No 6383
Wednesday 22 April 2015
Vol cxlv No 27
pp. 481–498
The Council and the General Board beg leave to report to the University as follows:
1. In a Notice (Reporter, 6361, 2014–15, p. 62) the General Board informed the University that in the Lent Term 2014 they had approved the appointment of an expert panel to undertake a review of the governance and operation of the University’s facilities for animal research. The members of the panel were: Dr Jon Richmond, Ex‑Chief Inspector, Home Office; Dr David Anderson, Ex-Superintendent, Home Office; Mr Adrian Deeny, Establishment Licence Holder, University College London; and Mr John Dalton, independent Facilitator. The Board received the panel’s report, which was made available at http://www.cam.ac.uk/research/research-at-cambridge/animal-research, in the Michaelmas Term 2014. The Board noted that the panel found no concerns about regulatory compliance. The panel had made a series of recommendations which were principally intended to unify the operation and strengthen the strategic oversight of those facilities. The Board approved the panel’s recommendations, in principle, and appointed an implementation group to take forward the detailed implementation of them, including proposing the necessary changes to Ordinances, in consultation with the Councils of the Schools of the Biological Sciences and Clinical Medicine. This Report seeks approval for the principal organizational and policy changes recommended by the expert panel.
2. At present there are separate facilities in the University, run by the Schools of the Biological Sciences and of Clinical Medicine, in which research regulated by the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 is undertaken. The University is currently engaged in a major programme of building work, at an estimated total cost of £150m, to replace and rationalize these facilities in accordance with current legal and ethical provisions, as outlined in the Council’s First-stage Report, dated 14 April 2014, which was approved by Grace 2 of 4 June 2014. The facilities are currently organized into three functional management groups, supported by the University Biomedical Support Services (UBSS) and overseen by the University Biomedical Strategy Group (UBSG) which reports to the Councils of the two Schools.
3. The expert panel, in their report, commended many elements of good practice in the current structure, but made a number of structural recommendations to reduce the current fragmentation, to improve efficiency and enhance the capacity to operate and develop facilities to meet the future needs of the University’s biomedical research. The panel’s principal recommendation was that all the animal facilities should in future be part of a single organization which would be responsible for operations, staffing, and management together with the associated ethical and regulatory provisions.
4. Following consultation with the two Schools, the Council and the Board consider that the panel’s recommendation is most appropriately implemented by the formation of a new Division within the Unified Administrative Service, based on the existing Occupational Health and Safety Service, currently part of the Human Resources Division, and UBSS. Staff currently employed in the animal facilities would also be transferred to the new Division. The new Division would be named Division of Health, Safety, and Regulated Facilities and be headed by Dr Martin Vinnell, the Director of Health and Safety who has been acting as interim Director of UBSS since that post became vacant. At present the responsibilities of Establishment Licence Holder under the 1986 Act are also undertaken by the Director of Health and Safety. The Council and the General Board see no reason to disturb this arrangement, which is working satisfactorily, during Dr Vinnell’s tenure. However and in order to retain flexibility for the future, they propose that this role should become formally that of the Registrary, with provision for the Registrary to appoint an officer to act as Establishment Licence Holder on his behalf. The necessary changes to the regulations for the Unified Administrative Service are set out in the recommendations. The opportunity has also been taken to revise those regulations, in accordance with the current structure of the Unified Administrative Service, to remove the Research Services Division (now part of the Academic Division) and rename the Secretariat the Registrary’s Office which more appropriately describes its current responsibilities; the head of that Division would, as now, have the title Head of the Registrary’s Office.
5. The Implementation Group have approved the formation of four working groups, drawn from staff in the two Schools and UBSS, to devise and implement detailed arrangements, procedures, and policies relating to the management of animal facilities within the new structure as follows:
•structure, governance, and communication;
•operational management;
•animal welfare and ethical review (AWERB) and Licence training;
•staffing, career development, and facilities.
The HR Division have begun the necessary consultation with the staff affected by the change; no redundancies are planned or envisaged. The working groups will report to the Implementation Group which will itself report periodically to the Council and the Board.
6. The operation and future strategy for animal research facilities will be the responsibility of a new committee, based on the current UBSG, reporting jointly to the Council and the General Board. The new Committee, the Biomedical Services Governance and Strategy Committee, would be chaired by a Pro-Vice-Chancellor and include strong academic representation from the Schools of the Biological Sciences and Clinical Medicine, appointed by the Councils of those Schools.
7. In the medium-term it is intended that the operational costs of the facilities will be met, on a Full Economic Costing basis, through charges to animal users. However, some transitional costs are expected, in connection with both the implementation of the panel’s recommendations and operational costs, pending the completion of the programme to rationalize facilities. These are estimated at £140,000 a year for five years which will be underwritten from the Strategic Planning Reserve Fund.
8. The Council and the Board consider that reform of the structure is urgent both to ensure a robustness against compliance failure and to ensure that the new facilities are developed and run to meet the University’s research objectives on a cost-effective and sustainable basis. Establishing the new Division is the critical first step in the reform of the structure.
9. The Council and the General Board recommend:
I. That, with effect from 1 October 2015, a Health, Safety, and Regulated Facilities Division be established within the Unified Administrative Service and that certain regulations be amended as set out in the Annex to this Report.
|
20 April 2015 |
L. K. Borysiewicz, Vice-Chancellor |
Alice Hutchings |
Shirley Pearce |
|
|
Ross Anderson |
Richard Jones |
John Shakeshaft |
|
Richard Anthony |
Fiona Karet |
Evianne van Gijn |
|
|
Jeremy Caddick |
Stuart Laing |
Sara Weller |
|
|
R. Charles |
Mark Lewisohn |
I. H. White |
|
|
Anne Davis |
Rebecca Lingwood |
A. D. Yates |
|
|
David Good |
Susan Oosthuizen |
||
|
Helen Hoogewerf-McComb |
Rachael Padman |
|
11 March 2015 |
L. K. Borysiewicz, Vice-Chancellor |
Robert Kennicutt |
Richard Prager |
|
Philip Allmendinger |
Duncan Maskell |
Rob Richardson |
|
|
M. J. Daunton |
Patrick Maxwell |
Evianne van Gijn |
|
|
Anne Davis |
Martin Millett |
Graham Virgo |
|
|
David Good |
Rachael Padman |
Chris Young |
1. By amending Regulation 1 of the regulations for the Unified Administrative Service (Statutes and Ordinances, p. 699) so as to read:
1. The staff of the University Offices shall form a Unified Administrative Service which shall be under the supervision of the Council and shall comprise the following Divisions:
Academic Division
Estate Management
Finance Division
Health, Safety, and Regulated Facilities Division
Human Resources Division
Registrary’s Office
2. By adding the following as the third sentence in Regulation 2 of the regulations for the Unified Administrative Service:
The Registrary, or a University officer appointed by the Registrary, shall be the Establishment Licence Holder for facilities regulated by the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986.
3. By rescinding the regulations for the University Biomedical Support Services in their entirety (Statutes and Ordinances, p. 652).
4. By amending references in the regulations for the Health and Safety Executive Committee (Statutes and Ordinances, p. 143) and the Consultative Committee for Safety (Statutes and Ordinances, p. 149) to the ‘Director of Health and Safety’ to read ‘Director of Health, Safety, and Regulated Facilities Division’, and by removing a reference to the ‘Director of University Biomedical Support Services’ in the latter.
The Council and the General Board beg leave to report to the University as follows:
1. The probationary arrangements for academic offices and comparable unestablished posts (Reporter, 5941, 2003–04, p. 206) provide that if an Appointments Committee determines that the appointment of an academic officer is to be terminated at the end of their probationary period, the officer has the right to appeal to the Septemviri. Only one such appeal has been heard by the Septemviri, in January 2014, after a preliminary hearing to determine the scope of the Septemviri’s jurisdiction in December 2013.
2. Following that Septemviri hearing, the then Chair of the Septemviri informed the Registrary, as Secretary of the Council, of his view that:
(a)The Septemviri is an inappropriate forum in which to hear an appeal against failure to confirm an appointment at the end of a probationary period;
(b)The scale of the proceedings in any event is inappropriate given the sovereignty of the Appointments Committee and the inability of the Septemviri (or any other appeal body) to do anything in upholding an appeal other than remit the matter to the Appointments Committee.
3. A Working Group was appointed by the Council and the General Board to review the matter.1 The Working Group noted that the Septemviri had itself determined that in hearing appeals against failure of probation, it could do no more than review whether due process in such cases had been adhered to properly and fairly, and where it had not, remit the matter to the Appointments Committee for further consideration. It had no jurisdiction to question the academic judgment of an Appointments Committee. The right to make a subsequent application to an Employment Tribunal remained open to the individual, however, as a further avenue of appeal.
4. The Working Group concluded that while it is important for probationers in this situation to have access to an internal appeal, the time and resources currently required of the individual to undertake an appeal to the Septemviri placed an unfair burden on the individual, potentially acted as an unnecessary disincentive to appeal, and presented a significant hurdle to be overcome before any claim for a financial or other remedy could be sought before an Employment Tribunal. The process also represented a disproportionate use of the considerable resources represented by a quorate Septemviri panel, which currently requires five of the seven senior members of the University comprising the Septemviri to be present.
5. On the basis of the recommendations made by the Working Group, the Council and the General Board now propose that the process of appeal against failure of probation should be made simpler, more proportionate, and hopefully quicker. Any appeal decision by the Septemviri should be properly informed as to the relevant employment law and practice. It is at the same time recognized that the Septemviri is a body which is held in high regard in the University community and the creation of an alternative body for this purpose might be seen as a diminution of the rights of probationers.
6. Accordingly the Council and the General Board recommend that appeals by probationers against non-confirmation of appointment should continue to be heard by the Septemviri, convened and chaired by the Chair of the Septemviri, but subject to a reduced quorum of three in total. Provision should be made for a member of the Septemviri to act in the Chair’s place if he or she is unavailable. The panel should have access, where appropriate, to the support of a specialist lawyer practising in employment law. This will provide the specialist knowledge and experience necessary to enable the appeal body to understand how the circumstances put forward by the appellant might be viewed in a subsequent Employment Tribunal hearing. Consideration was given by the Council as to whether the legal advice given to the panel should also be made available to the appellant; it was felt however that this process would compromise the panel’s ability to take advice freely and the adviser’s ability to advise openly and frankly as necessary to enable the panel to make a properly informed decision on the strengths and weaknesses of the appeal. Special Ordinance D (ii) gives the appellant the right to be legally represented on her or his own account. Where, however, the Septemviri receives advice which is potentially material to its decision, the substance of that advice should be disclosed to the parties before any decision is made and the opportunity given to make representations on that advice.
7. This smaller appeal body would be mandatory in the case of appeals by probationers in relation to non-confirmation of appointment, but it would also be helpful to potential appellants for it to be made available, at the appellant’s option, in other circumstances.
8. It is not proposed that there be any change to the constitution of the Septemviri for the hearing of appeals from the Court of Discipline, but the Council and the General Board consider it timely for a more general review of the Septemviri to be undertaken to review whether the quorum of five is appropriate in all other circumstances and/or whether the panel should be increased from seven. The need to assemble at least five of the seven members of the Septemviri can introduce a disproportionate delay into the process, to the detriment of the appellant.
9. As regards implementation of these recommendations, Statute C I provides at Section 8(b) that the whole or any part of the Schedule to Statute C may be rescinded by Grace, following a Report. It is proposed that Chapter V (Appeals) be rescinded and re-enacted in a new Special Ordinance, subject to appropriate amendment to incorporate the substantive recommendations of this Report. Any consequential amendments required to Statute (or to the remainder of the Schedule to Statute C), may be made by Special Ordinance, pursuant to Statute C I 8(c).
10. A consequential amendment to the probationary arrangements for academic offices and comparable unestablished posts approved by Grace on 27 February 2004 (Reporter, 2003–04: 5941, p. 206; 5954, p. 529) would also be required subject to approval of these proposals by the Regent House.
11. The Council and the General Board accordingly recommend:
I. That the provisions of Chapter V of the Schedule to Statute C be repealed in their entirety and re-enacted as Special Ordinance C (xiii) (Appeals), amended as shown below:
1. This Special Ordinance establishes procedures for hearing and determining appeals by members of the academic staff who are dismissed or under notice of dismissal or who are otherwise disciplined.
2. References in this Special Ordinance to the Schedule are to the Schedule to Statute C and references to Chapters are to Chapters within that Schedule.
3. This Special Ordinance applies to appeals against, or arising from,
(a)any decision of a competent authority (or of a delegate of such a body) to dismiss in the exercise of its powers under Chapter II;
(b)any proceedings, or any decision reached, under Chapter III;
(c)any dismissal otherwise than in pursuance of Chapter II or Chapter III;
(d)any disciplinary decision of a University authority otherwise than in pursuance of Chapter III;
(e)any decision reached under Chapter IV;
(f)any proceedings, or any decision reached, under Statute C III 11–14 including any decision reached in pursuance of Statute C III 14;
and ‘appeal’ and ‘appellant’ shall be construed accordingly; provided that the following shall not be subject to appeal:
(i)a decision of the Regent House under Chapter II, Section 4;
(ii)any finding of fact by the Tribunal under Chapter III or Statute C III, or any medical finding by a Medical Board under Chapter IV; save where, with the consent of the Septemviri, fresh evidence is called on behalf of the appellant at the hearing of the appeal.
4. A member of the academic staff may institute an appeal under this Special Ordinance in accordance with Statute D II 4 save that
(a)for the purposes of any appeal to the Septemviri pursuant to this section against a decision of an Appointments Committee to terminate the appointment of an officer at the end of his or her probationary period, the quorum for the Septemviri shall be reduced to three, including the Chair. If the Chair is unavailable, he or she shall designate one of the members to act as Chair in her or his stead;
(b)the provisions of (a) above may be applied in any other appeal to the Septemviri pursuant to this section, at the option of the appellant and with the concurrence of the Chair.
5. The Septemviri may allow or dismiss an appeal in whole or in part and, without prejudice to the foregoing, may:
(a)remit an appeal from a decision under Chapter II (or any issue arising in the course of such an appeal), to the competent authority for further consideration as they may direct;
(b)remit an appeal from a decision under Chapter III to be heard again either by the same Tribunal or by a differently constituted Tribunal to be appointed under the provisions of that Chapter;
(c)substitute any lesser alternative penalty that might have been imposed in respect of the original charge or charges under the provisions of Chapter III;
(d)remit an appeal arising under Chapter IV to be heard again either by the same Medical Board or by a differently constituted Medical Board to be appointed under the provisions of that Chapter.
6. The Clerk of the Septemviri shall notify the decision of the Septemviri on any appeal, including any decision reached in the exercise of their powers under Section 5 above, together with any findings of fact different from those reached by the competent authority under Chapter II or by a Tribunal under Chapter III, as the case may be, to the Vice-Chancellor, to the University Advocate, and to the appellant.
II. That the reference to Statute U V in Para 4.7.5 of the Probationary Arrangements for Academic Offices and comparable unestablished posts contained in the Appendix to the Report of the General Board (Reporter, 5941, 2003–04, p. 206) which were approved by Grace of the Regent House on 27 February 2004 be changed to ‘Special Ordinance C (xiii)’.
III. That consequential amendments be made to the Schedule to Statute C to change the existing references to Chapter V of that Schedule to references to Special Ordinance C (xiii).
|
20 April 2015 |
L. K. Borysiewicz, Vice-Chancellor |
Helen Hoogewerf-McComb |
Shirley Pearce |
|
Ross Anderson |
Alice Hutchings |
John Shakeshaft |
|
|
Richard Anthony |
Fiona Karet |
Evianne van Gijn |
|
|
Jeremy Caddick |
Stuart Laing |
Sara Weller |
|
|
R. Charles |
Mark Lewisohn |
I. H. White |
|
|
Anne Davis |
Rebecca Lingwood |
A. D. Yates |
|
|
David Good |
Susan Oosthuizen |
||
|
Nicholas Holmes |
Rachael Padman |
|
17 April 2015 |
L. K. Borysiewicz, Vice-Chancellor |
Robert Kennicutt |
Richard Prager |
|
Philip Allmendinger |
Duncan Maskell |
Rob Richardson |
|
|
M. J. Daunton |
Patrick Maxwell |
Evianne van Gijn |
|
|
Anne Davis |
Martin Millett |
Graham Virgo |
|
|
David Good |
Rachael Padman |
Chris Young |
1The members of the Working Group were Professor Richard Prager, Professor Fiona Karet, and Professor David Ibbetson (Chair).
The Council begs leave to report to the University as follows:
1. The Investment Office manages the Cambridge University Endowment Fund and certain other investments. The special nature of the Office’s investment activities is not mirrored elsewhere in the University. The Office must recruit, retain, and develop investment professionals of suitable skill and experience, who are capable of helping the University to generate long-term investment returns and, because of its special mission, it needs to adopt policies and procedures more akin to those applicable to its industry.
2. The Council’s Investment Board has been consulted and has confirmed that it is essential that the Investment Office is able to recruit and retain staff of high quality, and has recommended strongly that the University make such arrangements as necessary.
3. The Council has considered options and recommends that the Investment Office staff form a new class of University employees. Appointments will be in grades and remuneration scales and structures guided strongly by the University’s human resources policies and procedures but reflecting the distinct nature of the Investment Office’s activities and the market from which it recruits. In this respect the arrangement is similar to that of the Local Examinations Syndicate, which makes its own staffing regulations and which the Syndicate manages, subject to the general oversight of the Council.
4. In order to provide the necessary governance and oversight there will be an Investment Office Employment and Remuneration Committee, to include a member appointed by Council, which will report to the Council’s Remuneration Committee. The Investment Office Employment and Remuneration Committee will consider and recommend as appropriate variations from the University’s standard human resources policies and procedures and remuneration framework.
5. The remuneration of Investment Office staff will continue to be disclosed in the £10k bands in the remuneration note published in the Financial Statements, as is currently the case for all employees of the University and its subsidiary undertakings.
6. The Council recommends:
I. That the Investment Office staff form a new class of University employees.
II. That, if Recommendation I is approved, the amendments to the Statutes and Ordinances are approved as set out in Annex A.
|
20 April 2015 |
L. K. Borysiewicz, Vice-Chancellor |
Alice Hutchings |
Rachael Padman |
|
Richard Anthony |
Richard Jones |
Shirley Pearce |
|
|
Jeremy Caddick |
Fiona Karet |
John Shakeshaft |
|
|
Anne Davis |
Stuart Laing |
Evianne van Gijn |
|
|
David Good |
Mark Lewisohn |
Sara Weller |
|
|
Nicholas Holmes |
Rebecca Lingwood |
I. H. White |
|
|
Helen Hoogewerf-McComb |
Susan Oosthuizen |
A. D. Yates |
We oppose the creation of a separate remuneration committee and pay scales for the Investment Office because of possible moral hazard and because it breaks the social compact implicit in our single pay and grading scale.
|
Ross Anderson |
R. Charles |
1. By amending paragraph (i) of the footnote attached to Regulation 1 of the regulations for Stipends (Statutes and Ordinances, p. 690), which notes persons excluded from the application of those regulations, so as to read:
(i)persons employed by Cambridge University Press, the Local Examinations Syndicate, or the Investment Office;
2. By inserting new paragraph (vi) in the regulation for Membership of the Regent House under Statute A III 10(e) (Statutes and Ordinances, p. 110) so as to read:
(vi)holders of appointments on the staff of the Investment Office at the level of Manager and above;
3. By adding the Investment Office to the footnote attached to Regulation 3(c)(v) of the regulations for the degree of Master of Arts (Statutes and Ordinances, p. 445) listing bodies designated as a University institution for the purpose of Statute B II 2.