Reports

Joint Report of the Council and the General Board on a Combined Equality Scheme on race, disability, and gender

The Council and the General Board beg leave to report to the University as follows:

1. The University’s Equal Opportunities Policy (Statutes and Ordinances, p. 151) defines its overarching commitment to promoting equality and diversity for all students and staff in its community. The University approved its Race Equality Policy and Action Plan in 2003 (Grace 2 of 23 July 2003). Disability and Gender Equality Policies were adopted by the University in 2007 (Grace 5 of 7 November 2007, and Grace 2 of 14 November 2007). The Disability and Gender Equality Schemes and Action Plans remain in draft form, although they have been published on the Equality and Diversity website (http://www.admin.cam.ac.uk/offices/hr/equality/).

2. The Council and the General Board, on the recommendation of the Human Resources Committee and after consultation with the diversity networks of the University, are now submitting to the University for approval a Combined Equality Scheme (CES) which is a consolidation of activity in these areas. It details, in a single document, the University’s commitment to equality and explains how it will fulfil its statutory obligations in relation to equalities legislation in the interests of utilizing resources to the best effect, maximizing impact and effectiveness, and providing clarity of focus. This CES proposal is also intended to meet the requirements in a way that may be easily adopted in response to any future changes in legislation.

3. Appendix 1 attached to this Report sets out the legislative framework supporting the need for the University to have a CES.

4. If the CES is approved, consequential amendments will be proposed, for approval by the University, to the currently separate provisions (Statutes and Ordinances, pp. 151–3), and the scheme will be published on the University’s web pages. Progress against actions and objectives will be reported in the Equality and Diversity Annual Reviews which are also published on the internet.

5. The Council and the General Board accordingly recommend that approval be given to the Combined Equality Scheme set out in the Annex to this Report.

19 July 2010	Alison Richard, Vice-Chancellor	M. J. Daunton	Debbie Lowther
	David Abulafia	A. M. Donald	Rahul Mansigani
	Ross Anderson	R. J. Dowling	Mavis McDonald
	Anthony Andrews	David Good	Rachael Padman
	N. Bampos	Christopher Hum	David Simon
	Nigel Brown	F. P. Kelly	S. Wakeford
	William Brown	Vanessa Lawrence	Joan M. Whitehead
	S. J. Cowley

7 July 2010	Alison Richard, Vice-Chancellor	Simon Franklin	J. Rallison
	N. Bampos	Andrew Gamble	Jeremy Sanders
	William Brown	David Good	J. G. P. Sissons
	H. A. Chase	Maria Helmling	Joshua Ward
	Philip Ford	Rachael Padman

ANNEX

Combined Equality Scheme (CES) on Race, Disability, and Gender

The aim of the Combined Equality Scheme (CES) is to provide a framework which sets out the public duties and consequential legal compliance requirements of the University in the fields of Race, Disability, and Gender Equality. The CES has five themes within which specific obligations, actions, and responses are set out. In addition appendices are included to set out the detailed actions which have already been completed and implemented, and those which are ongoing. These actions align with both Regulatory Equality Duties and the University’s own equality values.

The five CES strategic themes, are as follows:

1. Governance and Policy Development Effective structures and mechanisms to approve, implement, monitor, assess, review, update, consult, and report upon policies and actions to achieve legal compliance and progress equality:

The following core components are relevant to this theme:

1.1 University Bodies Responsible for Equality Priorities

At the highest level, the University Council, on behalf of the Regent House, is responsible for ensuring that the University fulfils its legal responsibilities in relation to public equality duties and that it reports accordingly.1 In order to ensure that full support exists for Equality and Diversity (E&D) activities, in 2008 the University established the Equality & Diversity Committee. Membership of this Committee reflects the collegiate University structures and community. Its remit and objectives recognize its role as a strategic body championing E&D policy and practice, in line with UK statutory requirements. This Committee reports to the Human Resources (HR) Committee which in turn reports to the General Board and the Council. In 2010 the University agreed to establish a Gender Equality Group to, amongst other matters, support the work arising from Equal Pay Reviews, these in turn being prepared by the Equal Pay Review Group.2 In addition, a Joint Committee on Disability reports to the Council and General Board on Disability matters. The E&D section supports the work of the committees considering E&D matters.

1.2 Development of E&D Policies and Plans

The E&D Committee is tasked with translating E&D principles and regulations into clear policies and action plans. Action plans should specify how objectives have been identified and progressed, outcomes tracked, and risks managed. Although the action plans for gender, disability, and race equality are to be consolidated, they should take account of the differing legislation and positive duties for each equality area. The current completed and outstanding actions are shown in Appendices A and B. These stem from a thorough scrutiny of, and consultation on, the actions of the previous separate Schemes, updated as a result of recent regulation (as listed at Appendix C).3

The University must ensure, through its E&D Committee, that the impact and outcomes of the actions are accurately and consistently measured, monitored, and reported.

1.3 The Impact of E&D Principles on University Policies

Under current legislation, Equality Duties require the University to assess whether its full range of policies and functions affect race, gender or disability equality, and to address any discrimination or inequality that may arise. The University has, to date, complied with this requirement for the functions of Recruitment, Student Admissions and Student Attainment. Equality Impact Assessments on these areas have been published on the University’s website.4

The E&D section has developed an Equality Assurance framework to enable impact assessments to be undertaken internally on other policies and functions. The E&D section will continue to support and coordinate these processes, and will provide guidance and training.

1.4 Reporting of Performance in E&D

The University is required to produce reports on its E&D provision and performance on a regular basis, and consider any actions that might arise from such reports. In particular, it is to collect and report statistical information on gender differences in pay and employment, in order to assess how pay packages are determined and identify actions to address any significant (5%+) differentials between men and women. Annual data collection and analysis is undertaken by the University’s Equal Pay Review Group and submitted to the University’s governance bodies for consideration in order that recommendations for corrective action can be taken. From 2010–11, this work will be overseen by the Gender Equality Group (GEG) whose remit includes responsibility for guiding the University’s Equal Pay Review process.

2. Developing and implementing best practice Enabling the University to refine its equality and diversity practice via the on-going work through the University’s governance structures, the development of viable benchmarks and performance indicators, and the provision of specialized training.

The following core components are relevant to this theme:

2.1 Development of Best Practice

The CES and the legislation that guides it seek to ensure that E&D considerations are an integral part of the University. Although the University has formalized its responsibility for progressing equality, one of the key aims of the public equality duties is to assist and compel public authorities in the ‘mainstreaming’ of equalities practice. This means that the processes and systems supporting the identification and eradication of inequality and discrimination become part of the core ‘business’ of an organization. As a result, the decisions taken by any University body which leads to a change in practice within the University should support and abide by E&D principles. This should also be the case for functions5 that directly affect staff and students at work and study, including:

• Governance, leadership, and management

• Student admissions, access, and participation

• Assessment and academic progress

• Teaching and learning, including curriculum design and delivery

• Provision and access to support services

• Staff recruitment, selection, training, career development, and progression

• Behaviour and discipline

• Partnership and community links

There are a number of different benchmarking schemes in existence for various equality strands and the new Equality Act 2010 includes reference to further criteria to be developed in the future. The University is mindful that such schemes offer indicators of developing good or best practice, national or sector-based standards, and that the sharing of information can help to inform decisions regarding priority areas of work or goal setting.

The University’s E&D section has been developed as an area of specialist expertise to support and inform departments and divisions in developing best practice.

2.2 Sharing of Best Practice

All members of the University share a collective responsibility for its functions, according to individual roles and responsibilities, and are expected to have due regard to public equality duties and the University’s commitment to fulfil its obligations. To support this, it is important that best practice be developed and shared across the University. In order to support this, the University participates in a variety of diversity networks (as listed in section 3.1) and with other specialist groups (such as WiSETI) to identify areas where good practice can be improved though consultation, policy development, monitoring, and benchmarking.

The University’s Race Equality Policy6 further notes that although the Colleges are not ‘public authorities’ (under the Race Relations (Amendment) Act 2000), they carry out a number of functions on behalf of and in partnership with the University. It is intended that the University will continue to promote and share good practice with the Colleges in order to achieve consistent, fair, and equitable provision for all in its community.

2.3 Targeted Briefings/Training

The University supports the use of targeted training approaches to ensure performance and compliance is improved where necessary. A wide range of opportunities and initiatives are made available to ensure that all members of its community are able to access the particular resources needed to enhance their knowledge and skills in these areas.

2.4 Best Practice involving External Bodies

It should be noted that E&D requirements should be taken into account when members of the University are involved with external bodies. For example, compliance requires those purchasing any type of goods or services on the University’s behalf to be aware of the public equality duties as an integral part of the purchasing process. This aspect of equality law has recently been strengthened as it is perceived that procurement is a powerful means of leveraging equality in public sector contracts and within public services.

3. Inclusive Practice for Staff and Students Ensuring the University is an inclusive institution for all its diverse staff and students; establishing mechanisms for engagement, representation, and support; promoting good employment, teaching, and learning practice, and eliminating any and all forms of discrimination, harassment or unfair treatment.

The following core components are relevant to this theme:

3.1 Engagement with representative Diversity/Network Groups

In 2009, the University established a consultation infrastructure (Appendix D) that engages those from its community who have protections in law against discrimination and disadvantage. Networks of staff and students are able to participate in and inform policy development with the support of the E&D section. These networks meet regularly and host engagement events throughout the year.

The networks and forums for consultation are:

• BME (Black and Minority Ethnic) Staff Network

• Women’s Network (staff)

• Disabled Staff Network

• LGBT (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender) Network (staff)

• Student Links – a network of student representatives from diversity and liberation groups, Cambridge University Students Union (CUSU), and the Graduate Union

• E&D Partners – a network of individuals who wish to support and contribute to progressing equality at the University

• E&D Consultative Forum – representatives from the above networks who collectively provide a direct channel of communication for the University

• The University invites the participation of faith or belief representatives to assist in its proportionate response to Religion or Belief legislation.

The University will consult with, engage, and respond to those groups covered specifically within equalities law via these networks.

It should be noted that such consultation is in addition to consultation carried out with all staff (and indeed trade unions) on relevant matters – for example, changes to new entrants to the Contributory Pension Scheme (CPS) effective in 2009.

3.2 Responding to Complaints

The University is mindful that staff and students can have very different experiences at work or at study and is committed to protecting the dignity of all members of the University community in their interactions with others. Consequently, the University has established a Dignity at Work Scheme7 to respond sensitively to issues raised or complaints made. This policy applies to interactions between University staff and to students who have complaints against members of University staff. It also applies to interactions between University staff and all visitors to the University, including academic visitors and visiting researchers, visitors to University museums or those attending public events, contractors, and their staff.

The University’s diversity networks are an additional source of specialist advice for staff or students.

4. Promotion of Equality and Diversity Meeting the public equality duty to promote good relations between different groups; facilitating the University’s participation in equality and diversity projects, activities and external networks locally, regionally, and nationally; addressing any under-representation of specific communities, and providing opportunities to promote the University as an excellent employer and education provider.

The following core components are relevant to this theme:

4.1 Promotional events run in collaboration with Diversity Networks

The University’s Networks organize a range of activities to raise awareness of the different experiences and concerns of its diverse community, and to involve staff and students in policy development and consultation processes. A wide range of open events are held throughout the year, organized collaboratively between the Networks and the E&D section.

4.2 Support for community events and initiatives

The Equality Duties for Race, Disability, and Gender require public authorities to engage in improving awareness between different racial groups, about disabled people, and between men and women. By building relationships with key community equality groups through holding joint events, the University is able to enhance its understanding of and engagement with specific minority or marginalized communities.

4.3 Targeted publicity (and specific initiatives)

Visibility of E&D issues and initiatives at the University is important. The E&D section therefore has established termly communications with all Departments, divisions, and members of staff that highlight the different events, networks, briefings, and training opportunities available. Additional publicity, internal and external, is provided for specific programmes, to ensure the highest levels of awareness.

Accessible web-based information that accurately and comprehensively reflects the University’s work in this area is increasingly important as a communication tool.

5. Data and Information Provision

Communications, raising awareness of and promoting policies, data, and management information relating to equality and diversity commitments and objectives across the Universiy, and, where appropriate, externally.

The following core components are relevant to this theme:

5.1 Monitoring, data and management information

The equality duties incorporate the requirement to gather and report specific equalities data and processes for identifying equality objectives. This requirement is met within the E&D section’s annual data collection, analysis, and reporting schedule as endorsed by the University’s E&D Committee in March 2009. The Committee has approved reporting mechanisms that include the production of an annual report and review of E&D activities. This includes an annual report on the progress of the Equality Schemes and Action Plans,8 and the production of interim bulletins to provide the University community with relevant and useful information regarding equality and diversity issues. These mechanisms take account of the following motivations:

A.To guide the University in its response to public equalities legislation.

B.To provide informed information on E&D duties and legal developments, to assist the development of best practice.

C.To provide E&D statistics for the University, and identify highlights and areas of concern.

D.To develop a high standard of E&D practice with the aim of promoting the University of Cambridge as an excellent and inclusive employer and educational provider.

5.2 Review, reporting, and publication

Equality Schemes are subject to the requirement for annual reporting. Race legislation determines that the Race Equality Policy and Action Plan be reported against annually from May 2002. Disability legislation requires that the Disability Equality Scheme be reported against annually, with a full review after three years, from December 2006. Gender legislation requires that the Gender Equality Scheme be reported against annually, with a full review after three years, from April 2007. All reports must be published.

The University’s migration from separate Schemes to a Combined Equality Scheme therefore involves merging three different time scales into one Scheme. In order to address the requirement for annual reporting, the E&D section has progressed this work on the basis that, during 2008–09, a full review of all Schemes and related Action Plans, cross-strand consultation, and collaborative working to develop the Combined Equality Scheme has sufficiently met these compliance requirements. Advice received from those bodies involved in the development of equalities law, including the Government’s Equalities Office, supports this understanding and process of consolidation into a new Combined Equality Scheme.

Finally, an annual assessment and reporting of the CES’s progress will be undertaken by the E&D section, submitted to the University’s governance bodies, as stated above, and published on the University’s web pages.

Appendix A	Implemented Actions
Appendix B	Equality Schemes Action Plans
Appendix C	Documentation reviewed
Appendix D	E&D Consultation Framework

APPENDIX A

Implemented Actions: Mainstreamed areas of work from Race, Disability & Gender Equality Schemes Action Plans, as at 2010

Strand specific	Issue/action	Responsible body
Race	BME/race equality consultation & engagement	E&D / BME Staff Network / E&D Partners / E&D Consultative Forum
Gender	Gender forum	E&D consultation infrastructure
	Springboard/Navigator/Springforward for staff	CPPD
	Equal Pay	HR – annual reports, GEG
	Student issues	Student Links & E&D
Disability	Access	JCD, DRC & EMBS
Generic	Dignity at Work Scheme	HR
	Complaints, grievance & disciplinary procedures	HR
	Training & awareness raising	E&D online / face to face DRC CPPD
	Engagement, promotion & positive action	E&D events programme including Black History Month, International Women’s Day & UN International Day for Persons with Disabilities, Network events and Annual Lectures
	Staff induction	CPPD
	Race, Gender, Disability Equality Schemes & Action Plans, implementation, reporting, and legal compliance	E&D Committee, HR Committee, Council E&D Champions E&D annual reporting schedule
	Data & benchmarking	E&D / HR / student data
	Colleges	Sharing best practice
	Consultation	E&D consultative infrastructure & College committees
	Inclusive recruitment & positive employment practice	HR
	Community links	Partnership work with key local equality/diversity/community groups
	Equality Impact Assessments on Staff Recruitment, Student Admissions & Student Attainment Equality Assessment framework	Follow up actions – HR & Education Committees, BoGS, Admissions, Senior Tutors’ Committee E&D/HR Committees

APPENDIX B

Key objectives/actions for CES 2010

Carried forward from consolidation of Race, Disability & Gender Equality Schemes (2003–2010) & Consultation April 2009

Strand specific	Area of work	Progress routes	CES Strategic Theme 1. Governance & Policy Development 2. Developing Best Practice 3. Inclusive Practice for Staff and Students 4. Promotion of Equality & Diversity 5. Data & Information Provision
Race	Sense of inclusion	EqIAs, diversity networks, promotional events, training/awareness	1, 2, 3
	Positive action: BME mentoring	E&D objective for 2010/11	2, 3
	Accessing professional development	CPPD data & targeted initiatives	2
	Impact of different cultures on teaching & learning	E&D objective for 2010/11 & Student Attainment EqIA follow up	1, 2
	Inclusive catering provision	Catering Managers Committee & Colleges	2
	BME student forum	Student Links Forum	3
	Impact of Points Based Immigration	HR Compliance Team	3
	BME representation and profile	Community links & communications	4, 5
Gender	Career Pathways & gender sensitive career guidance	(GRRG) HR, Women’s Network	2, 3
	WiSETI	Funding	3
	Under-representation of women, particular at senior levels/decision making	Various	1, 2, 5
	Springboard/Navigator/Springforward for staff	CPPD	2
	Transgender	Policy & guidance	1
	Gender sensitive management practice	HR Leadership Development & Behavioural Attributes Framework	2
	Gender sensitive teaching & learning practice	Student Attainment EqIA follow up	2, 3
	Equal Pay	Annual reports, outcomes, actions	1, 5
	Short term contracts	HR monitoring/data	5
	Career breaks & maternity returners	HR, Women’s Network, SAP	2
	Family/carer friendly policies and working practices	HR policy review & promotion	1, 2
Disability	Disclosure, follow up and reasonable adjustments	DRC Development Forum, E&D, DSN, Aspergers Syndrome Project	2, 3
	Raise awareness: stigma, challenging stereotypes, hidden disabilities, positive profile, definition of disability	DRC/E&D/CPPD training, DSN	4
	Graduate/Research/International disabled students	DRC, DRC Development Forum	2
	Review Disability Liaison Officers network	DRC & E&D	3
	Investigate Two Ticks scheme	HR, E&D, DSN	2
Generic	Develop and mainstream the roles of Equality Champions	E&D, E&D Committee	1, 4
	Communications Strategy & web profile	E&D & Office of Communications	4
	Dignity at Work, Dignity at Study – anti-harassment and anti-discriminatory practice	Monitor for race, gender, trans, sexual orientation & disability harassment and issues Plus religion/belief	3
	Benchmarking	Sector: RG Forum/ECU	2
	Staff survey	HR 2010/11	5
	E&D/best practice guidance	E&D	4, 5
	EqIAs follow up	E&D system; policy/function leads	1
	Training	Targets: all; selection panels & Appointments Committees EqIA training	2
	Legislative changes	Clarify jurisdiction	1
	Assess for impact	Equality Assessments: relevant & priority policies/functions & outcomes	1

APPENDIX C

Documentation reviewed in developing the Combined Equality Scheme

Race

• Race Equality Strategy 2009

• Race Equality Report 2005 – 2008

• Staff Race Equality Survey Report November 2006 – January 2007

• Staff Race Equality Report – Executive Summary

• Race Equality Policy and Action Plan 2002 – 2005 Review December 2005

• Race Equality Policy and Action Plan 2002 – 2005

• The undergraduate experience among three ethnic minority groups: 2006 report by Dr J. Scales and Dr J. M. Whitehead

Disability

• Disability Equality Scheme Action Plan 2007 – 2010 (draft)

• Disability Equality Policy and Scheme

• Disability Equality Scheme Annual Report 2007 – 2008

• Disability Equality Scheme Annual Report 2007

• Disability Equality Scheme – Postgraduate Survey

• DES Student Survey 2006

• Disability Standard 2009

• Minutes of the Disability Equality Scheme Working Group June 2008

• Minutes of the Disability Equality Scheme Working Group August 2008

• Disability data for the University of Cambridge 2004 – 05 and 2006 – 07

• Staff Disability Focus Group 2008

Gender

• Gender Equality Scheme Annual Report April 2008

• Gender Equality Scheme 2007 (draft)

• Action Points from the GES

• Equal Pay Review 2008

• Women’s Forum Implementation Plan

• Report on the Women’s Forum University of Cambridge Gender Equality Action Plan 2003–04

• Notes of Women’s Network and the Women’s Forum January 2008

• Women’s Forum – a participants view

• Equality Consultation with the Personnel Committee9

Equality & Diversity

• E&D Annual Review 2008–09 (draft), incorporating feedback from the April 2009 open consultation event

• Equality and Diversity Action Pan 2007 – 2009

• Equality and Diversity Action Plan 2007 Executive Summary

• University of Cambridge Equality and Diversity Action Plans 2007 – 09

• Equality and Diversity Office KPIs September 2008

• Equality and Diversity Action Plan 2006 – 2007

• Staff Equality and Diversity Annual Report October 2006

• Equal Opportunities Policy and Codes of Practice

• The Equality and Diversity Committee Objectives

• The University as an Employer – Equality and Diversity

• A matrix of documents that provide actions/recommendations across the Key Equality Strands

–APPENDIX D

E&D Consultation Infrastructure

GLOSSARY OF TERMS

BME	Black and Minority Ethnic
BoGS	Board of Graduate Studies
CES	Combined Equality Scheme
CPPD	Centre for Personal and Professional Development
DRC	Disability Resource Centre
DSN	Disabled Staff Network
E&D	Equality & Diversity
ECU	Equality Challenge Unit
EMBS	Estate Management and Building Service
EqIA	Equality Impact Assessment
GRRG	Gender Representation Review Group
HR	Human Resources
JCD	Joint Committee on Disability
RG	Russell Group (E&D Forum)
SAP	Senior Academic Promotions
WiSETI	Women in Science, Engineering, and Technology Initiativ

 

Appendix 1

Background to the Combined Equality Scheme (CES) on Race, Disability, and Gender

Context

The University of Cambridge is committed to equality of opportunity in its role as an employer, education provider, and public authority. The University highly values its international reputation for achieving excellence and its commitment to encouraging, supporting, and enabling all in its diverse community to reach their full potential.

The University, as an educational institution in receipt of public funds, is subject to the current public equality duty requirements for race, disability, and gender. The General Equality Duty relating to these three strands requires public authorities, including universities, to have due regard to the need to:

• eliminate unlawful discrimination, harassment, and victimization

• advance equality of opportunity, and

• promote good relations.

The University has developed a Combined Equality Scheme (CES) which details, in a single policy document, the University of Cambridge’s commitment to equality and is intended to meet the requirements of the public equality duties with regard to Race, Disability, and Gender Equality Schemes. It proposes to implement these in an inclusive way that will also adapt to future changes in legislation. The CES framework is based on common themes identified as applicable to all three strands, allowing also for distinct requirements of the separate schemes to be addressed.

The Equality Duties vary for each strand but incorporate common requirements including the need to formally adopt and publish an Equality Policy or Scheme and Action Plan for each strand. These requirements are summarized below (Fig. 1):

Fig. 110 General and Specific Equality Duty requirements of Race, Disability, and Gender Equality Schemes

Race	Disability	Gender
General Duties
Due regard to the need to: • Eliminate unlawful discrimination • Promote equality of opportunity • Promote good relations between people of different racial groups	Due regard to the need to: • Promote equality of opportunity between disabled and other people • Eliminate discrimination and harassment • Promote positive attitudes towards disabled people • Encourage participation of disabled people in public life • Make steps to take account of disabilities; even where this involves treating disabled people more favourably	Due regard to the need to: • Eliminate unlawful discrimination and harassment • Promote equality of opportunity between men and women
Specific Duties
• Monitor the applications, admissions, and progression of students • Monitor the recruitment and career progress of staff • Publish a Race Equality Policy • Take reasonable steps to publish the results of monitoring, assessment, and review	• Produce, publish, and implement a Disability Equality Scheme • Measure its progress regularly and use the measurement of that progress to inform future planning • Report annually on the progress of the Scheme and revise it within three years of the date of first publication	• Produce, publish and implement a Gender Equality Scheme • Measure and report annually on the progress of the Scheme • Review the Scheme every three years • Develop and publish a policy on developing equal pay arrangements between men and women (to identify and address the causes of any unequal pay)

This Combined Equality Scheme subsumes the University’s Race Equality Policy and Action Plan, adopted in May 2003, its Disability Equality Policy, adopted in July 2007, and its Gender Equality Policy, adopted in October 2007. It enhances the University’s Equal Opportunities Policy adopted in May 2002 and is in step with current developments towards a single Equality Act with the proposed combined (and extended) public equality duties. Additionally, it aims to maximize resources in achieving progress and meaningful outcomes. Many public sector and Higher Education Institutions have adopted either Combined (for Race, Gender, and Disability) or Single Equalities Schemes (for all strands covered by the full range of equalities legislation) with similar motivations.

In order to streamline themes and priorities, a comprehensive review of the three separate Schemes and an assessment of their Action Plans against legal requirements and University policy and practice have been undertaken. The intention was to clarify and identify progress in relation to University commitments and objectives to form a sustainable and pragmatic set of governing documents rooted in up-to-date and relevant community needs, legal compliance, and the University functions.

Legislative Background

The University of Cambridge approved its Equal Opportunities Policy11 in May 2002:

‘The University of Cambridge is committed in its pursuit of academic excellence to equality of opportunity and to a pro-active and inclusive approach to equality, which supports and encourages all under-represented groups, promotes an inclusive culture, and values diversity.’

Race

In May 2003 the University formally adopted its Race Equality Policy and Action Plan12 in line with requirements under the Race Relations (Amendment) Act 2000, defining how it intended to eliminate racial discrimination and promote equality of opportunity between different racial groups. As required under equalities legislation, this has been reviewed regularly and was updated in 2005.13

Disability

In July 2007 the University adopted its Disability Equality Policy14 in line with requirements under the Disability Discrimination Act 2005. Further, following consultation, the University published its draft Disability Equality Scheme and Action Plan,15 defining how it intended to promote and measure disability equality, engage disabled people, eradicate prejudice, and ensure equal access to services for disabled people. As required within the public equality duties, regular reports against progress have been undertaken.16

Gender

In October 2007 the University adopted its Gender Equality Policy17 in line with requirements under the Equality Act 2006. Further, following consultation, the University published its draft Gender Equality Scheme and Action Plan18 defining how it intended to promote and measure gender equality, address the needs of transgendered people, and identify and address the causes of any unequal pay between men and women. As required within the public equality duties, regular reports against progress have been undertaken.19

The University also aims to adhere to equalities legislation as applicable to other categories, including:

• Age

The Employment Equality (Age) Regulations 2006 outlaw age discrimination against employees (including job applicants) and people applying to be students.

• Sexual Orientation

The Employment Equality (Sexual Orientation) Regulations 2003 outlaw discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation in employment. The Equality Act 2006 extended protections to cover the provision of goods, facilities, services, and education. The Civil Partnership Act 2004 affords same sex couples equal rights to married heterosexual couples.

• Religion or Belief

The Employment Equality (Religion or Belief) Regulations 2003 outlaw discrimination in employment on the grounds of a person’s religion or belief. The Equality Act 2006 extended protections to cover the provision of goods, facilities, services, and education. In recognition of this legislation, in March 2009 the University approved its policy on Religion or Belief Equality.20

• Equality Act 2010

The Equality Act brings together the previously disparate equality strands into one harmonized and simplified new piece of legislation. The Act replaces the current equality duties with a single duty on public authorities to promote race, disability, and gender equality, and to further extend this duty to cover age, sexual orientation, gender identity, and religion or belief. The Equality Act will be implemented from October 2010.

In 2007, the Disability Rights Commission, Equal Opportunities Commission, and Commission for Racial Equality were combined under the Equality Act 2006 into the single Equalities and Human Rights Commission (EHRC). The EHRC is the main enforcement body whose role includes supporting public bodies with the implementation and fulfilment of the public equality duties.

Future Development

Legislative changes with the introduction of the Equality Act may require this Combined Equality Scheme to be expanded at a later stage to reflect and incorporate additional protected characteristics. Therefore the current CES serves as an interim migration policy document consolidating the University’s responses and commitments in line with its current legal obligations. The E&D section will continue to present an annual review of this Scheme with progress against action plans.

Report of the General Board on the establishment of a Professorship of Cognitive Developmental Neuroscience

The General Board beg leave to report to the University as follows:

1. In December 2009 the General Board received a first report from the Review Committee which the Board had set up in May 2009 (Reporter, 2008–09, p. 802) to consider the provision of teaching, learning, and research in the social sciences within the University. The Board agreed that the Committee’s recommendations set out an appropriate general direction of travel for Cambridge social sciences in the future, that the report should be published (Reporter, 2009–10, p. 467), and that the Review Committee should continue to develop its proposals. Substantial progress has been made by a group, drawn from the institutions concerned, to develop detailed proposals for a Social Sciences Tripos, about which the Board expect to report to the University in the Michaelmas Term 2010. Likewise, the Board, in consultation with the Council of the School of the Humanities and Social Sciences, are giving detailed consideration to recommendations for the reorganization of the School’s Faculty and Departmental structure in the social sciences.

2. A further recommendation of the Review Committee was that it would be of considerable advantage to the University if the present arrangements for teaching, scholarship, and research in Psychology could be brought together within a single Department of Psychology by the amalgamation of the currently separate Departments of Experimental Psychology and of Social and Developmental Psychology. The main reasons for this recommendation were: the need to enhance the quality of the graduate experience offered to students in both Experimental Psychology and Social and Developmental Psychology; the advantages to be gained, both academically and practically, from collaborative undergraduate teaching; and the need to make clearer to external parties Cambridge’s provision in the discipline. No consensus has been achieved as to the best way of achieving these improvements, though proposals have been made for enhanced cooperation that the Board will review in due course. The Board have, however, now agreed to propose that the Centre for Neuroscience in Education (CNE), an informal research grouping located within the Department of Education, should be transferred in the first instance (pending any further reorganization) to the present Department of Experimental Psychology.

3. Professor Usha Goswami, the Professor of Education (1938) has led the work of CNE since her appointment in 2003. In its report, the Review Committee commented as follows:

The Committee proposes that the Centre for Neuroscience in Education be moved from the Faculty of Education to the unified Department of Psychology it proposes. This is very much the wish of the present Head of the unit and the proposal has the support of both the present and previous Chairs of the School of the Humanities and Social Sciences, the Head of the Department of Experimental Psychology, and, providing that resource issues can be resolved, the Chair of the School of the Biological Sciences. It recognises that this will cause disruption to Education’s research programme but it feels bound to take note of the external advice that it has received. This made clear that the nature of the Centre’s work is not compatible with the research methodology in the Faculty (for example in postgraduate training). If the University is to retain CNE staff, provide a more appropriate environment for CNE Ph.D. students, and obtain maximum REF benefit, it needs CNE to be relocated as soon as possible to science-based psychology. The Committee considers it important to preserve such a significant research strength for the University, taking that research forward in a different research environment.

4. The Council of the School of the Biological Sciences have given approval, for their part, to a proposal from the Department of Experimental Psychology that, in order to give effect to the transfer of CNE, a single-tenure Professorship of Cognitive Developmental Neuroscience should be established for Professor Goswami in the Department of Experimental Psychology, in the first instance, with effect from 1 November 2010. The cost of the new Professorship will be met through an additional allocation of funds to the Council of the School of the Biological Sciences. This should enable the consequential vacancy in the Professorship of Education (1938) to be refilled without undue delay. Professor Goswami has been consulted and concurs with the proposal. Subject to the approval of the recommendation of this Report, the Board will reassign the University Senior Lectureship, currently held by Dr D. Szucs, who also works in the CNE, to the Department of Experimental Psychology for the remainder of his tenure. It has been agreed that Professor Goswami and Dr Szucs will continue to teach on the M.Phil. course in Education for the academical years 2010–11 and 2011–12.

5. The General Board recommend:

That a Professorship of Cognitive Developmental Neuroscience be established for one tenure in the University from 1 November 2010 for Professor Usha Goswami, placed in Schedule B of the Statutes, and assigned to the Department of Experimental Psychology.

13 July 2010	Alison Richard, Vice-Chancellor	Simon Franklin	Rachael Padman
	N. Bampos	Andrew Gamble	J. Rallison
	William Brown	C. A. Gilligan	Jeremy Sanders
	H. A. Chase	David Good	J. G. P. Sissons
	Philip Ford

Fifteenth Report of the Board of Scrutiny

The Board of Scrutiny begs leave to report as follows:

1. The Board of Scrutiny could be described as the University’s ‘watchdog body’. It forms part of the official mechanism for ensuring that the University is run in a way that is transparent and is accountable to the governing body of the University, which is the Regent House. It comprises eight directly elected members who serve for a period of four years, and the Proctors and Pro-Proctors (who are nominated by the Colleges and formally elected by the Regent House). Of the members who are directly elected by the Regent House, four retire and four new members are elected every two years. Further information is available on http://www.scrutiny.cam.ac.uk/.

2. The Board has a statutory obligation ‘to scrutinize on behalf of the Regent House’:

(a)The Annual Report of the Council;

(b)The Abstract of the Accounts of the University; and

(c)Any Report of the Council proposing allocations from the Chest.

It also has the right of reporting to the University on any matters falling within the scope of this scrutiny, and has the power to inspect any documents that are relevant to any enquiry that it is empowered to make. The Board, with the best interests of the University in mind, aims to carry out its functions in a constructive manner. Since its inception, the Board’s practice has been to publish a single Report exploring the themes that emerge from these official documents, rather than a series of separate Reports on Reports. This Fifteenth Report follows this tradition.

3. In discharge of these obligations during the academical year 2009–10 the Board has met fortnightly during each Full Term with two additional meetings in June to finalize this Report. It held formal meetings with the Vice-Chancellor (‘VC’), the Registrary, the Pro-Vice-Chancellor (‘PVC’) (Planning and Resources), the PVC (Education), the outgoing PVC (Human Resources), the University Librarian, the Chairman of the Audit Committee, the Director of Human Resources, and the Director of the Institute of Continuing Education (‘ICE’). In addition, a sub-group of the Board met with the Director of Finance. At various times during the year the Board has requested information and papers from these and other persons involved in running the University and is pleased to report that such information and papers have generally been made available. The Board is most grateful to all of these individuals for the time and assistance they have given.

4. The Board was provided with part-time administrative assistance this year by Miss Emma Easterbrook. Her help has been invaluable.

5. The Board has also reviewed the recommendations that it made in its Fourteenth Report and, in the light of the Council’s responses, considered what progress, if any, has been made in the intervening twelve months. The Board’s comments on these matters are appended as Annex A.

Overview

6. In the fifteen-year history of the Board of Scrutiny, rarely has one of its Reports been published at a more critical moment for the future of the University. Three years of financial turmoil unprecedented in modern times has produced a severely damaged and indebted economy, the ‘new politics’, and a general recognition that the current paradigm of higher education funding in the UK will no longer hold. The elite universities, in particular, are at a crossroads. Not only is there a new government and the eagerly awaited Browne Review, but also a changing of the guard in the leadership of both Cambridge and Oxford, the two universities that have the greatest reason to make common cause in influencing the direction of debate about the current crisis and the most to gain or lose from its eventual resolution. As the Board’s commentary on the Council’s Budget Report below makes clear, the financial outlook for the next few years at Cambridge is, at best, a fight to preserve the status quo, at worst it is very grim indeed.1 The Board does not take issue with this assessment; rather it has been warning of it for the past two years. What does concern it, however, is an apparent lack of internal debate about our future. It is not clear what the University is doing to determine its own destiny.

7. The Board of Scrutiny is not given to making prophetic pronouncements. However, just as it has warned of the dangers of complacency in financial planning before, it now warns of the potentially disastrous consequences of the voice of this great University not being heard in the forums where its fate will be decided. There is a sense that, far from the University engaging with the large existential issues it faces, it has instead turned inwards, and is wasting time and energy on internecine squabbles, some of which have been blown out of all proportion (see ‘Administration and Governance’ below). Cambridge should not be beholden to government, research councils, corporate sponsors, or, even, its own alumni – rather, these should all be seen as playing a role in helping it maintain its place as one of the greatest universities in the world. We should be shaping the financial and political debates and their outcome, not shooting at each other. The University must be willing to set the agenda, with policies drawn from consensus, and not wait obediently to see what we are offered. In particular, without the ability to charge the right price for the services we offer we could lose our position. This must not be allowed to happen.

Financial Matters

8. In his remarks at the Discussion of 19 January 2010 regarding the University’s Reports and Financial Statements for the year ended July 2009, the Chairman of the Board of Scrutiny congratulated Professor Steve Young, the then recently appointed PVC (Planning and Resources), for the skill with which he had slipped into his predecessor’s shoes.2 Indeed, he stated that it had become a commonplace for the Board to congratulate the PVC and the University Director of Finance on the excellent clarity they have brought to the publication of the annual accounts. All that needs to be added is to observe that the Board has been similarly impressed this year by the sense of reality and genuine foreboding that also invests the Council’s Budget Report for 2010–11. In particular, and notwithstanding some of the detailed points made below, the Board would like to commend Professor Young’s admirable frankness in his remarks to the Discussion on the Budget Report of 8 June 20103 concerning the likelihood of deeper Higher Education Funding Council for England (‘HEFCE’) and Research Council cuts than those forecast in the Budget Report, and the un-sustainability of the current gulf in undergraduate funding that, in the Board’s view, even a very favourable outcome to the Browne Review will not bridge. Should the situation turn out to require activation of the PVC’s severe Scenario B planning regime, the Board takes comfort from his obvious appetite to operate every lever at the University’s disposal to improve its income streams and manage expenditure. It is just this proactive approach to addressing the University’s financial problems that the Board of Scrutiny is seeking to encourage.

9. Although the focus of the Board’s remarks on University finances will highlight several areas of the Budget Report, we would like to reiterate some of the themes drawn out of the Chairman’s Discussion remarks. Looking at the University, including Cambridge Assessment (‘CA’) and the Cambridge University Press, income was up 7.3 per cent over the year ended July 2008 while expenditure rose 10.3 per cent. A surplus on continuing operations of £14 million became a deficit of £16 million. On a turnover of more than £1.1 billion, it could be fairly argued that an outcome substantially in balance is a good result, but the underlying trend is clear. The Board has remarked frequently in recent years upon the University’s dependence on support from CA. In 2008–09 it contributed £25 million in transfers to the University’s coffers. The danger is, as the Budget Report further rehearses (see below), that the bet we are making on CA’s growing prosperity is getting ever larger and becoming entrenched in financial planning.

10. As income sources come under ever-increasing strain, it is good that the management of the Cambridge University Endowment Fund (‘CUEF’) is becoming more professional thanks to the creation of the Cambridge Investment Office. However, a greater focus on alternative investments, away from securities that pay either a dividend or interest, will necessitate different accounting treatments to encompass the University’s ‘total return’ policy. In 2008–09 an accounting change has apparently reduced the CUEF’s income by £26 million as explained in the Additional Information in the accounts. This will not affect the amount taken from the portfolio, but does reflect the likelihood of further changes in how the statutory accounts are presented over the next few years.

11. In his valedictory remarks the Board’s last Chairman referred to ‘the pensions time bomb’.4 It is still ticking. Elsewhere in this Report, pensions are examined more closely. However, the Board regrets the recent announcement of the failure of the Joint Review Group (‘JRG’) of the Universities Superannuation Scheme (‘USS’) to agree to recommend a single reform to the scheme or its benefit structure. The pensions issue remains one of the greatest risks to the University’s continued financial probity. The Board is concerned that it is not being addressed with sufficient urgency or ruthlessness.

The Budget Report

12. The big news is that the Council has ‘agreed that projecting a deficit budget for the period up to 2014 is justified’. This is necessary to protect ‘the excellence of our core mission and to allow continued investment in essential capital and new initiatives’.5 This is also the acceptance of reality. Without significant new income sources, the University, and, indeed, most of the Colleges, will not be able to continue to offer the level of services and breadth of opportunity we have come to expect from the ‘Cambridge Experience’. The Report goes on to say ‘there must be a clear plan to return to a healthy surplus’ and that the Council is addressing this through its Financial Strategy Steering Committee. The Board is anxious to understand what the ‘clear plan’ is, as it is only too aware how easily deficits can become structural over time. The need to accept a deficit has been brought about principally by a radical contraction in the UK economy leading to anticipated reductions in central funding. These are unlikely to be reinstated; indeed, the projections in the Budget Report may well prove to be under-estimations, as the PVC (Planning and Resources) acknowledged in his remarks at the Discussion on the Budget Report. It would be good to have clarity on what is intended by the PVC’s remark that his tighter planning Scenario B ‘would require central co-ordination’.6 The University will need to address the funding chasm, particularly in undergraduate teaching, at a political level – constant internal adjustments will only lead to ‘death by a thousand cuts’.

13. The Board urges the University’s leadership to maintain a clear and open dialogue with the Regent House on the strategy it intends to follow to prevent the budget deficit becoming embedded.

14. The outturn for the current year has proved unexpectedly positive, with the projected £7.4 million deficit now forecast to be a £1.3 million surplus.7 The reasons given for this emphasize once again the University’s reliance on income from CA and the CUEF (both of which are forecast to make bigger contributions next year). Higher income from composition fees is also advanced as a contributory factor. Elsewhere in the Report, tuition fee income is anticipated to grow faster than previously predicted ‘based on expected changes to the composition of the student population, especially taught Master’s Degrees, and the increased fee structures’.8 The Board welcomes all attempts by the University to help itself by charging fees which reflect the real cost to the University of those courses but it is aware that the expansion of taught Master’s courses is controversial and may impact on other areas of teaching, learning, and research. If the expansion of such courses is being undertaken to bridge funding gaps, as has occurred at a number of other higher education institutions (‘HEIs’), and if this is indeed to be part of a strategy to deal with future deficits (as the PVC (Planning and Resource’s) reference to the ‘investment in new premium M.Phil. courses’ in his remarks at the discussion of 8 June 2010 suggests), this strategy must be made explicit and its implementation must be subject to the transparent processes of the University.

15. Last year in its Report the Board warned against the use of 1.5 per cent inflation as a planning number. This year the percentage has risen to 2 per cent. It is then used to calculate the ‘real-terms’ cut expected on the basis of what the Board fears may prove to be over-optimistic assumptions about the size of HEFCE reductions in undergraduate funding.9 Although the Board is aware of the siren calls of several economic commentators that Western economies are once again looking over the precipice of Japanese-style prolonged deflation, it would point out that Consumer Price Index and Retail Price Index (‘RPI’) are currently running at 3.7 per cent and 5.3 per cent per annum respectively.10 There remains little to recommend the University’s continued use of such historically low percentages in its planning. The Council is projecting a real cut in HEFCE teaching funding of approximately 9 per cent by the end of three years. This relies on flat cash amounts for 2012–13 and 2013–14 and the use of only 2 per cent inflation – the outcome could be a lot worse.

16. As last year, the Board recommends that the University uses an inflation percentage more representative of long-term UK averages when modelling future financial outcomes.

17. In its last Report the Board remarked upon the vulnerability of HEFCE’s capital expenditure funding stream (Capital Investment Framework or ‘CIF’) in current economic conditions. The Budget Report points out that the final CIF tranche of £35.4 million is still not guaranteed, and that a provision of £7 million has been made against the risk of these monies not all being received. The Board understands why the decision was taken to proceed with various capital initiatives, for fear of losing the funds altogether if projects were not initiated within HEFCE’s tight timeline. However, this begs the question that has occupied the Board in its last two Reports concerning sources of strategic funding for the future.

18. We note that, in its reply to the Board’s remarks in the Discussion of 19 January 2010 about long-term borrowing, the Council intends to announce its proposals for external finance ‘in due course’.11 The Budget Report speaks of the necessity to ‘develop a more integrated approach’ and work continuing on a ‘long-term plan for capital expenditure’.12 While the Board is grateful for confirmation in its meetings with, amongst others, the VC and the University Director of Finance, that the case for external finance has been accepted and its legality cleared, it is still struck by the general lack of urgency. As the British government has had recent reason to celebrate, the UK is different from the Eurozone in its tradition of a market in very long-dated bonds. The University is still able to take advantage of historically low long-term interest rates and borrow to maintain planned capital expenditure, such as that for North West Cambridge. Since the decision has already been made the Board of Scrutiny urges the University to act as quickly as possible while market conditions remain favourable.

19. Once again, the Board strongly recommends that the University proceeds with all expedition to the issuance of long-dated bonds while the opportunity remains to do so at historically low levels.

20. Of course, borrowing only makes sense if one is sure of the ability to service the coupon and eventually pay the monies back. In this regard, the Board is still concerned that the proposals put forward to date for the North West Cambridge development only call, as the Budget Report puts it, for any investment required to be ‘ring-fenced’ and to be ‘recouped on financial conditions agreed for the scheme as a whole’.13 This is Cambridge’s biggest capital project. It is the University’s opportunity to make money from land development. The Board has heard arguments about planning permission being predicated on the modesty of the plans, but asks with a project of this scale are we really content with just breaking even? As the document ‘North West Cambridge Project: A Green Paper’14 has just been published, the Board will certainly return to this issue next year. Regarding the official status of this green paper, the Board highlights its recommendation in this Report at paragraph 44 in respect of the nature and purpose of such publications in the University.

21. The Board recommends that the University urgently reconsiders the commercial objectives of the North West Cambridge development.

22. The Board congratulates the Council, and the PVC (Planning and Resources) for their successful management of the budget this year, for carrying the Schools and Institutions with them in straitened times (when filling posts and implementing initiatives have had to be curtailed), and for not shrinking from ‘difficult decisions and, in some cases, expedients which are not in the University’s best interests’.15 Similarly, it recognizes the determination to find ‘ways of adjusting to the new financial climate’, and that the proposed allocations allow for zero cash increases to the Schools and Institutions, which, in reality, therefore constitute a cut.16 The tables accompanying the Report are far more consistent with the latter’s tone this year and forecast a total budget deficit for 2013–14 reaching £5.3 million – the Board cannot help fearing this might prove to be over optimistic.

23. Just as it has just criticized a lack of financial ambition in the approach to the development of the University’s estate, the Board would like to commend the Council’s positive approach to improving income streams in areas over which it exercises some levers of self-help. In particular, the exhortation for fund raising is striking, where the University and Colleges are being encouraged towards ‘the long-term goal of achieving endowment levels similar to the international peers with which we must compete’.17 Given that, even after their recent tribulations, Harvard, Yale, and Stanford still enjoy endowments between three and five times the total for the University and Colleges combined, this is an admirable ambition but one that may take some time to achieve.

24. Lastly, on a point of format, the Board welcomes the inclusion in the Budget Report of a section headed ‘Uncertainties’. Those familiar with reading prospectuses prepared by investment banks for flotations will recall that they normally contain something similar. In these documents, the relevant chapter is normally entitled ‘Risks’, and in it the unwary investor’s attention is drawn to a dizzying list of everything that might still go wrong. The Board is happy that the Council is adopting an equally helpful, though somewhat less fulsome, practice, and would encourage it to formalize the inclusion of such cautions in future years.

25. The Board recommends that the Council routinely include a section on ‘Uncertainties’ in all future Budget Reports.

Pensions

26. In its last Report, the Board recommended that a robust and activist approach be taken to confronting the problems likely to beset the future of the defined benefit pension schemes of which University employees are members.

27. The Board is increasingly concerned that such an approach has still not been adopted. This suggests that the University has not come to terms with the magnitude of the challenge, nor has it understood that its failure to act decisively may cause the situation to deteriorate further. This creates uncertainty and limits the capacity of all staff to plan for the future. Urgent action is now essential if the University is to continue to provide attractive, affordable, and sustainable schemes for its staff.

28. Two schemes are relevant: the USS and the Cambridge University Assistants’ Contributory Pension Scheme (‘CPS’). The USS was established in 1974 as a fully funded private sector scheme and has been operating, largely unchanged, since that date. As the University’s Financial Statements note, an informal update valuation of the Scheme as at 31 March 2009 reduced its funding level to 75 per cent.18 Although this may be in part off-set by the increase in the employers’ contribution rate from 14 to 16 per cent in October 2009, this is insufficient to meet the current deficit and is unlikely to be a longer term sustainable solution. The situation is aggravated by the recent failure of the USS JRG to agree funding arrangements for the USS.19 This is of particular concern to this University as the USS is guaranteed by participating institutions and operates on the basis of ‘the last man standing’. The sector is under considerable financial pressure, the future of a number of other HEIs is uncertain, and ultimately, the last universities standing may have to bear the brunt of the USS’s deficit. This exposes this University (and Oxford) to the implications of USS’s deficit to a greater extent than most.

29. Changes have already been made to the benefits offered to staff joining the CPS on or after 1 December 2009 and there has been a 4 per cent increase (to 23.7 per cent) in the University employer’s contributions. It is unlikely that these measures will provide a long-term sustainable funding solution, particularly in light of the £100 million increase in the calculated liabilities of the University reported in the 2008–09 Financial Statements for its institutional pension schemes.20 The Board understands that further changes to the CPS are about to be proposed, but urges the University to undertake a root and branch review of all options for all University pension schemes, and to take action as a matter of urgency in order to ensure the well-being of the University’s finances, and its staff.

Administration and Governance

30. The Board discussed a number of issues connected with the governance of the University, notably the revision of Statute U, the installation of the lift in the University Combination Room, and a return to the Review of Teaching and Learning Support Services (‘TLSS’). The Board believes that the following three issues illustrate areas of concern with the working of the Council and its relationship with the Regent House.

Statute U

31. Countless meetings, countless drafts, and countless hours must have been devoted to the rewriting of this Statute, and the recent decision of the Regent House to reject these proposals lock, stock, and barrel must be a matter of the greatest concern. It may help to reiterate some of the history:

Summary – Statute U

32. On 9 January 2008 a two-page unsigned Green Paper was issued jointly by the Council and the General Board.21 This set out the rationale for change and asked for responses. On 4 December 2008, a further White Paper22 was produced, and there was a Discussion23 and widespread consultation. Written replies to the consultation were also published.24 On 30 October 2009 a Joint Report of the Council and the General Board was published, which included a detailed discussion of the major points of concern.25 The Report was signed by 15 members of the Council and 12 members of the General Board (three of whom also signed as the Council members). There was also a note of dissent signed by six members of the Council.

33. On 24 November, and 1 December 2009 a long Discussion was held on the Joint Report,26 and on 17 February 2010 a detailed response27 to the Discussion was published, and two Graces submitted to the Regent House. This response was signed by 14 members of the Council and 14 members of the General Board (five of whom also signed as Council members). There was also a note of dissent signed by the six members of the Council who had previously dissented. The results of the ballot were announced on 12 May 2010.28 Grace 1 was rejected by 1,119 votes to 491; Grace 2 was rejected by 988 votes to 625.

34. In passing, the Board would like to note that although the numbers voting may seem small compared with the total membership of the Regent House they are still much greater than the number of votes cast before postal ballots were introduced. The last such vote in person was in June 1994 when 248 votes were cast in the matter of a contentious Honorary Degree.

35. Here is not the place to debate the pros and cons of the revisions to Statute U itself. What does concern the Board is the time and effort that has been wasted. Accident, of course, played its part. Given that the matter came up just at the time when it seemed that the University’s finances were to take a nose dive and the threat of redundancy became real for many people for the first time, it is understandable that the revision of a statute that dealt with ‘dismissal’ would take on an unintended piquancy. In this context it should be said that the Board does not believe that the changes were designed to make redundancy of academic staff easier. Neither does it believe that there was an intention to put academic freedom in jeopardy.

36. It should also be recognized that the Council showed willingness to shift its ground at various stages in the consultation process and to adapt its proposals accordingly, but the fact that it took a long and, at times, heated discussion to force through these changes is instructive. It shows that Discussions are not yet entirely the moribund procedure they might seem to be, and it shows that the initial proposals were not nearly as water-tight as they should have been. This is surely another sign that they were too complex. In retrospect, then, it would have been wiser to have split the changes into digestible parts, and to have submitted those that were clearly more acceptable first. We now understand that this is what will happen. If the Council had taken this step earlier we might have avoided the massive loss of trust that was engendered by a determination to press ahead regardless. The Council needs to ask itself why it agreed to present the proposals in toto, when to most of us on the Board it was clear that if taken all together they would fail: either the Council was impatient, or it received bad advice, or it failed to give suitable consideration to good advice given in response to the Green and White Paper consultations.

The Combination Room Lift

37. On the face of it, it is utterly absurd that such a topic has been allowed to become a cause célèbre. Again a little history may be in order:

Summary – Combination Room Lift

38. The proposal to install a lift in the Combination Room was first discussed at the Buildings Committee under ‘minor works’, and on 2 July 2008 the Resource Management Committee gave its approval. Council approval was issued. At this time a Report was thought unnecessary because the lift was judged to be ‘minor’ works, the budget being well under £1 million. On 27 March 2009, Listed Building Approval was received, and on 8 September 2009 Building Regulation Approval was received. Work started on site on 28 September 2009 but was immediately suspended. On 14 October 2009, the Registrary gave Notice that he had received a request for a Discussion on a Topic of Concern signed by ten members of the Regent House.29 A Discussion was held in response to the Notice on 10 November 2009 but work on the lift had resumed on 9 November 2009.30 The matter was discussed at Council on 18 January 2010 but the Council made no public response at that stage other than agreeing ‘by a majority’ to continue with work on the lift. On 26 November 2009 a member of the Senate made representation to the VC under Statute K, 5(a) complaining that the Council had not issued a Grace connected to the issue. On 27 January 2010, the Council issued a Notice about the Topic of Concern, informing the Regent House that the matter had been first referred to the Warden of Robinson, who had agreed, but ‘on a very fine balance’, that the works were not to be considered ‘substantial’.31 It also reported that as a result of this ruling it had further received a request from 79 members of the Regent House that a Grace be submitted asking for the removal of the lift. This somewhat unusual request was forwarded to the Finance Committee for its comments and advice. That advice was expected to be available for the next Council meeting scheduled for 15 February 2010. On 24 March 2010 the Council issued a Report giving details of the Regent House Grace but informing the University that it had decided, under the provisions of Statute F, to reject the request.32 The reasons given were primarily financial. The Report was signed by 14 members of the Council but there was an added note of dissent by five members. A Discussion on the Council’s Report was held on 27 April 2010. The majority of speakers condemned the decision in the strongest terms.33 On 17 May 2010 the Council agreed to reverse its earlier decision and to put the Grace initiated by the 79 members of the Regent House to the vote.34

39. So what is going wrong? The initial decision to treat the matter as ‘minor works’ is understandable. In retrospect, the nature of the building suggests it might have been wiser to have consulted more widely but, given the amount of business transacted every day in this University, it is not surprising that this kind of thing happens from time to time. One can also see why, having done so much preliminary work and having obtained the consent of bodies such as English Heritage, the Council might have felt that the request for a Grace was just an irritation caused by a few people with nothing better to do. But at some stage someone took his or her eye off the ball, because no statement was made by the Council between 10 November 2009, and 27 January 2010, and work on the lift continued. It must have looked to the signatories of the initial Topic of Concern that the Council was simply going to procrastinate until it was too late and the lift was installed and working. This was a red rag to a bull because it shifted the argument away from the matter of the lift and on to much more dangerous ground, a belief that the Regent House was being ignored. Only this can explain the fact that as many as 79 members were persuaded to sign the request for a Grace, and that among these 79 were members of the Regent House who had never set foot in the University Combination Room. Then, having through inaction and silence provoked a backlash, the Council decided to go one better and reject the request as frivolous.

40. So why was the request for a Grace rejected? Presumably because it was felt that if the demand to dismantle the lift had been carried in a subsequent ballot, it would have entailed a worrying waste of resources (which is, of course, true). This was a risk that the Council felt it could not in all conscience afford to take. But what this means is that lack of trust is now operating in both directions. Not only does the Regent House (or rather the minority who are awake and have the time and interest to be concerned as to how the University is governed) not have confidence that decisions of the Council are well thought through, but the Council in its turn does not now trust the Regent House to make sensible choices. The correct procedure would have been for the Council to apologize once again for mistakes made, take the risk, and trust that no one in their right minds would actually agree to the expenditure of another £500,000 to little or no purpose. Either the Council was impatient, or it received bad advice.

Review of TLSS

41. Again, the history of the Review of TLSS, follows a similar path of unnecessary confusion and conflict.

Summary – TLSS

42. The report itself was available in July 2008 but not published. Subsequently a Freedom of Information Act request led to its publication on the internet. This in turn led to a Discussion on a Topic of Concern on 7 July 2009.35 The Council published a Notice in response to this Discussion on 26 November 2009.36 The General Board stated its opposition to the proposal that such reports should be routinely published, but the Council itself found it had little option but to publish in the circumstances.

43. Although the Council stated in that Notice that ‘the Registrary should consider the general policy on publishing such reports and advise the central bodies appropriately’, there has been no discernable further movement on this issue, and the Board would welcome further clarification as to what the policy of the Council will be. Perhaps the early publication of a preliminary report on the review of teaching, learning, and research in the social sciences is a sign of a change of heart.37 If so, this too is to be welcomed.

44. The Board recommends a clarification of the ‘general policy’ on publishing. It would be helpful if the nature and status of ‘discussion documents’, ‘green papers’, ‘white papers’, and the like could be defined, as well as at what stage of a process they are appropriately issued. It is also recommended that the Council and the General Board review the ways that they communicate with the Regent House generally with a view to giving greater clarity as to what kind of document might be published and when.

The Working of the Council

45. The Board does not have an immediate answer to the lack of trust now apparent between the Regent House and the Council, as noted above, which is not a situation one would wish upon an incoming VC. It is beyond the capacity of the Board to determine the reasons why recent decisions have been so far off the mark. We do, however, feel that a general comment on dissension is appropriate.

46. The recent trend towards minority dissent being voiced in public is a relatively new phenomenon and surely a sign that something is amiss. Disagreement is normal but so is the convention of ‘decision in cabinet’ whereby those who have lost a vote accept the majority decision, pick themselves up, and move on. So what is going on? Why is such a useful convention being ignored?

47. It is possible that some members of the Council have become so impatient with democracy and its maddening slowness that they insist on driving through measures regardless of the possibility of failure. There can be no doubt that the pressures from outside for executive action will only increase and the sense of frustration is real. The slowness of our decision-making processes will continue to cause difficulty both within and without the institution, and it is only natural that the representatives of the ‘civil service’, which does not vote but which must have some influence on how business is conducted, will be impatient. Alternatively, one can imagine a group of individuals who are constitutionally incapable of accepting defeat and who take advantage of our open democracy to insist on their views being heard, no matter how uncomfortable or destructive the outcome. Exactly where the tension lies within the Council is less important than the apparent lack of measures to counteract such tension.

48. The Board recommends that the Council reflects on how it might strengthen the principle of collective responsibility so that those who disagree do not feel that they must resort to public expression of dissent.

49. It is important for the smooth operation of meetings, for example, that the Chair is seen to be neutral. This is difficult if the Chair is seen to be on the side of the ‘civil service’. At present the Statutes stipulate that the Chair must be the VC, but the nature of this post makes it inevitable that, no matter how astute he or she may be, the VC will occasionally be seen as part of the ‘civil service’, and so appear compromised.

50. The Board recommends, therefore, that the Regent House look again at this particular Statute, and consider the possibility that the Council should be permanently chaired by one of its external members.

The Ballot Process

51. The attention of the Board was drawn to the process by which returns are counted. Ever since the advent of postal voting on Graces it has been accepted and established practice for a neutral person who has no vote to open the envelopes as they arrive, and to place the ballot papers in a series of boxes ready for final counting. This is particularly useful when the Single Transferable Vote system is used. It ensures that the final count is swifter than it otherwise might be, so that in normal circumstances the results of a ballot can be announced on the day the ballot closes. There are, of course, very strict guidelines as to who has access to the papers in the interim, and there is no suggestion that these guidelines have ever been broken. Nevertheless, it is possible that the Regent House may prefer to request a move to a foolproof system whereby the envelopes are only opened after the final deadline is passed. If this were the preferred option, then it would have to accept a concomitant delay in the reporting of the results. Counting would have to take place not on the evening of the final day but on the next working day, which might possibly be a Monday. The Board does not think this is a matter of major concern but feels it should be mentioned if only because it is part of our remit to investigate all matters that are brought to our attention.

Human Resources Issues

HR Business Services

52. Although the format of reporting is not specifically as requested in the Board’s Fourteenth Report, the Board nevertheless welcomes the detailed accounting of the cost of the restructuring of the HR Division as included in the 2008–09 Annual Report of the Unified Administrative Service (‘UAS’).38 This gives a transparent, and intelligible, depiction of the savings implemented in certain areas of the HR Division in order to reallocate funding to the School Teams initiative.

53. However, the Board is concerned that, as the Director of HR acknowledges, the reduction of significant resources (–38 per cent) in the HR Business Services area has resulted in a decrease in quality service in this area. The Board is aware that transactional processing of HR contracts and standard amendments has actually become less satisfactory for Departments and Schools since the restructuring. The Board would like confirmation that there are mechanisms in place within the HR management structure to recognize and address these problems as a matter of urgency. It is concerning that resources and staffing have been directed away from the HR Business Services function but that the ‘redesigning of business processes’ to ensure continuance of quality service has not been implemented appropriately. The ‘cost neutrality’ achieved in cash terms is negated by the additional staff time at Department and School level as a result of repeated errors and inefficiencies in processing following the restructure. However, the Board is assured by the Director of HR that problems in this area will be largely resolved by the next academical year. The Board hopes that this will indeed be the case and that appropriate monitoring will be enabled to ensure improvements in this area. The Board would expect to look again at the progress being made in this area in its next Report.

54. The Board recommends that the Council monitors progress within the HR Division in order to resolve all remaining issues.

Senior Academic Promotions

55. In its Fourteenth Report the Board drew attention to the lack of progress in fully publicizing the criteria for promotion, for example in Ordinances. The Council’s response was as follows: ‘A review of the senior academic promotions procedure is currently being carried out by the General Board. Inclusion of the procedures in Ordinances should be considered as part of the forthcoming review of the Statutes and Ordinances’.39 Every year a booklet is distributed to all teaching officers eligible for promotion, and the forms are also available on the web. These do, of course, contain information on the criteria used, and so in this sense the inclusion of such information in Ordinances is indeed a task that can await the larger project. However the information in the booklet changes slightly from year to year and the result of these incremental changes imposed by the General Board can be considerable over time.

56. The most obvious problem is with Senior Lectureships. When these were first established it was the general consensus that they would mainly be for long and meritorious service; crudely put, a way to award those who had sacrificed a research career in the interests of teaching and administration. But over time the criteria changed until research became of equal importance and this grade became just one stepping stone to higher things. There may have been good reasons for this change, but it is possible that this was driven more by external factors, such as the Research Assessment Exercise, rather than by internal factors. More importantly, the change was not subject to public consultation but simply imposed by fiat. The problem is that such tacit changes in criteria can mean that a person’s chance of promotion may differ depending on the year of application. It is clear that financial constraints make a level playing field from year to year something of a fiction, of course, but such disadvantages should be kept to a minimum and criteria once agreed should not be altered at the whim of the General Board or the HR Division.

57. The Board would also like to note one further point. The language used in the booklets needs radical revision; some of the specimen letters asking for references are barely literate, and much better descriptions of the terms ‘Lecturer’, ‘Reader’, and ‘Professor’ are needed so that a North American referee unfamiliar with the British system can write accordingly.

58. The Board recommends:

(i) That the criteria for Senior Academic Promotions be established by Ordinance and not left vulnerable to administrative change; and

(ii) That the specimen letters employed in the exercise be revised.

ICE

59. On 3 June 2009 the General Board published a Notice containing wide-ranging proposals as part of a Strategic Review of ICE.40 The Board of Scrutiny has taken a closer look at these proposals and their viability during 2009–10.

60. Much hard work has been undertaken within ICE during 2009–10 with apparently good results. However, given the substantial changes recommended in the Strategic Review, the appointment of a new Director to ICE from October 2009, and the imminent publication of ICE’s Strategic Plan in response to the Review, the Board feels that it would be premature, and possibly unhelpful, to comment on these initiatives at this time. It will take time for the financial impact of the introduction of new programmes (replacing those lost as a result of funding changes) and of changes in the use of Madingley Hall to become visible. It will also take time to evaluate the developing relationships currently between ICE and other parts of the University.

61. The Board will therefore continue to devote time in 2010–11 to the impact of the Strategic Review on ICE, and particularly to four inter-related matters: the current and potential roles within the University of the Institute and of Madingley Hall, the role of academic staff within ICE, relationships between ICE and other University institutions, Faculties, and Departments, and current budgets and business plans for the Institute and for Madingley Hall.

Technical Review of Statutes and Ordinances

62. The Board notes the Council’s Report in the Reporter of 16 June 2010 on the activities of Professor Yates’s Advisory Group on the simplification and clarification of the University’s governing documents and regulations. It welcomes the proposal to establish a Technical Advisory Group, also under the chairmanship of its own former Chairman, to recommend specific revisions and updates to Statutes, Ordinances, Orders, and other material within a comprehensive and comprehensible framework. The Board of Scrutiny has been advocating this course of action for several years and is strongly supportive of the initiative.

Constitution of the Audit Committee

63. The Board is aware that an increasing proportion of the Audit Committee meetings have been inquorate, largely due to the pressures on their availability suffered by some external members of that body. It welcomes, therefore, the Council’s proposals, outlined in the Reporter of 16 June 2010,41 to enlarge the Committee’s external membership, to increase its flexibility to ensure that decisions may only be made when the external members are in the majority, and to ensure that meetings are always chaired by an external member when the Chairman is absent.

The UL and TLSS

64. In its Fourteenth Report the Board considered both the process and the substance of the TLSS review, which proposes bringing under the umbrella of the UL all Faculty and Departmental libraries, and also the Language Centre and the Centre for Applied Research in Educational Technologies. Matters of process and procedure have been addressed above in connection with wider concerns about communication within the University. However, the Board also remains concerned about the substantive proposals. It notes the announcement of the incorporation of the Centre for Applied Research in Educational Technologies into the UL, 42and will monitor this development and any others, and possibly comment in its Sixteenth Report next year.

SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS

1.The Board urges the University’s leadership to maintain a clear and open dialogue with the Regent House on the strategy it intends to follow to prevent the budget deficit becoming embedded.

2.As last year, the Board recommends that the University uses an inflation percentage more representative of long-term UK averages when modelling future financial outcomes.

3.Once again, the Board strongly recommends that the University proceeds with all expedition to the issuance of long-dated bonds while the opportunity remains to do so at historically low levels.

4.The Board recommends that the University urgently reconsiders the commercial objectives of the North West Cambridge development.

5.The Board recommends that the Council routinely include a section on ‘Uncertainties’ in all future Budget Reports.

6.The Board recommends a clarification of the ‘general policy’ on publishing. It would be helpful if the nature and status of ‘discussion documents’, ‘green papers’, ‘white papers’, and the like could be defined, as well as at what stage of a process they are appropriately issued. It is also recommended that the Council and the General Board review the ways that they communicate with the Regent House generally with a view to giving greater clarity as to what kind of document might be published and when.

7.The Board recommends that the Council reflects on how it might strengthen the principle of collective responsibility so that those who disagree do not feel that they must resort to public expression of dissent.

8.The Board recommends, therefore, that the Regent House look again at this particular Statute, and consider the possibility that the Council should be permanently chaired by one of its external members

9.The Board recommends that the Council monitors progress within the HR Division in order to resolve all remaining issues.

10.The Board recommends:

(i) That the criteria for Senior Academic Promotions be established by Ordinance and not left vulnerable to administrative change; and

(ii) That the specimen letters employed in the exercise be revised.

28 June 2010	Paul Ffolkes Davis (Chairman)	Margaret Glendenning	Susan Oosthuizen
	Richard Bowring	David Goode	Jane Spencer
	Jeremy Caddick	Jamie Horsley	James Trevithick
	Kevin Coutinho	Catherine Mackenzie	Lindsay Yates

Annex A. Review of the Board’s recommendations in its Fourteenth Report and of the Council’s responses

Recommendation 1

The Board recommends that the Investment Office publish its annual report to investors more widely for the general University reader.

Response:The Council has invited the Chief Investment Officer to consider this helpful suggestion, in the context of developing arrangements for the Cambridge University Endowment Fund.

Comment: The Board awaits any further update on this from the Chief Investment Officer.

Recommendation 2

The Board recommends a robust and activist approach to confronting the problems likely to beset the future of the defined benefit pension schemes in which University employees are registered.

Response: The Council, and its Finance Committee, fully understand the importance of the future of pension schemes, which must be affordable, and must meet the needs of the employer and members, contributing and pensioners. The Finance Committee has a Pensions Working Group that has been charged with bringing forward proposals to the Committee to ensure that the University’s Assistant Staff Contributory Pension Scheme (CPS) remains an affordable and sustainable scheme into the future. It is expected that the Finance Committee will consider a report from the Pensions Working Group at its meeting in January 2010. With regard to the Universities Superannuation Scheme (USS), which is a national scheme, under the aegis of the Employers’ Pensions Forum, established jointly by Universities UK and UCEA (the Universities and Colleges Employers Association), discussions are taking place between the University and College Union (UCU) – which under USS’s rules represents all the members of the scheme – and the employers under the independent chairmanship of Sir Andrew Cubie. Those discussions are working towards a timetable whereby proposals with regard to the future sustainability and affordability of USS would be brought forward by April 2010 so that any changes in the scheme that might be agreed would be implemented for October of that year, after the statutory consultation with members.

Comment: As per paragraphs 26–29 of the Fifteenth Report, the Board is disappointed that no concrete progress has been made towards ensuring sustainability of the USS pension scheme following negotiations conducted by the JRG. Further proposed changes to the structure of CPS are awaited.

Recommendation 3

As last year, the Board strongly recommends that the University’s Finance Committee proceed as soon as possible with a long-dated borrowing in the fixed-interest markets while conditions remain historically favourable.

Response: The funding requirements for the University’s capital programme and North West Cambridge project are being developed and the Finance Committee will consider the financing options, which will include long-term borrowing, during 2009–10.

Comment: As per paragraphs 17–18 of the Fifteenth Report, the Board is encouraged by the University’s acceptance of the need for external finances and the possibility of long-term borrowing. It urges the University once again to implement the necessary actions while the market is still favourable.

Recommendation 4

The Board recommends that, notwithstanding the currently low levels of RPI and other indicators in the UK, the University should use an inflation percentage more representative of long-term averages when modelling future financial outcomes.

Response: The inflation assumptions used will reflect current views of medium- and long-term inflation rates.

Comment: As per paragraphs 14 and 15 of the Fifteenth Report, the Board does not find this response consistent with the fact that unrealistically low inflation assumptions are still being utilized.

Recommendation 5

The Board recommends that in future, should the Council and/or the General Board wish to consult the University in a wholly informal fashion before it has formulated its views to the point where it is able to issue a Report, it makes clear at the very outset of the consultation document the precise status of the document that is being issued, why it is not being issued in the form of a Notice or a Report, which body or bodies of the University are issuing it and how comment is to be fed back to those bodies and within what time frame. Proper published Minutes should also be kept of any open meeting consultations.

Response: The Council seeks to follow good practice in such matters, and as pointed out in the Discussion, has from time to time published in the Reporter, and put up for Discussion, consultative Reports, which are if necessary followed up by further Reports including final proposals submitted for approval by the Regent House.

The Council recognizes, however, that this is not always the best procedure, and that sometimes it is better for there to be more direct consultation in advance of the publication of Reports in the Reporter, for example with bodies such as the Councils of the Schools, Faculty Boards, Departments and other institutions, and individuals. Other mechanisms of consultation may also be appropriate. Often but not always, the outcome of such consultation needs to be followed up by legislation, through the route of Reports, or Notices.

Comment: The Board welcomes this recognition by the Council and hopes that it implements more direct consultation as necessary in future, notwithstanding the need for a formal Report. The need for additional consultation and communication is highlighted by the Board’s recommendation in paragraph 44 of the Fifteenth Report.

Recommendation 6

The Board recommends that whatever the outcome of the further debates and discussions on the University’s review of its disciplinary, dismissal and grievance procedures, any binding rules and safeguards arising from those discussions which are not to be contained in Statutes, must be promulgated in Ordinances.

Response: As noted above, the Council and the General Board have published a Report on disciplinary, dismissal, and grievance procedures to the University (Reporter, p. 131). The Report proposes that in addition to the draft Ordinances, the Codes of Practice may also only be amended by Grace of the Regent House

Comment: The Board has addressed the current status of the Review of Statute U in paragraphs 31–36 of its Fifteenth Report.

Recommendation 7

The Board recommends that the Annual Report of the UAS for 2008–09 should again include comprehensible information summarizing the identifying total HR pay costs, clearly labelled by percentage, and sterling value, and providing a comparison with total pay costs for 2007–08.

Response: The Annual Report for the Unified Administrative Service (UAS) for 2008–09 is available at http://www.admin.cam.ac.uk/offices/registrary/report/2008.pdf. Some information about the HR Division’s costs is provided in the Report and the Registrary has been requested to consider ways in which helpful information on expenditure in the UAS can be developed further in future reports. A financial plan for the UAS is submitted annually as part of the University’s planning round and is subject to similar processes of scrutiny and approval as obtain for Schools and other institutions.

Comment: As per paragraph 52 of the Fifteenth Report, the Board is satisfied with the presentation of HR expenditure following restructuring in the Annual Report of the UAS for 2008–09 and hopes this level of transparency and intelligibility will be repeated in future Annual Reports.

Recommendation 8

The Board recommends that full training in the HERA methodology for those senior Departmental and institutional administrators who have responsibilities for overall resource and planning issues now be made a priority.

Response:HERA training is given as required. It is not directly relevant to the conduct of resource allocation and planning work.

Comment: The Board is not satisfied with this reply given confirmation in response to its Thirteenth Report that the Human Resources Committee had agreed to implement wider HERA training subject to funding.43

Recommendation 9

The Board therefore repeats its recommendation that the criteria for senior academic promotion be given legislative force through embodiment in Ordinance.

Response: A review of the senior academic promotions procedure is currently being carried out by the General Board. Inclusion of the procedures in Ordinances should be considered as part of the forthcoming review of the Statutes and Ordinances.

Comment: The Board has addressed the senior academic promotions procedure again in paragraphs 55–57 of the Fifteenth Report.

Recommendation 10

The Board recommends that a change of name for RSD would now be appropriate.

Response: The Research Services Division of the University Offices (which with that title is established by Ordinance) now has the operating name of ‘Cambridge Research Office’.

Comment: The Board is satisfied with the implementation of this recommendation.

Recommendation 11

The Board recommends that reports proposing cross-organizational alterations to the administration of support services, especially when involving the terms and conditions of employment of staff, should be offered to the Regent House as matters of principle before detailed proposals are made.

Response: The Council has published a Notice which includes comments from the General Board that, inter alia, indicate that the Board will report to the Regent House on specific matters requiring any changes in Ordinances arising from the review of teaching and learning support services as necessary (Reporter, p. 256)(Reporter, p. 260).

Comment: The Board has revised and expanded this recommendation as per paragraph 44 of its Fifteenth Report.

Recommendation 12

The Board recommends that the University provide 24-hour staff cover for the computer and telephone network and multiple routes to report faults.

Response: This suggestion has been referred to the Information Strategy and Services Syndicate who are currently considering it.

Comment: The Board is satisfied that this matter was considered by the Information Strategy and Services Syndicate (‘ISSS’) at its January 2010 meeting. The Board understands the concerns with regards to high annual costs versus the level of risk and comparability of service with other Russell Group Universities. The Board hopes the ISSS does continue to review lower cost alternatives for providing this cover. The Board also notes that although the risk is ‘low’, there is still a known risk being undertaken.

Annex B. Glossary of Terms

CA:	Cambridge Assessment
CIF:	Capital Investment Framework
CPS:	Cambridge University Assistants Contributory Pension Scheme
CUEF:	Cambridge University Endowment Fund
HEFCE:	Higher Education Funding Council for England
HEI:	Higher Education Institution
HERA:	Higher Education Role Analysis
HR:	Human Resources
ICE:	Institute of Continuing Education
ISSS:	Information Strategy and Services Syndicate
JRG:	Joint Review Group
PVC:	Pro-Vice-Chancellor
RPI:	Retail Price Index
RSD:	Research Services Division
TLSS:	Teaching and Learning Support Services
UAS:	Unified Administrative Service (of the University)
UL:	University Library
USS:	Universities Superannuation Scheme
VC:	Vice-Chancellor