Previous page

Table of Contents

Next page

ACTA

This has been a year in which the University has made strong progress in many of its long-range plans. It has also been a year of new beginnings. In the areas of politics, education, and finance we have begun to look ahead to the millennium and into the next century, even to the University's eight-hundredth anniversary, which falls in little more than ten years' time. We have a new government, and have begun the process of getting to know those responsible for national educational matters and helping them to understand us. We have received the outcome of the most wide-ranging review of higher education for over thirty years, and this has triggered a review of the funding of higher education. There is much that may affect us in this review.

In preparing my remarks today, I soon came to realize that two fundamental changes had rendered more difficult the traditional, but not invariable, approach of seeking to record in detail on these occasions the personal, political, and educational developments which have affected us.

On the one hand the pace of change and the scale of developments have grown out of all recognition in the last few years. Re-reading Sir David Williams's summary delivered from this lectern twelve months ago, I understood even better than before how ingeniously he had woven together the strands of our history, and tactfully recorded his own substantial contribution, for which we are all so much in his debt. But, even if I were capable of imitating his mastery, any attempt of mine to shoe-horn a meaningful description into an endurable speech of twenty minutes' duration was certain to be incomplete and more or less random in the selection of topics and individuals.

Secondly, and equally importantly, the introduction of a University Annual Report, and of the annual reports to the Regent House by the Council and the General Board, has in any case rendered such an approach less necessary. A comprehensive and objective record of the University's activities, and of the accomplishments of its academic staff, including the honours bestowed upon them in recognition of these accomplishments, is now permanently available in these reports. If there is one name that stands out of the list it must be that of Jim Mirrlees, who won the Nobel Prize for Economics. To him, and to all the others who gained honours and awards during the year, we offer our warmest congratulations.

So I have decided in the main to concentrate my remarks on a few important themes, expressing my personal views on aspects of the University's work, rather than seeking to describe events which will, I am sure, be better described elsewhere. But before turning to these themes there are some matters of record to which I would like to refer.

I would like to mention some of those to whom we say goodbye, and record those whom we have lost. Amongst the latter were two of our greatest scientists of this century, Lord Todd and Sir Nevill Mott, and two of our most eminent lawyers, Professor Glanville Williams and Lord Taylor of Gosforth (on whom we were to have conferred an honorary degree); two of our most eminent and long-lived women scholars, Dame Elizabeth Hill and Elisabeth Stopp; and the formative influence on the modern development of the Fitzwilliam Museum, Michael Jaffé. Sir John Kendrew sadly died not long after he had received an honorary degree in July, and Trevor Gardner, our Treasurer for fourteen years, died a few days ago. The whole University was distressed by the accidental death of Tom ap Rees, and by the premature loss of Peter Vaugon, Deputy Secretary General of the Faculties and long-time guide and adviser to the central bodies and the Faculties and Departments.

Amongst retirements I would like to mention Lord Renfrew, who leaves the Mastership of Jesus College, Sir Michael Atiyah, who retires as Master of Trinity, and Sir David Harrison, who comes to the end of his period of office as Pro-Vice-Chancellor for Development, in which he has been my ceaselessly considerate and knowledgeable instructor in national and local academic affairs. David Todd-Jones steps down after nearly ten years at the helm of the University's estate, during which the University has expanded more rapidly than at any other time this century. Stephen Bragg, in a very real sense a son of the University, retires as President of the Society for Visiting Scholars after fulfilling so effectively many different roles. Finally, and by no means least, we say goodbye today, at least from the office of Registrary, to Stephen Fleet. He has devoted almost his entire career to the University: as Bursar, researcher and teacher in Mineralogy and Petrology, and for fourteen years as Registrary. There is scarcely an area of our society which he has not touched. All who know him will wish to join me in thanking him for his immense contributions to the University and for the unceasingly careful and courteous way in which he accomplished them. We wish him a long and no doubt busy retirement.

Turning to matters of general concern, and given that the staff of the University are its most important asset, I am glad to report continuing progress in a number of directions bearing upon the University's employment policy and practices and its salary structures. We received in the course of the year an encouraging report on progress towards meeting our firm intentions under the Opportunity 2000 programme, especially perhaps in the collection and analysis of data as a basis for guiding appointing bodies, and in such areas as childcare. We are also committed to fulfilling our obligations under the Disability Discrimination Act and are putting in place the means by which we shall do so. We have reviewed the procedures used to consider proposals for personal promotions, and a further consultation exercise is now in progress. The position of Heads of Departments and other similar officers has been recognized with a scheme of enhanced supplementary payments. The Staff Handbook for academic and academic-related staff, which was such a keen objective of my predecessor and of the Secretary General and his staff, has been realized, and is now in the hands of the staff concerned. I hope that in the future there will be other developments to report that will recognize the value of the important contribution made by all in the University.

From the point of view of the University, the last financial year was encouraging, but the future is less promising. Our income was better than expected, especially because of VAT refunds and a non-recurrent transfer from the Local Examinations Syndicate, and because of a reduction in the employers' contribution to USS. These enabled the Council to propose significant additional allocations to the New Buildings Sinking Fund, the Buildings Maintenance Fund, and the Equipment and Furniture Fund. But the future prospects are bleaker: in 1997-98 our overall income is expected to rise by only 1.4 per cent. compared with an expected inflation rate of 3 per cent. Allowing for inflation, our unit of resource, our income per student, will continue to fall, and probably at a slightly higher rate, although we have yet to digest the government's recent announcements on fees and funding.

The plans for the University's most significant expansion in its estate for generations, the West Cambridge development, have moved forward rapidly during the year. The master plan for the site was discussed by the Regent House, and exhibitions of the plans were held in the Senate-House for the benefit of members of the University and the local community. The proposals were then modified in the light of the views expressed. Particular points are the inclusion of significant housing accommodation on the site, and a review of the traffic implications. In parallel with these longer-term proposals the central bodies and their officers have devoted exceptional energy to the questions surrounding the creation of a 'mathematical campus' and a Physical Sciences and Technology Library on Clarkson Road. Again, public consultation has been important, and the architects have striven to satisfy the special requirements of the site and the views of all concerned. Inspirational leadership for the Clarkson Road project has been provided by the University's mathematicians, in particular Professors Goddard and Crighton and Sir Michael Atiyah. We are also indebted to Charles N. Corfield and the Märit and Hans Rausing Foundation for their magnificent foundation gifts to the project.

I believe that the Colleges are at the heart of our system. They are integral to our teaching and research and provide an interdisciplinary environment that spurs creativity and inspires our students. It is therefore a pleasure to record the recognition of Lucy Cavendish as a full College of the University. On the other hand, it is of major concern that the continuation of the reimbursement of the College fee by government is being questioned. The report of the National Committee of Inquiry into Higher Education, the Dearing Committee, refers to the College fees of Oxford and Cambridge and recommends that, if reimbursement is to continue, it will need to be shown to represent a good use of public resources. In reaction to these recent developments, and on the recommendation of the Council, I have drawn together a working party with broad representation from Colleges and the University to review the overall situation. The group is working hand in hand with the Fees Sub-committee of the Bursars' Committee. Together with Oxford we have had discussions with the Higher Education Funding Council for England and with the Department for Education and Employment, and these discussions continue. It is perhaps relevant to point, in this context, to the exceptional results Cambridge has achieved both in the recent Research Assessment Exercise and in audits of teaching quality, and to emphasize that the University's distinctive collegiate character must make a significant contribution to our achievements in this area. I shall return to this topic later.

A year ago, after taking office as Vice-Chancellor, I had the opportunity to address members of the University and distinguished guests about my impressions of Cambridge and the open-ended opportunities that lie ahead. Nothing that has happened during my first year has lessened my conviction of the University's unique standing and dynamism. Rather, as I have joined university leaders from all over the world in discussing the future of university education, I have become acutely aware of our high standing amongst the world's leading universities. We have long remained in the front rank of intellectual endeavour and I see every reason why we should continue to do so. Naturally more spectacular developments such as the recently announced collaborative arrangements with Microsoft and the generous donation from the William H. Gates Foundation have captured the headlines, but there are opportunities opening up in all disciplines. And they are by no means confined to technology, science, and mathematics, where my personal experience has been focused in the past. For example, remarkable steps have been taken in the direction of new posts and a new building for the Faculty of Divinity. The further expansion of the University Library is clearly visible now. The new Sinyi Professorship of Chinese Management at the Judge Institute points towards exciting new areas of collaboration, as does the proposed new Professorship of Health Management, for which a generous endowment has been offered by Dr Dennis Gillings. In medicine we are indebted to Dr Zoëllner for endowing the Ursula Zoëllner Professorship of Cancer Research, and we watch with excitement the rapid advance of the new building on the Island Site near Addenbrooke's Hospital funded by the Medical Research Council and the Wellcome Trust.

Amongst the key discussions I have initiated in the course of the year has been an attempt to look again at the mechanisms that exist in the University for the enhancement of contacts with industry. The generosity of the Wolfson Foundation long ago laid the foundations for such initiatives through the Wolfson Industrial Liaison Office, but in both scale and complexity the issues have outgrown the original concept of such a unit. In particular, questions of our development of intellectual property call for urgent attention. In association with the Director and the Committee of Management of the Office, the Treasurer, and the Secretary General, I have begun consideration of these important issues and expect to bring forward proposals before too long.

The monumental deliberations of the Dearing Committee have thrown into sharp relief the difficulty of finding a central strategy for one hundred and four diverse universities. The report pleasingly advocates diversity in both funding and assessment, but the specific proposals emerging from the report do not go very far in that direction. We have made our views known and will continue to argue our case. For example, we have asked that the new system being drawn up by the Quality Assessment Agency should take into account the record of an institution in determining the extent of the quality assessment process. We advocate that institutions with a record of high quality be treated with a lighter touch than those with poor records.

When Sir Ron was born, the process had already begun by which, in effect, the state purchased higher education from the universities and naturally sought to mould what was offered to fit its current judgements and intentions. Seventy years ago the University accounts show that we received in benefactions and donations almost three times as much as we received from the state. That situation has been more than reversed, and we need to be quite clear - the change of government has not altered this - that those who pay the piper call the tunes. Again, this does not mean that we should not urge the government to seek methods that cater appropriately for our particular needs, but our case will have to be well made. I have already referred to this when discussing the College fee but we would also like the government to reconsider their decision to replace the maintenance grant with a loan. This change is likely to discourage applicants from poorer backgrounds, thereby counteracting our strenuous efforts to improve access from these sectors of our society.

Such recognition of our dependence upon the state, an encumbrance not shared by our leading American competitors, points to the need for increasing self-reliance, a tendency clearly accepted in the importance attached to the effective work of our Development Office. It is unlikely that we will achieve complete independence, but great gains can be made through our development efforts and there are, of course, other manifestations of such determination. For example, the crucial contributions made by Trinity College through the Isaac Newton Trust, in terms of academic support as well as bursaries, would have been impossible without such path-breaking activities as the Science Park and the Felixstowe Docks. In the torrent of comment which has followed the Dearing Report, and which many of us have received directly, there has been a somewhat disagreeable undertone that the special standing of Cambridge (and of Oxford) is somehow unfair. The argument goes that Cambridge has historic riches which should be compensated for by a proportionate decrease in state support. I cannot support such a contention. All the evidence of external assessment is that Cambridge continues to earn its place of parity with the world's best institutions. The University and its Colleges have excellent records in caring for their endowments, and have used them efficiently to establish and support the present levels of excellence in teaching and research. Any loss of funding will degrade this performance.

Of course it is accepted that we should seek to pursue our work within an autonomous community of scholars But this will be possible only to the extent that there exist from some source the means for us to do so, and it seems to me to be an exercise in the gentle art of self-delusion to think that the days of the no-strings blank cheque will ever return, if they ever existed. The harsher world we now inhabit inevitably brings its pressures, and there will be a price to pay. But the benefits of our community - its congenial environment, its culture, its opportunities for sport and recreation - help to provide us with the means to maintain our perspective.

Before we turn to the ceremonial part of these proceedings and to the beginning of the Congregation which formally starts the academical year, there are a small number of personal thanks which I would like to add. My Pro-Vice-Chancellors, Roger Needham and David Harrison, have borne with equanimity the myriad of representational and other responsibilities which I have wished upon them, and my Deputy Vice-Chancellors have been towers of strength. The many Heads of Houses and others who take my place on the two hundred or more bodies nominally chaired by the Vice-Chancellor have kept the University's machinery turning with exemplary efficiency. After a year in the Old Schools I am humbled and amazed by the dedication and skill which the administrative staff bring to what is often an unesteemed and uncongenial task, performed with modest, even frugal facilities. The University owes more to Stephen Fleet, David Livesey, Joanna Womack, and their staffs than can ever be imagined by most members of the Regent House, and they have been more than patient of a newcomer's ignorance. In ceremonial matters I have greatly appreciated the advice and support of the Registrary's Clerk, the University Marshal, the Esquire Bedells, and the Proctors, and I would like to record my special thanks to Malcolm Johnson who retires today from his office in the Registry after twenty-six years and from the office of Esquire Bedell after ten years. Most of all I am indebted to those in my own office. Geoffrey Skelsey, whose encyclopaedic knowledge of the University, accumulated whilst serving nine Vice-Chancellors, has been a life-line, and my secretaries have provided immaculate support and coped resolutely with an engineer's lack of regard for bureaucracy and paper. In the course of our daily lives, inextricably linked to our daily work, my wife and I have been driven, catered for, gardened for, and generally succoured far beyond the call of duty, and we are immensely grateful. Mary has found herself in a full-time job running what an American friend called the army equivalent of a Headquarters Company - the Vice-Chancellor's Lodge - as well as providing emotional stability for myself. Without all of this support my job would be impossible.

And so we turn towards the new academical year and the surprises, pleasant and unpleasant, that it is sure to bring. Almost exactly a century ago one of the University's most influential graduates of the time, Augustine Birrell, graduate of Trinity Hall, barrister, Professor of Law, essayist, and educationalist, said, 'If ever there was a people and an age that needed the Higher Education, we are that people and we live in that age'. This year the members of the Dearing Committee said, 'We believe that the country must have higher education which, through excellence in its diverse purposes, can justifiably claim to be world-class'. Cambridge University is proud of its record of world leadership, and we will do all that is within our power to ensure that we retain the means to sustain this excellence in a time when our contribution to the nation is more important than ever.

DAVID JOHN HALDANE GARLING, of St John's College, and OLIVER RACKHAM, of Corpus Christi College, retired from the office of Proctor, and delivered the insignia of their office to the Vice-Chancellor.

MICHAEL ANTHONY MESSAGE, of St Catharine's College, and ELLEN JANE CLARK-KING, of Sidney Sussex College, were elected to the office of Proctor for the year 1997-98, and were admitted to that office by the Vice-Chancellor.

BRIAN LESLIE HEBBLETHWAITE, of Queens College, and ARNOLD SAMUEL BROWNE, of Trinity College, were admitted to the office of Pro-Proctor for the year 1997-98.

DAVID JOHN HALDANE GARLING, of St John's College, and OLIVER RACKHAM, of Corpus Christi College, were elected to the office of Deputy Proctor for the year 1997-98, and made their public declaration in accordance with Statute D, VI, 5.

Previous page

Table of Contents

Next page