurance on the Colleges’ use of HEFCE funds in addition to the audit certificates currently received from each College.

The approved arrangements are as follows:

(i)In order to discuss the proper use and value for money aspects relating to the Colleges’ use of HEFCE funds, there will be an annual meeting between the Chairman of the Audit Committee, the Chairman of the Colleges’ Committee, the Registrary and the Chairman of the Bursars’ Committee. An agreed note of the meeting would be submitted to the Audit Committee.

(ii)The annual report of the Resources Sub-Committee of the Bursars' Committee on Value for Money will be communicated to the University, for discussion at the meeting referred to in (d)(i) above.

(e)Workshops

The Audit Committee holds regular workshops at which it discusses a range of strategic issues. As well as providing a forum in which to engage in detailed discussion on complex issues facing the HE Sector and the University, these workshops also operate in part as professional development opportunities for the Committee’s members. During the period of this report two meetings have been held and the following issues have been discussed.

(i)The Internal Audit Plan

The new internal auditor, Deloitte LLP, introduced themselves and explained their audit approach. The Committee took the opportunity to discuss with the auditor a couple of key topics that it wanted kept at the forefront of the planning objectives:

A Risk Register

It was proposed that aspects of the plan could be informed by the University’s Risk Register.

B Fraud

The Committee asked the internal auditors what actions it should be taking with regard to Fraud.

It was noted that although Fraud is usually perceived as being financial, the University has to be increasingly aware of research and data fraud and current mechanisms may not be in place to meet the management of this type of risk. The meeting also considered the significance of a person’s motivation to commit fraud: different types of motivation may require slightly different management processes.

(ii)Carbon

The Committee was reminded that this is a major concern for the University going forward and that management of carbon will have to become part of the University’s strategic planning.

Some of the key issues that the Committee were made aware of included:

(1) Energy consumption/carbon reduction

The University is committed to reducing its footprint, and has published a Cambridge Climate Change Charter.

(2) Financial streams may be tied to carbon criteria

From 2011 capital allocation may be linked to carbon reduction.

(3) Impact of research

The University’s position is more challenging than many other HEIs and commercial businesses because its energy consumption is largely affected by intensive research activity.

(4) Role of Audit Committee

There could be a direct impact on the Audit Committee, as the committee may have to sign off on the University’s total primary carbon use.

(iii)Cambridge Investment Office

The Chief Investment Officer and the Head of Operations of the Investment Office addressed the Audit Committee in May 2010. The Chief Investment Officer spoke to the structure, policies and investment approach of the Investment Office and its objectives and target for investment performance and asset allocation. He explained the role of the Investment Board, which is a committee of the Council, and, in discussion, the role of the Executive Committee of the Council in establishing and reviewing at least annually the statement of investment responsibility (which covered ethical investment issues) that had been developed.

There was a wide ranging discussion of the policies adopted by the Investment Office and the risks that were inherent in those and how they were being managed. The discussion would help establish an appropriate strategy for the internal auditors and the Audit Committee to adopt for providing oversight of the risks and the practices of the Office.

(iv)North West Cambridge

The Pro-Vice-Chancellor for Institutional Affairs was invited to address the Audit Committee on the latest developments concerning the North West Cambridge site. A plan of the emerging master plan was described and some of the policies that lay behind it discussed. It was emphasized that the principal impulsion behind the project was the need for the University to maintain its global competitive position by offering affordable accommodation to junior academic staff in particular and to anticipate growth in postgraduate numbers as well as to provide new space for research and academic activities in an integrated community that would be a new ‘University quarter’ as an extension to the Cambridge urban core.

It was noted that a programme of audit for the project would be developed for it as part of the internal audit arrangements with the Committee.

9 Opinion

9.1 Risk Management, Control, and Governance

The Audit Committee has monitored the effectiveness of the University’s risk management, control, and governance arrangements and controls throughout the period. The Committee notes that there have been improvements across a broad spectrum of the University’s activities and found that the University and individual institutions are making transparent and sustained efforts to understand and incorporate best practice in governance, risk management, and internal controls. With respect to the governance of the University, the Committee wishes to note the value it places on the importance of clear and assessable arrangements. These must be appropriate, dynamic, and beneficial to a responsible, self-governing higher education, research, and collegiate institution. The Committee is satisfied that progress in this regard is consistent and incremental.

9.2 Economy, Efficiency, and Effectiveness (VFM)

The Committee has monitored the effectiveness of the University’s financial controls throughout the period. It is satisfied that there is good evidence of the continuing adoption and improvement of arrangements throughout the University for promoting economy, efficiency, and effectiveness.

9.3 Opinion – Data integrity

The Audit Committee has monitored the effectiveness of the University’s management and quality assurance of data submitted to HESA and to HEFCE and other funding bodies. An internal audit review ‘Data quality – HESA return’ was carried out in the year for which full assurance was given. The Committee is satisfied that the management control and quality assurance of data submitted are effective.

Nigel Brown OBE (Chairman of the Audit Committee)

29 November 2010

Footnotes

APPENDIX B

HEFCE: Audit committee annual report: model format

The audit committee is required to prepare an annual report for submission to its own governing body and, in England, subsequently to HEFCE. The audit committee annual report should be supported by the internal audit annual report, which would therefore normally accompany it. The annual report should be prepared as early as possible after the end of each financial year, with the aim of its being available before the annual financial statements are signed. The report should be signed and dated by the chair of the committee. This model indicates what could be included in the annual report.

Title

Full name of institution, audit committee annual report, financial year. Addressed to governing body and head of institution.

Introduction

Period covered; this should relate specifically to the audit committee’s work on the relevant financial year. However, any additional issues should be covered where appropriate, particularly if they affect the opinion (for example, where the previous year’s annual report could not include something because of timing, or issues have arisen since the year end).

Membership

Names; details of changes and dates thereof; terms of office; identity of chair; also separately give details of the clerk to the committee.

Meetings

Dates of meetings, note of members attending, and a general statement about who else is normally in attendance.

Terms of reference

If applicable, details of changes and their effect on the work of the committee.

Internal audit

1 Name of provider; details of any changes made or due; fee basis; audit committee’s assessment of performance for the year (including the use of performance measures and obtaining the views of the external auditors).

 

2. Review of appointment; when market testing is due for consideration.

 

3. Review of internal audit annual report (which may be attached to the audit committee annual report); achievement of planned work; consideration of and comment on internal auditors’ overall opinion of risk management, control and governance arrangements, and VFM arrangements, as necessary.

 

4. Review of audit risk assessment and strategy as appropriate. Number of audit days last year/next year (compare); inclusion of VFM studies. Details of any restrictions placed on the work of the internal auditors.

 

5. Review of audit reports (may appropriately focus on only the more significant issues); audit committee’s view of management responses to audit findings and recommendations; resolution of issues arising.

 

6. Review of unplanned or special reports; audit committee’s view of management responses to the findings and recommendations; details of any significant recommendations outstanding.

 

7. Review of VFM studies; summary of important findings and recommendations.

 

8. Confirmation that the audit committee has held one or more closed meetings with the internal auditors during the course of the year.

External audit

1. Name of provider; details of any changes made or due; fee basis; audit committee’s assessment of performance for the year (for example, audit planning, timetable set and met); confirmation to governing body of recommendation of annual re-appointment (or deferral to next meeting); when market testing is due for consideration.

 

2. Details of any non-audit services provided.

 

3. Review of the external auditors’ management letter (draft and final versions where appropriate); significant points arising; audit committee’s view of management responses to the findings and recommendations.

 

4. Confirmation that the audit committee has held a closed meeting with the external auditors following completion of the audit.

Other work done

1. Where undertaken, review of specific parts of the annual accounts (preferably between finance committee and governing body), including members’ responsibility and statement of internal control, any relevant issue raised in management letter, and external auditors’ formal annual opinion.

 

2. Review of assurances received from management and other significant assurance providers.

 

3. Review of the institution’s risk management strategy.

 

4. Other work, including funding council reports, letters and other requirements (such as HEFCE Assurance Service report, student number audit if undertaken,VFM studies; review or changes to codes of audit practice and CUC guidance); special reports or investigations not dealt with elsewhere (e.g. on major fraud or irregularity); significant changes to the institution’s risk management, internal control and governance systems; review of relevant reports from the NAO and its counterparts throughout the UK, other formal certificates or returns seen; review of financial regulations, including amendments, communication or recommendations made; issues arising on trusts, joint ventures, subsidiary or associated companies; other VFM work such as review of VFM strategy. Recommendations made not dealt with elsewhere.

Other

Issues not relevant to the reporting year, such as forthcoming events and issues relating to prior years.

Opinion

Audit committee’s opinion on the adequacy and effectiveness of institutional arrangements (up to date of its report) for the following:

• risk management, control and governance (risk management element includes accuracy of statement of internal control included with annual statement of accounts)

• economy, efficiency and effectiveness (value for money).

These opinions should be based on the information presented to the committee.

APPENDIX C

Section 5.2, 2008–09 Audit Committee Annual Report

5 COMMITTEE

Structure and quoracy arrangements

At the time of publication of this report, the Council is actively considering restructuring the Committee to increase the number of co-opted places to three to make it possible for an additional member from class (e) of the Council to be on the Committee. It is envisaged that this place would normally be taken up by the Chairman-designate and this would enhance continuity and succession planning. Under the new structure the quoracy arrangements would be changed to include the condition that the majority of the members present would be external.

APPENDIX D(i)

Final Internal Audit Reports – Grant Thornton (listed in alphabetical order)

Table 1: Fieldwork conducted as part of 2008–09, final reports received 2009–10

Title of Final Report

Auditors’ Opinion

Committee’s Opinion

Annual Planning Round

F – 0

S – 3

MA – 5

BP – 0

Overall rating: C

No comment recorded at the Committee meeting.

Department of Clinical Neurosciences

F – 0

S – 11

MA – 2

BP – 0

Overall rating: C

Agreed to ask the Secretary of the Clinical School to support the Head of Department and the officers with the implementation of the recommendations.

Data Returns – Framework

F – 0

S – 0

MA – 3

BP – 0

Overall rating: C

Satisfied with the responses received.

Governance and Risk Management

F – 0

S – 0

MA – 0

BP – 3

Overall rating: D

Recorded its satisfaction.

Human Resources (HR) – adherence to processes

F – 0

S – 4

MA – 5

BP – 1

Overall rating: B

Noted that a future audit might review the probation arrangements for new staff.

HR Strategy

F – 0

S – 1

MA – 0

BP – 0

Overall rating: D

No comment recorded at the Committee meeting.

Information Strategy and Services Syndicate

F – 0

S – 5

MA – 5

BP – 0

Overall rating: B

Noted that the report was satisfactory overall.

Investment Management

F – 0

S – 3

MA – 1

BP – 0

Overall rating: C

Agreed that the report would merit an update for the next meeting.

Suggested that investment management be added to the list of topics for consideration at the termly workshops.

Judge Business School

F – 0

S – 1

MA – 2

BP – 1

Overall rating: C

No comment recorded at the Committee meeting.

Minor Works Team

F – 0

S – 3

MA – 3

BP – 0

Overall rating: C

Essential to conduct a rigorous follow-up on this review to ensure implementation of the agreed recommendations.

North West Cambridge Project Planning

F – 0

S – 0

MA – 2

BP – 0

Overall rating: D

No comment recorded at the Committee meeting.

Processing of the HESES Return – Follow-up Review

2008 Recommendations

F – 0/0

S – 3/2

MA – 1/1

BP – 0

Overall rating: D

Committee took comfort that the University’s data was not currently a concern for the statutory bodies. The external auditors confirmed that data integrity could be added to their audit plan, if the Committee so wished.

Purchasing

F – 0

S – 3

MA – 4

BP – 0

Overall rating: C

No comment recorded at the Committee meeting.

Treasury Management

F – 0

S – 3

MA – 3

BP – 0

Overall rating: C

Proposed that Finance Committee receives a regular opportunity to receive the principles of the underlying policy for treasury management.

Value for Money – Cleaning

F – 0

S – 6

MA – 5

BP – 0

Overall rating: B

Recommended that steps being taken to introduce new tendering frameworks for procuring cleaning services should be taken forward as soon as practicable.

Table 2: Fieldwork completed and final reports considered in 2009–10

Title of Final Report

Auditors’ Opinion

Committee’s Opinion

Anti-Fraud Arrangements

F – 0

S – 4

MA – 3

BP – 0

Overall rating: C

Advised that the possibility of fraud (defined broadly to include academic, financial, and other forms) should be included within the risk register as an element running through many of the strategic risks.

CHRIS Utilisation

F – 0

S – 1

MA – 2

BP – 0

Overall rating: D

Recorded that a strategic review of the HR and Finance systems would take place in eighteen months time. CHRIS will be reviewed again as part of this.

Institute of Criminology

F – 0

S – 0

MA – 6

BP – 1

Overall rating: D

This report raised no concern for the Committee.

Department of Haematology

F – 3

S – 5

MA – 3

BP – 1

Overall rating: C (raised to B after Committee meeting)

Requested that the report be regraded from C to B to reflect risks contained therein.

Maintenance expenditure – follow-up review

2008 recommendations:

F – 0

S – 4: all complete

MA – 8: all complete

BP – 0

Overall rating: D

Pleased that Maintenance Unit had made obvious progress since the original review.

Payroll – Follow-Up Review

Jan 2009 recommendations

F – 0/0

S – 9/1

MA – 3/4

BP – 0/0

Overall rating: C

Recorded that significant progress had been made on some of the actions of an earlier report, but some actions still needed progressing.

PCI DSS Review

F – 1

S – 5

MA – 8

BP – 0

Overall rating: N/A

A consultative report to assist Finance Division set up a framework for developing University’s compliance in this area.

Pensions Management Arrangements (draft)

F – 2

S – 9

MA – 1

BP – 0

Overall rating:

Requested that a date for a follow-up review be agreed as soon as practicable.

Department of Plant Sciences

F – 0

S – 2

MA – 5

BP – 0

Overall rating: C

Accepted that the recommendations were in hand and being acted upon.

Research Office – Adherence to Sponsors’ Terms and Conditions – Follow-up Review

Feb 2009 Recommendations:

F – 0/0

S – 3/0

MA – 3/3

BP – 0/0

Overall rating:

The Committee thought it might be useful for the Research office to solicit feedback from departments on the service/s that it provides.

Research Office – Administrative Processes

F – 0

S – 0

MA – 4

BP – 0

Overall rating:

Report illustrated that administrative arrangements were much more secure and that better processes were being implemented. The auditor should arrange a follow-up to ensure that processes implemented as outlined in the review.

Telephone Systems Replacement – Post Implementation Review

F – 0

S – 0

MA – 2

BP – 0

Overall rating: D

Commended the project governance.

University Collections

F – 1

S – 5

MA – 2

BP – 0

Overall rating: B

VAT Return Processes

F – 0

S – 0

MA – 0

BP – 0

Overall rating: D

Recorded that impression from the Review altered slightly depending on whether ‘Little U’ was being considered or ‘Grand U’.

APPENDIX D(ii)

Final Internal Audit Reports – Deloitte (listed in alphabetical order)

Table 1: Final Internal Audit Reports (excludes draft reports submitted in 2009/10)

Title of Final Report

Auditors’ Opinion

Committee’s Opinion

MISD: Software Licensing Audit

Priority 1: 0

Priority 2: 1

Priority 3: 0

Priority 4: 0

Overall rating: Substantial

Satisfactory management response

Risk Management

Priority 1: 0

Priority 2: 0

Priority 3: 1

Priority 4: 0

Overall rating: Substantial

A very positive report.

Department of Physics

Priority 1: 0

Priority 2: 0

Priority 3: 4

Priority 4: 0

Overall rating: Substantial

No significant problems to report.

APPENDIX E(i)

Grant Thornton UK LLP – fees for internal audit work

Number of Days

Cost (excluding VAT)

Cost (including VAT)

Completion of 2008–09

46

£22,586.00

£26,538.55

Audit Work in 2009–10

200

£108,012.50

£124,420.01

Total

246

£130,598.50

£150,958.56

Grant Thornton UK LLP – fees for other work relating to 2009–10

Other Work

Fees (excluding) VAT

Fees (including) VAT

PCI Compliance

£10,800.00

£12,420.00

EU Framework 7 – Grant 1

£1,050.00

£1,233.75

A-133 Grant

£8,400.00

£9,870.00

Hauser Forum Grant

£1,400.00

£1,645.00

Total

£21,650.00

£25,168.75

APPENDIX E(ii)

Deloitte LLP – fees for internal audit work 2009–10

Number of Days

Cost (excluding VAT)

Cost (including VAT)

Audit Work in 2009–10

77

£43,470.00

£48,856.50

Deloitte LLP – fees for other work relating to 2009–10

Other Work

Fees (excluding) VAT

Fees (including) VAT

Green Car Scheme Consultancy

£13,500.00

£ 15,862.50

APPENDIX F

External audit

(i) PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP – fees agreed for audit work in relation to 2009–10

Entity and service

Fees (incl. VAT)*

External audit work for the University, Cambridge Assessment, Cambridge University Press, Associated Trusts and subsidiaries

£571,005

University, Training and Development Agency for Schools (TDA) return

£3,654

* These fees represent the agreed fees in respect of the year to 31 July 2010.

(ii) PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP – fees for non-audit services 2009–10

Entity and service

Fees (incl. VAT)**

Cambridge University Press, Impact of future pension changes due to come in from April 2011

£11,750

Cambridge University Endowment Fund, Assurance over on 30 June 2010 valuation

£2,056

Cambridge Enterprise Ltd, Corporation tax compliance

£1,725

** Fees for non-audit services are those billed in the period 1 August 2009 to 31 July 2010.

(iii) Fees

Constituent

Service

Fees (incl. VAT)

‘Little U’, Cambridge Assessment, Cambridge University Press, Associated Trusts and Subsidiaries

Statutory Audit

£571,331

‘Little U’

TDA return work

£3,654

Cambridge Investment Management Limited

Assurance over valuation of CUEF at 30 June 2010

£2,056

Cambridge University Press

Impact of future pension changes due to come in from April 2011

£11,750

Cambridge University Press (South Africa) Pty Limited

Accounting advice associated with the Black Economy Empowerment transaction

£10,000

Cambridge Enterprise Limited

Corporate tax compliance

£1,725

Cambridge Enterprise Limited

Annual subscription to website providing material on accounting, reporting and related law

£1,175

£601,691

APPENDIX G(i)

Letter from HEFCE

Annex

Matters Arising from HEFCE’s Annual Accountability Exchange with the University of Cambridge on 26 March 2010

HEFCE Observation

1.

The Annual TRAC return for 2008/09 was signed by the Registrary. This should, strictly, be signed by the Vice-Chancellor as Designated Officer under the Financial Memorandum with HEFCE

2.

The Committee of University Chairs (CUC) recommends that a governing body’s Statement of Primary Responsibilities should be published widely, including on the internet and in the annual report. The University’s Statement is published in the “Handbook for Members of the Council”. It would be potentially helpful to stakeholders to publish the Statement on the University’s open web site and in annual reports with effect from 2010.

3.

Under the Financial Memorandum with HEFCE the University’s Council is responsible for ensuring that the University:

has a robust and comprehensive system of risk management, control and governance;

strives to achieve good value for money from public funds; and

has effective arrangements for the management and quality assurance of data submitted to HESA, HEFCE and other funding bodies.

Council naturally looks to its Audit Committee to provide independent opinions on the adequacy and effectiveness of these three matters and HEFCE also seeks to rely on these opinions. In the Audit Committee’s annual report for 2008/09 the Committee’s opinion on the three matters can be inferred but it would be helpful to Council (and to HEFCE) to receive opinions which are more explicitly worded with respect to the responsibilities of Council listed above.

4.

We understand from the Director of Finance that the financial performance of Cambridge Assessment and the University Press is regularly reviewed through the year by Finance Committee through the submission of periodic corporate management accounts. In order to give Finance Committee a more complete picture of the University’s financial performance there may be merit in further expanding the management accounting package to include coverage of the University’s trusts.

APPENDIX G(ii)

Letter from the Vice-Chancellor

Annex

Matters Arising from HEFCE’s Annual Accountability Exchange with the University of Cambridge on 26 March 2010

HEFCE Observation

University Response

1.

The Annual TRAC return for 2008/09 was signed by the Registrary. This should, strictly, be signed by the Vice-Chancellor as Designated Officer under the Financial Memorandum with HEFCE

Agreed. The Vice-Chancellor was overseas when the TRAC return for 2008/09 required a signature. In a similar circumstance in the future, his appointed deputy (normally the senior Pro-Vice-Chancellor) will sign the return; otherwise the Vice-Chancellor himself will sign the return.

2.

The Committee of University Chairs (CUC) recommends that a governing body’s Statement of Primary Responsibilities should be published widely, including on the internet and in the annual report. The University’s Statement is published in the “Handbook for Members of the Council”. It would be potentially helpful to stakeholders to publish the Statement on the University’s open web site and in annual reports with effect from 2010.

Agreed. We will publish the Council’s Statement of Primary Responsibilities in the Reporter and on the University’s website. We will consider further whether it should also be published as part of the Annual Accounts or in the University’s Annual Report. We incline to the former.

3.

Under the Financial Memorandum with HEFCE the University’s Council is responsible for ensuring that the University:

has a robust and comprehensive system of risk management, control and governance;

strives to achieve good value for money from public funds; and

has effective arrangements for the management and quality assurance of data submitted to HESA, HEFCE and other funding bodies.

Council naturally looks to its Audit Committee to provide independent opinions on the adequacy and effectiveness of these three matters and HEFCE also seeks to rely on these opinions. In the Audit Committee’s annual report for 2008/09 the Committee’s opinion on the three matters can be inferred but it would be helpful to Council (and to HEFCE) to receive opinions which are more explicitly worded with respect to the responsibilities of Council listed above.

Agreed. We will ensure that, in future, the Audit Committee’s annual report provides an opinion explicitly linked to the three responsibilities of the Council that are listed.

4.

We understand from the Director of Finance that the financial performance of Cambridge Assessment and the University Press is regularly reviewed through the year by Finance Committee through the submission of periodic corporate management accounts. In order to give Finance Committee a more complete picture of the University’s financial performance there may be merit in further expanding the management accounting package to include coverage of the University’s trusts.

The University has a formal mid-year meeting between a working group of the Finance Committee and the Trusts and is in membership of the Trusts’ Audit Committee. The University’s Audit Committee will receive an annual statement from the Trusts to inform its scrutiny of the consolidated accounts. We believe that these safeguards are sufficient to ensure appropriate and proportionate oversight of the Trusts’ finances.

APPENDIX H

Assurance on Colleges’ use of HEFCE funds

There was a meeting on 17 November in the Master’s Lodge, Trinity Hall

Present:

Chairman of the Audit Committee, Nigel Brown, OBE

 

Chairman of the Colleges’ Committee, Professor Martin Daunton

 

Registrary and Secretary of the Audit Committee, Dr Jonathan Nicholls

 

Head of the Office of Intercollegiate Services, Dr George Reid

In attendance: Assistant Secretary of the Audit Committee, Iris Hunter

1. The meeting had been called to propose arrangements, to be agreed by the Colleges and the University’s Audit Committee, by which the University would be able to gain assurance on the Colleges’ use of HEFCE funds as requested in Paragraph 23 of the report of 20 February 2009 (published in the Reporter of 18 March 2009) on the HEFCE Assurance Review visit of 30 June 2008:

23. The University is responsible for assuring HEFCE that the autonomous Colleges apply HEFCE funding that passes to them, through the University, for the proper purposes. The evidence for this is collected each year and the University’s external auditors review the evidence and report accordingly. This is clearly helpful reassurance, but we suggested that the Committee should also receive from University officers a direct assurance report on the oversight of the Colleges’ use of HEFCE funds. Such a direct report could build on work relating to the Colleges’ accounts already carried out by the Director of Finance. This potential enhancement was to be the subject of further consideration by the Audit and intercollegiate committees and we look forward to hearing the outcome of those discussions in due course.

2. The Registrary reported that, for the next three years, there would be an annual meeting, around February or March, between HEFCE officials and the Chairman of the Audit Committee and the Registrary. He expressed the hope that the report referred to in 3(ii) below would be available in time for these meetings.

3. The group proposed the following arrangements to enhance the mechanisms by which the Audit Committee was assured on the Colleges’ use of the HEFCE funds:

(i)In order to discuss the proper use and value for money aspects relating to the Colleges’ use of HEFCE funds, there will be an annual meeting between the Chairman of the Audit Committee, the Chairman of the Colleges’ Committee, the Registrary and the Chairman of the Bursars’ Committee. An agreed note of the meeting would be submitted to the Audit Committee.

(ii)The annual report of the Resources Sub-Committee of the Bursars’ Committee on Value for Money will be communicated to the University, for discussion at the meeting referred to in 3(i) above.

19/11/09

Technical Review of the Statutes, and Ordinances: Consultation Paper 1

General: the structure and presentation of the Statutes; proposals for Statutes K and T

This paper is issued as part of the process of technical review of the Statutes, and Ordinances, authorized by Grace 10 of 21 July 2010, following the detailed Report of the University Council, dated 14 June 2010 (Reporter, 2009–10, p. 992). The paper has been considered and approved by the Technical Advisory Group chaired by Professor David Yates.

Summary

This paper makes suggestions about various general aspects of the process, and preliminary suggestions about Statutes K and T.

Comments

Comments are welcome and should be sent to the Administrative Secretary at the University Offices, The Old Schools, Cambridge (email Alan.Clark@admin.cam.ac.uk) if possible by 14 March 2011. All comments will be considered and, with the advice of the Technical Advisory Group, draft Reports of the Council to the University will then be prepared for Discussion and eventual submission for approval, through the ordinary University processes.

Explanation of the proposals

1. The language of the Statutes

It is proposed that the normal style of drafting should be direct, as is now the normal current drafting style of Acts of Parliament. For example, ‘The Council must. . .’, ‘The Regent House is. . .’, and ‘Schedule X has effect’ (rather than ‘The Council has the duty of. . .’; ‘The Regent House shall be. . .’ and so on).

2. Statute K (which is partly about interpretation and ‘invalid proceedings’)

It is proposed that all the continuing provisions of this Statute should be transferred to other Statutes, in particular as follows:

(a) Colleges (K, 3) – the list of ‘full’ Colleges to be included in a comprehensive Statute about Colleges and Collegiate foundations. Consultation paper 2 (see below) presents this proposal.

(b) Declaration of the meaning of a Statute (K, 2) and correction of alleged breaches of the Statutes or Ordinances (K, 5) – both to a new section (also to include, from Statute D, review by the Commissary) of Statute A. A consultative paper about the new Statute A will be presented in due course.

(c) Remainder of Statute K, principally about interpretation and commencement – so far as possible to be in the substantive Statutes, either the new Statute A, or the relevant thematic Statute.

3. Statute T

This Statute sets out temporary provisions about the introduction of particular Statutes and transitional provisions. So far as the present provisions are still needed, it would be more convenient for users of the Statutes if they were included in the relevant substantive Statute, rather than, as now, being collected in one place, the present Statute T. Temporary and transitional provisions should in future contain a mechanism for repeal (e.g. by Grace) so that, when spent, such provision can be removed without the necessity of further amendment of Statute.

4. The structure of the Statutes: consolidation

At present there are twelve individual Statutes (A–H, J, K, T, and U). It is proposed that these should be consolidated to seven, provisionally entitled and provisionally ordered:

A.The Chancellor and the Government of the University (a full statement about the government of the University, including the Regent House, the Council, the General Board, the Schools, Faculties and Departments, and other institutions, including the Press); and review (see paragraph 2(b) above)

B.Education and Research (including provision for matriculation, examinations, degrees)

C.University Officers and Employment by the University (including some eventual continuing provisions of the present Statute U)

D.Discipline and the University Courts (provisions at present in Statutes B,VI, and some parts of U)

E.Trusts

F.Finance, Planning and Resources, Audit

G.Colleges and Collegiate Foundations

The Ordinances associated with new Statutes A, C, D, F, and G would appear in one volume, those for B in a second, and those for E in a third (if hard copy publication of the Statutes and Ordinances is continued in whole or in part).

5. Navigation, citation, and understanding of the Statutes

Navigation of the Statutes would be improved by including frequent sub-headings in the Statutes, and also by explanatory notes published with them, as proposed by the scoping study. Better web presentation of the Statutes, and Ordinances, would greatly assist.

6. The process

The Technical Advisory Group at present envisages:

submission of several consultation papers, as they are ready for presentation, including proposals for changes of Statute and some changes of Ordinance;

consideration of comments made, and, in due course, submission to the University Council via the Group of draft Reports of the Council setting out proposed changes, for signature and publication; then Discussion and (subject to any further amendments proposed by the Council after consideration by the Technical Advisory Group) approval in principle by Grace;

when the above steps have been completed for all Statutes, there would be a corpus of new Statutes, approved in principle by Grace, but not formally ‘made’ by the Regent House (nor yet submitted to Her Majesty in Council); a final Report would then be prepared via the Technical Advisory Group, for submission to the University Council, for its signature, and publication; then Discussion, Notice in reply, and approval by Grace, so that the resulting corpus of new Statutes (revised and collated as necessary) would then be ‘made’ by the University, sealed, and submitted to Her Majesty in Council. The Council has already indicated that it hopes that this stage can be reached by Easter 2012.

As the shape of the new Statutes is confirmed in principle, element by element, it will be possible to consider revised Ordinances. Proposals will be brought forward, for approval by Grace, on the basis of the Reports. Often, the recommendations about change of Ordinances would be subject to the eventual coming into force of the relevant change of Statute.

Technical Review of the Statutes, and Ordinances: Consultation Paper 2

Colleges and Collegiate Foundations

This paper is issued as part of the process of technical review of the Statutes, and Ordinances, authorized by Grace 10 of 21 July 2010, following the Report of the University Council, dated 14 June 2010 (Reporter, 2009–10, p. 992). The paper has been considered and approved by the Technical Advisory Group chaired by Professor David Yates.

Summary

This paper makes suggestions about Statutes G and H and about related matters, including Ordinances. A consultative draft of suggested amendments to Statutes is set out later in the paper.

Comments

Comments are welcome and should be sent to the Administrative Secretary at the University Offices, The Old Schools, Cambridge (email Alan.Clark@admin.cam.ac.uk), if possible by 14 March 2011. All comments will be considered and, with the advice of the Technical Advisory Group, a draft Report of the Council to the University will then be prepared for Discussion and eventual submission for approval by the Regent House, through the ordinary University processes.

Explanation of the changes suggested

Statutes G, H, and K (in part) deal with Collegiate matters, including the obligations of full Colleges and those of other Collegiate foundations (of which at present there are none). It is proposed that these be brought together in a single new Statute G (which would include the list of ‘full’ Colleges as present contained in Statute K). The new Statute G, entitled ‘Colleges and Collegiate foundations, College contributions for University purposes’ would have the following structure:

Chapter I

The Colleges and Collegiate foundations

(provision for full Colleges; provision for Approved Foundations and Approved Societies)

Chapter II

College contributions and the Colleges Fund (as at present)

Chapter III

Accounts (as at present, subject to any eventual minor drafting corrections)

Chapter IV

Academic obligations (a simplified version of the present Statute G, IV (membership of Colleges) together with highly simplified statutory provision for professorial fellowships (see below).

Present Statutes G, IV, 2–5, which empower the University to make Ordinances to prescribe conditions on the admission of certain categories of students by certain Colleges (Wolfson, St Edmunds, Lucy Cavendish, and Hughes Hall), could probably be repealed.

Chapter V, about the intercollegiate advisory committee on scholarships (which is the ancestor of the Senior Tutors’ Committee), could, subject to the outcome of consultation with the Council, the Colleges Committee, and the Senior Tutors’ Committee, be repealed.

The present Statute G, I makes elaborate provision for professorial fellowships in Colleges. It is proposed that this be replaced by a section in the new Chapter IV, in particular requiring the University to make provision by Ordinance for a scheme for election to professorial fellowships. Until the present arrangements for professorial fellowships have been reviewed and are proposed for amendment, the provisions of the present Statute would be preserved as new Ordinances. This would then leave it open for the University and the Colleges in future to replace the present scheme as desired, but by Ordinance, rather than by amendment of Statute.

Proposals for amendments in detail are set out below, together with some draft explanatory notes. Some proposals for amendment require the consent of the Colleges, as they would ‘affect’ the Colleges in the sense of the relevant Act of Parliament. However, the proposals would lead to no changes of principle.

Suggested explanatory notes to appear with the revised Statute if approved (these notes do not form part of the Statute)

Chapter I The Colleges and Collegiate foundations

Section 1 of this Statute sets out the University’s recognition of Colleges within the University. Sections 2–4 provide for the two further categories of Collegiate foundations, Approved Foundation and Approved Society. An Approved Foundation is included in the College contribution and College Fund system, and an Approved Society not. The status of Approved Foundation can only be removed through special provision, whereas that of Approved Society can be removed by Grace.

Chapter II College contributions and the Colleges Fund

This chapter makes provision for contributions by Colleges and Approved Foundations, and for the Colleges Fund.

Chapter III Accounts

This chapter makes provision for the accounts of Colleges, Approved Foundations, and Approved Societies.

Chapter IV Academic obligations

This chapter sets out some statutory provisions for the academic obligations of Colleges, Approved Foundations, and Approved Societies.

Section 1 requires Colleges to matriculate persons resident for study or research as members of the University by the division of (halfway through) their first term of residence (with an historic exception for King’s College).

Section 2 makes basic statutory provision for professorial fellowships. Detailed provision, derived from the former Statute G, is now included in the related Ordinances.

Suggested draft revised Statute

STATUTE G

THE COLLEGES AND COLLEGIATE FOUNDATIONS,

COLLEGE CONTRIBUTIONS FOR UNIVERSITY PURPOSES

Chapter I

The Colleges and Collegiate foundations

Colleges

1. The Colleges in the University are:

Peterhouse, Clare College, Pembroke College, Gonville and Caius College, Trinity Hall, Corpus Christi College, King’s College, Queens’ College, St Catharine’s College, Jesus College, Christ’s College, St John’s College, Magdalene College, Trinity College, Emmanuel College, Sidney Sussex College, Downing College, Girton College, Newnham College, Selwyn College, Fitzwilliam College, Churchill College, [New Hall,] (Murray Edwards College,) Darwin College, Wolfson College, Clare Hall, Robinson College, Lucy Cavendish College, St Edmund’s College, Hughes Hall, and Homerton College.

Approved Foundations

2. The University may recognize as an Approved Foundation any institution maintained within the precincts of the University for the advancement of education, learning, and research and incorporated as a company or by charter, or which subsists under a trust instrument, and which has appropriate provision in its charter, articles of association, memorandum of association or trust instrument, for its government, and has suitable provision for the education and discipline of students (if admitted). The University may determine further conditions for the recognition of an Approved Foundation. Any provision of a statute or ordinance affecting Colleges shall (unless excluded) apply to Approved Foundations.

3. The Council may refer a cause of complaint against an Approved Foundation to the governing body of the Approved Foundation. If the governing body refuses, or fails to take, within reasonable time (in the opinion of the Council) such measures as the Council then directs, the Council shall refer the matter to the Chancellor. The Chancellor (or a duly appointed deputy) and two assessors appointed by the Chancellor, as a Court, shall then inquire into the matter, and may declare that recognition as an Approved Foundation is withdrawn.

Approved Societies

4. The University may recognize as an Approved Society any society maintained within the precincts of the University for the advancement of education, learning, and research. Conditions of recognition of an Approved Society shall be determined by Ordinance. No Approved Society may alter any provision of its charter, articles or memorandum of association, trust instrument, scheme of government, or any other such instrument, unless it has given notice to the Council of the proposed alteration and either the University has approved it by Grace or the Council has announced that the proposed alteration did not affect the University nor prejudice the interests of the University. The status of Approved Society may be terminated by Grace.

Chapter II

College contributions and the Colleges Fund

Unamended

Chapter III

Accounts

Unamended

Chapter IV

Academic obligations

Membership of a College

1. No College (without the permission of the Council about a particular person or class of persons) shall allow anyone admitted for the purpose of study or research to remain a resident member of the College after the division of his or her first term of residence who is not either matriculated, or permitted by the Council, under such conditions (if any) as the Council may impose, to be matriculated later. King’s College may as heretofore allow its Lay Clerks, Choristers, and Master over the Choristers to be members of the College although not matriculated or qualified to be matriculated.

Professorial fellowships

2. Every College must maintain Fellowships without dividend (‘professorial fellowships’) as set out in part A of the Schedule to this chapter for Professors and other University officers as are specified in part B of the schedule. Someone holding a University Office listed in part B may only hold a Professorial Fellowship. The Head of a College who is such an officer is deemed to hold a Professorial Fellowship in that College.

Schedule to Statute G, IV

Part A: Professorial Fellowships (numbers)

(This schedule may be amended by Grace)

[text as at present in Schedule C to the Statutes]

Part B: University Officers whose offices qualify them to hold Professorial Fellowships

(This schedule may be amended by Grace)

[text as at present in Schedule B to the Statutes]

Changes to the Statutory Default Retirement Age: Notice

In 2010 the Government announced its intention (http://www.bis.gov.uk/retirement-age) to remove the statutory Default Retirement Age (DRA) with effect from 6 April 2011 (with transitional procedures covering the period 6 April 2011 to 30 September 2011). The Government’s response to a consultation exercise carried out in 2010 is still awaited. Following the expected abolition of the statutory DRA, it may remain open to employers to put in place arrangements for retirement which could include an employer-based DRA. An employer-based DRA would have to be objectively justified and accompanied by a fair and transparent procedure for dealing with termination of employment on grounds of retirement.

The Human Resources Committee at its meeting on 14 October 2010 agreed to the setting up of a working group to give preliminary consideration to the University’s options in relation to the proposed changes to the DRA, and to propose policy and procedural changes as appropriate.

The working group consists of: Professor Ian White, Professor Simon Deakin, Professor Martin Daunton, Professor Chris Gilligan, and Dr Joan Whitehead, supported by Mr Graham Allen, Mr David Parsons, and Mr Indi Seehra.

The issues it will be considering include:

Should the University seek to put in place an employer-based DRA to take effect upon the expected change to the law in 2011?

If so, what should the retirement age be? Should there be a single DRA for all categories of staff?

If an employer-based DRA is not to be retained, what steps should the University take to manage the transition to a context where employment may no longer be terminated by reason of retirement?

More generally, what steps should the University take to support flexibility in working patterns and pensions entitlements for those employees who are nearing, or over, the pensionable age?

The working group invites comments from staff during January 2011 on the subject. Comments can be made until 31 January 2011 to dra@admin.cam.ac.uk.

USS consultation – result of consultative vote

20 December 2010

Proposals for changes to Universities Superannuation Scheme (USS) put forward by the Employers Pensions Forum (EPF) and the University and College Union (UCU)

The results of the consultative vote held between 7 December and 20 December 2010 (see Reporter, pp. 200 and 264) are as follows:

In favour of UCU’s negotiating position with regard to the USS pension scheme

802

In favour of the employers’ current proposals for the USS pension scheme

186

Total number of voting papers issued: 6,388

Total number of valid voting papers received: 988

Election of student members of the Councils of the Schools: Notice

Notice is given of the election of student members of each of the Councils of the Schools of Arts and Humanities, the Biological Sciences, the Humanities and Social Sciences, the Physical Sciences, and Technology to serve as members in accordance with Ordinances, Chapter VIII.

One undergraduate student member and one graduate student member shall be elected for each Council of the School by and from the student representatives of the constituent Faculty Boards, Syndicates, or other Boards or Committees of Management in each School. Members elected are to serve for one year from the date of election.

The elections will take place at a meeting of the student representatives of constituent bodies to be held on Thursday, 27 January 2011 in the Small Examinations Hall, New Museums Site at 7 p.m. The elections will be conducted under the Single Transferable Vote regulations.

A candidate must be nominated on a nomination form sent to the Returning Officer, Mrs Benton, in the Education Section, Academic Division, 16 Mill Lane (alice.benton@admin.cam.ac.uk), so as to arrive not later than noon on Wednesday, 19 January 2011. Nomination forms may be obtained from Mrs Benton or from CUSU. The forms contain (a) a statement, which must be signed by two persons eligible to take part in the election in the relevant category proposing and seconding the nomination, certifying that they nominate the candidate for election, and (b) a statement, which must be signed by the candidate, consenting to be nominated and agreeing to serve if elected. Nomination forms should be accompanied by a brief statement by the candidate for the information of voters.