19 January, Saturday. Congregation of the Regent House at 2 p.m. (see below).
22 January, Tuesday. Discussion at 2 p.m. in the Senate-House (see below).
24 January, Thursday. End of first quarter of Lent Term.
3 February, Sunday. Preacher before the University at 11.15 a.m., Dr A. Rowlands, G, ED, Lecturer in Theology and Ministry, King’s College, London.
Discussions at 2 p.m. |
Congregations |
22 January |
19 January, Saturday at 2 p.m. |
5 February |
16 February, Saturday at 2 p.m. |
19 February |
23 March, Saturday at 10 a.m. |
5 March |
|
19 March |
The Vice-Chancellor invites those qualified under the regulations for Discussions (Statutes and Ordinances, p. 107) to attend a Discussion in the Senate-House on Tuesday, 22 January 2013, at 2 p.m. for the discussion of:
1. Second-stage Report of the Council, dated 3 December 2012, on the restructuring and rationalization of hospital facilities for the Department of Veterinary Medicine at West Cambridge (Reporter, 6288, 2012–13, p. 206).
2. Report of the General Board, dated 28 November 2012, on the establishment of two Professorships in the Faculty of Philosophy (Reporter, 6288, 2012–13, p. 207).
3. Report of the General Board, dated 28 November 2012, on the re-establishment of the Professorship of Aerothermal Technology (Reporter, 6288, 2012–13, p. 208).
4. Report of the General Board, dated 28 November 2012, on the establishment of two Readerships in Judge Business School (Reporter, 6288, 2012–13, p. 208).
5. Annual Report of the Council for the academical year 2011–12, dated 26 November 2012 (Reporter, 6289, 2012–13, p. 214).
6. Annual Report of the General Board to the Council for the academical year 2011–12, dated 28 November 2012 (Reporter, 6289, 2012–13, p. 222).
7. Reports and Financial Statements for the year ended 31 July 2012 (Reporter, 6289, 2012–13, p. 227).
8. Report of the Council, dated 10 December 2012, on the demolition of the former Madingley Cricket Pavilion, Madingley, Cambridgeshire (Reporter, 6290, 2012–13, p. 279).
The Reports published in this issue (on pp. 307 and 309) will be discussed on Tuesday, 5 February 2013.
The Vice-Chancellor gives notice that he has received from the Governing Body of Christ’s College, in accordance with the provisions of Section 7(2) of the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge Act 1923, the text of a proposed Statute to amend the Statutes of the College. The current Statutes of the College and the amending Statute are available on the College’s website: http://www.christs.cam.ac.uk/college-life/admin/proposed_statutory_reforms/.
Paper copies may be inspected at the University Offices until 10 a.m. on 1 February 2013.
The Vice-Chancellor gives notice that he has received with gratitude a legacy of £216,000 from the late Barbara Debenham to establish the Debenham Scholars Fund to support research in Polar Science through the provision of scholarships. The Council is submitting a Grace to the Regent House (Grace 1, p. 310) for the approval of regulations to govern the Fund.
The Council is grateful to the members of the Regent House for their comments on the Review of the University’s IT infrastructure and support (Reporter, 6287, 2012–13, p. 179). As noted in the Notice published on 24 October (Reporter, 6282, 2012–13, p. 57), the Review Panel will consider all comments received during the consultation period in December and the response will be published later this term.
The Council has received the Annual Report of its Audit Committee for 2011–12. The report is published for the information of the University. Appendices B–G are available at http://www.admin.cam.ac.uk/reporter/2012-13/weekly/6293/Audit_AnnualReport_Appendices.pdf.
Annual Report of the Audit Committee for the financial year 2011-12 - Appendices B - G
The Audit Committee is required to submit an annual report to Council, the Vice Chancellor, and subsequently to the Higher Education Funding Council for England (‘HEFCE’). The Audit Committee Annual Report is informed by the internal audit annual report (Appendix A – not published with this report).
This report follows the guidance set out in Appendix 6 of HEFCE’s Handbook for Members of Audit Committees in Higher Education Institutions.
This Audit Committee Annual Report is for the Financial Year 1 August 2011 – 30 July 2012 and includes the opinion of the Audit Committee on the reliance to be placed on the internal control and reporting systems of the University. The opinion is based on the Committee’s consideration of the University’s risk register, the internal auditor’s annual report, a draft of the external auditor’s Management Letter, other work commissioned by the Committee during the year, and on discussions at its meetings and workshops.
1.1 Internal auditor
Deloitte LLP are the University’s internal auditors and were appointed in January 2010.
1.2 Internal audit reports
This report refers only to those final internal audit reports that have been received and considered by the Audit Committee during the financial year under consideration and up to the date of this report. This will include any reports that were issued in draft during 2010–11, but which were not finalized for the Committee’s consideration until the 2011–12 financial year. This will not include any 2011–12 reports that have been finalized recently by internal audit, but which have not yet been considered by the Audit Committee at one of its meetings.
During 2011–12 and up to the point of writing, the Committee has received and considered 48 internal audit reports. Where a rating was ascribed, 90% of reports were given Satisfactory or Full assurance.
1.3 External auditor
PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP were reappointed as the University’s external auditor.
This section provides the Audit Committee’s opinion on the adequacy and effectiveness of institutional arrangements during 2011–12 and up to the date of this report.
2.1 Opinion – risk management, control, and governance
The Audit Committee has monitored and considered the effectiveness of the University’s risk management, control, and governance throughout 2011–12. These arrangements support the University in fulfilling its policies, aims, and objectives, enabling the University to identify, understand, and manage its principal risks, and to be accountable and transparent in its governance. The Committee has noted that there has been continuous improvement across the University’s activities: the University, individual institutions, and subsidiary companies are making clear and sustained efforts to understand, communicate, and incorporate best practice in risk management, governance, and internal controls.
The Committee has agreed that the Statement of Internal Control in the Financial Statements for 2011–12 is an accurate reflection of the risk management, control, and governance arrangements in place. The Committee is satisfied that these arrangements are adequate and effective.
2.2 Opinion – economy, efficiency, and effectiveness (value for money)
The Committee has monitored the effectiveness of the University’s financial controls, systems, and management structures in place for promoting efficiency, effectiveness, and economy in the use of public funds and other resources.
The Committee has noted the continuing adoption of and improvement in financial procedures and management practices designed to support the achievement of value for money and institutional effectiveness. The Committee is satisfied that these arrangements are appropriate and effective.
2.3 Opinion – data integrity
The Audit Committee has monitored the effectiveness of the University’s management and quality assurance of data submitted to HESA, to HEFCE, and to other funding bodies. Internal audit reviews of various aspects of data management have been conducted in the year for which substantial assurance was given. The Committee is satisfied that the management control and quality assurance of data submitted are adequate and effective.
3.1 Constitution of the Audit Committee
The Constitution of the Audit Committee is set out in the Statutes and Ordinancesof the University of Cambridge (see Appendix B).
3.2 Membership, 2011–12
Chairman: |
Mr John Shakeshaft |
Secretary: |
Dr Jonathan Nicholls, Registrary |
Assistant Secretary: |
Mrs Tamsin Mann (to 31 May 2012); Dr Rachel Coupe (from 1 June 2012) |
Class of membership* |
Name of member |
Limit of tenure |
(a) |
Mr John Shakeshaft |
31 December 2013 |
(b) |
Mr Robert Dowling |
31 December 2012 |
Dr David Good |
31 December 2012 |
|
(c) |
Mr Nicholas Martin |
31 December 2012 |
Mr Michael Starkie |
31 December 2012 |
|
Mr John Dix |
31 December 2013 |
|
Dr Andrew Cates |
31 December 2013 |
|
(d) |
Prof. Lindsay Greer |
31 December 2012 |
Dr Thomas Keith Carne |
31 December 2012 |
|
vacancy |
* Class (a): Chairman and External member of the Council; Class (b): Members of Council; Class (c): External members; Class (d): Co-opted members.
3.3 Process of appointment
Members are appointed to the Audit Committee by the Council of the University of Cambridge. Membership nominations are made to the University’s Advisory Committee of Committee Memberships and External Nominations of Council.
3.4 University officers and auditors
The Audit Committee invites certain senior University officers and the University’s external and internal auditors to attend unreserved meetings. On occasion it may also invite other colleagues to attend for a specific agenda item. The Audit Committee also invites the Chair of each of the audit committees of Cambridge Assessment and Cambridge University Press to attend all meetings and to make biannual reports.
The Vice-Chancellor is invited to address the Audit Committee annually.
Position |
Name |
Director of Finance |
Mr Andrew Reid |
Senior Pro-Vice-Chancellor (Planning and Resources) |
Professor Steve Young |
Internal auditor – Deloitte LLP |
Mr Richard Evans, Mr Richard Neal, and Ms Kirsty Searles (for 2011–12) |
External auditor – PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP |
Mr Clive Everest, Mr John Minards, Mr Simon Ormiston, and Mr Stephen Wyborn |
Chair of the Audit Committee of Cambridge Assessment |
Mr Bruce Picking |
Chair of the Audit Committee of Cambridge University Press |
Dr Richard Barker (for 2011–12) |
Director of the Management Information Services Division (MISD) |
Mr Paul Dampier |
Joint Head of the Legal Services Office |
Mrs Joanna Cheffins |
Chair of the Cambridge Overseas Trust/Cambridge Commonwealth Trust Audit Committee |
Mr Peter Davison |
Chair, Subsidiary company governance review committee |
Mr Nigel Brown |
The table below provides information on meeting dates, those members who attended the meetings, and colleagues and auditors who attended at the invitation of the Committee.
Members in Class (a) |
Members in Class (b) |
Members in Class (c) |
Members in Class (d) |
Senior Officers and Guests |
Auditors |
Apologies |
Quorate |
|
13/10/11 |
1 |
2 |
4 |
2 |
2 |
Internal: 3 |
1 |
Yes |
17/11/11 |
1 |
1 |
2 |
1 |
4 |
Internal: 3 External: 4 |
4 |
Yes |
19/01/121 |
1 |
2 |
2 |
2 |
4 |
Internal: 3 |
4 |
Yes |
08/03/12 |
1 |
2 |
3 |
1 |
6 |
Internal: 3 External: 3 |
2 |
Yes |
10/05/12 |
1 |
2 |
3 |
1 |
2 |
Internal: 3 |
4 |
Yes |
05/07/12 |
1 |
2 |
3 |
2 |
2 |
Internal: 3 |
2 |
Yes |
The Audit Committee’s terms of reference are set out in the Statutes and Ordinances of the University of Cambridge.2 It is the duty of the Audit Committee:
(a)to keep under review the effectiveness of the University’s internal systems of financial and other control;
(b)to advise the Council on matters relating to the external and internal auditors including their appointment, the provision by the auditors of any additional services outside the scope of their regular responsibilities, the remuneration of the auditors, and any questions relating to the resignation or dismissal of auditors;
(c)to ensure that sufficient resources are made available for internal audit;
(d)to approve proposals for internal audit put forward by the internal auditors;
(e)to review annually with the external auditors the nature and scope of the external audit;
(f)to consider any reports submitted by the auditors, both external and internal;
(g)to monitor the implementation of any recommendations made by the internal auditors;
(h)to satisfy themselves that satisfactory arrangements are adopted throughout the University for promoting economy, efficiency, effectiveness, and risk management;
(i)to establish appropriate performance measures and to monitor annually the performance and effectiveness of the external and internal auditors;
(j)to consider, in consultation with the external auditors, (i) any financial statements annexed to the abstract of accounts, including the auditors’ report, and (ii) any statement provided by the Council on the governance of the University;
(k)to ensure that all significant losses are properly investigated and that the internal and external auditors, and where appropriate the Higher Education Funding Council for England, are informed;
(l)to oversee the University’s policy on fraud and irregularity, and to ensure that they are informed of any action taken under that policy;
(m)to make an annual report to the Council, the Vice-Chancellor, and the Higher Education Funding Council for England;
(n)to receive reports from the National Audit Office and the Higher Education Funding Council for England, and to advise the Council thereon;
(o)to forward minutes of their meetings to the Council.
6.1 Provider
Deloitte LLP were appointed as internal auditors for the University with effect from 1 January 2010 until 30 June 2013, subject to satisfactory contractual arrangements.
6.2 Review of appointment
The performance of the internal auditors and their lead partner is considered annually by the Committee.
6.3 Review of internal audit annual report
The annual report for the period 1 August 2011 to 31 July 2012 was received by the Audit Committee at its meeting of 11 October 2012. Subject to the limitations of the work described in Deloitte LLP’s report, the internal audit opinion given was as follows:
“We provide reasonable assurance that the University has an adequate and effective system of internal controls for the year ended 31 July 2012. The control issues identified during our work do not materially impact upon the assurance statement to be provided in respect of the adequacy and effectiveness of the University’s arrangements for corporate governance, risk management, internal control, and value for money”.
6.4 Review of audit risk assessment and strategy
Internal audit plans are planned annually by department and function on the basis of the weighted risks and ownership identified in the University’s key risk register.
6.5 Review of audit reports
The Committee considers all reports submitted by the internal auditor. Each internal audit report is assigned to a member of the Committee for detailed consideration. The member then presents the findings to the Committee, highlighting any key points and/or concerns.
Deloitte LLP provide an assessment of the adequacy and effectiveness of systems using the following definitions:
Full |
There is a sound system of internal control designed to achieve the University’s objectives. The control processes tested are being consistently applied. |
Substantial |
While there is a basically sound system of internal control, there are weaknesses which put some of the University’s objectives at risk. There is evidence that the level of non-compliance with some of the control processes may put some of the University’s objectives at risk. |
Limited |
Weaknesses in the system of internal controls are such as to put the University’s objectives at risk. The level of non-compliance puts the University’s objectives at risk. |
Nil |
Control processes are generally weak, leaving the processes/systems open to significant error of abuse. Significant non-compliance with basic control processes leaves the processes/systems open to error or abuse. |
Deloitte LLP classify their recommendations as follows:
Priority 1 |
Issues that are fundamental to the University, for the attention of senior management, and the Audit Committee. |
Priority 2 |
Issues that are fundamental to the area subject to internal audit, for the attention of senior management, and the Audit Committee. |
Priority 3 |
Important issues to be addressed by management in their areas of responsibility. |
Priority 4 |
Housekeeping issues or good practice suggestions. |
6.6 Fees
Fees paid for work completed in 2011–12 are shown in Appendix C.
7.1 Provider
PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP were reappointed as external auditors for the University for the financial year 2011–12.
7.2 Review of appointment
In accordance with HEFCE’s Financial Memorandum, an external auditor is appointed or reappointed annually. The Statutes and Ordinances of the University of Cambridge also require that the accounts of the University are audited annually by qualified accountants appointed by Grace on the nomination of the Council.3
A Grace submitted to the Regent House on 22 February 2012 recommending the reappointment of PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP was approved on 2 March 2012.
7.3 Details of non-audit services
During 2011–12, the external auditor carried out work in the following areas for the University:
(a)Sample checks of management processes and of scripts for report to Cambridge Assessment and Ofqual.
(b)SAP implementation at Cambridge Assessment.
(c)Royalties calculations, secretarial services, and employment tax advice for Cambridge University Press South Africa.
(d)Local statutory accounts and staff support for Cambridge University Press.
(e)Review and restructuring work at other Cambridge University Press subsidiaries.
(f)External project for Cambridge Programme for Sustainability Leadership.
7.4 Review of the management letter
The external audit management letter 2011–12 submitted by PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP was received by the Audit Committee at its meeting on 15 November 2012.
The Audit Committee considered the report and were satisfied with the remarks on auditing and accounting matters, detailed control observations, and other observations from around the University group.
7.5 Fees
Fees paid for work completed in 2011–12 are shown in Appendix D.
8.1 Statement of internal control
The Council is responsible for reviewing the effectiveness of the system of internal control. The Audit Committee supports the Council in this role through the following processes:
(a)The Council receives periodic reports from the Chairman of the Audit Committee concerning internal control and receives the minutes of all meetings of the Audit Committee.
(b)The Audit Committee receives regular reports from the internal auditor, which include the internal auditor’s independent opinion on the adequacy and effectiveness of the University’s system of internal control and risk management, together with recommendations for improvement.
(c)The Council’s review of the effectiveness of the system of internal control is informed by the work of the internal auditor. They operate to the standards defined in Accountability and Audit: HEFCE Code of Practice.
(d)The Audit Committee reviews and reports on the implementation of recommendations made and agreed in the regular audit cycle and other investigations.
Through the consideration of reports from the internal auditor and other investigations the Audit Committee is assured that the University’s system of internal control is currently effective and is able to report its reassurance to the Council for the year 2011–12.
8.2 Review of assurances received
Deloitte LLP has confirmed its reasonable assurance that the University has an adequate and effective system of internal controls for the year ending 31 July 2012. The control issues identified during their work do not materially impact the opinion to be provided in respect of the University’s arrangements for corporate governance, risk management, internal control, and value for money.
8.3 Review of institution’s risk management strategy
(a) The University’s approach to risk management
The University of Cambridge pursues good practice in risk management as given in the Turnbull Committee guidance, and endeavours to comply fully with HEFCE and other statutory requirements. The University’s view of acceptable risk is derived from a balanced view of all the risks in its operating environment. Risks are prioritized and assessed according to qualitative and quantitative measures. The strategy is as follows:
i. A Risk Steering Committee (RSC) oversees the risk management process as a whole, on behalf of Council. The Chair of the Risk Steering Committee is the Senior Pro-Vice-Chancellor who attends Audit Committee meetings. The Chair of the Audit Committee is one of three Council representatives on the Risk Steering Committee. This strengthens the link between audit and risk management.
ii. A Risk Policy is reviewed and revised annually.
iii. The identification of the fundamental risks affecting the University and its Departments, Faculties, and central bodies. These are reviewed biannually to ensure that the full scope of the University’s activities is covered.
iv. Determining the appropriate risk appetite and level of exposure for the University as a whole.
v. Implementation of arrangements to manage fundamental risks and examination of the effectiveness of those arrangements. Where risk management is judged weak, poorly understood, or limited in effect, controls have been and will be enhanced.
vi. Allocating responsibility for the management of risks to senior university officers.
vii. A review of risks and their management at least once a year.
(b) Risk management – the role of the Audit Committee and its auditors
i. Audit Committee
The Audit Committee provides advice to the Council on the effectiveness of the Risk Steering Committee and on the internal control system, including the University’s system for the management of risk. The Audit Committee received the Risk Steering Committee’s annual report and annual review of the University’s key risk register at its second meeting of the year. The interim revised key risk register was received at the meeting on 10 May 2012.
Members of the Audit Committee are invited to bring their copies of the key risk register to all meetings to help inform discussions of audit reports and the impact on risk management, and also to plan the audit cycle.
ii. Internal audit programme
The internal audit programme is responsible for providing independent and objective assurance on the University’s operations in order to evaluate and improve the effectiveness of the University’s internal control systems. The internal audit strategy is developed around the University’s objectives and assessment of the fundamental risks including an evaluation of the effectiveness of the University’s risk management process. Risk management arrangements are a standard and continuing aspect of all departmental audits.
iii. External audit
External audit informs the Audit Committee on the operation of the internal financial controls reviewed as part of the annual audit.
8.4 Other work
The Audit Committee has a number of standing agenda items: Value for Money, Fraud, Risk Management, and HEFCE. For each of these items it asks for updates from senior university officers and also seeks assurance from the internal auditors.
(a) Value for money (VFM)
The University’s Resource Management Committee (RMC) oversees VFM reporting for the University. The Chair of RMC, the Senior Pro-Vice-Chancellor, attends Audit Committee meetings and provides statements on behalf of the RMC. At its meeting on 13 June 2012, the RMC received the University’s value for money framework and strategy which were reviewed in response to recommendations made in an internal audit report on the University’s VFM arrangements. The RMC supported the recommendations proposed in the review (see Appendix G).
The internal auditors consider VFM as a standard item in institution or system audits as well as conducting specific VFM audits as part of the annual plan.
(b) Fraud
The Audit Committee has been notified of an incident of fraud in the Cambridge ESOL division of Cambridge Assessment in Turkey resulting in a loss of just under £37,000. The HEFCE has been notified.
(c) Risk management
The Audit Committee received and considered the University’s sustainability metrics covering, amongst other matters, carbon management, student experience, recruitment, and finance. The metrics are considered alongside the Key risk register. As data accumulates over a longer period of time the metrics will provide useful quantitative data which will help to inform financial and strategic decision-making.
(d) HEFCE
i. HEFCE’s assessment of institutional risk
The Committee received a copy of the letter from HEFCE stating its opinion that the University is ‘not at higher risk’. This was the third year of new accountability requirements under the Charities Act 2006.
ii. Annual accountability exchange
Following the Quinquennial Review of 30 June 2008, HEFCE had determined that the University of Cambridge was, to a considerable degree, an institution without significant risk. However, due to the differences between the University’s governance systems and the usual approved model, HEFCE requested an annual assurance visit for a period of three years. The third and final visit took place in March 2012. The University received full assurance. HEFCE subsequently determined that these visits will not be continued, but that the University will participate in the general assurance arrangements applicable to all Higher Education Institutions (see Appendix E).
The HEFCE, in August 2011, asked the University to commit to review its governance arrangements in the light of changes in Higher Education by the end of the 2013–14 academical year and to inform the HEFCE of its conclusions. The Audit Committee has asked the Council to consider how such a review might best be conducted and has suggested that it might follow the model of self-reflection adopted for preparation for the quinquennial visit by HEFCE in 2008.
iii. Assurance on Colleges’ use of HEFCE funds
In order to discuss the proper use and value for money aspects relating to the Colleges’ use of HEFCE funds, there is an annual meeting between the Chair of the Audit Committee, the Chair of the Colleges’ Committee, the Registrary, and the Chair of the Bursars’ Committee. An agreed note of the meeting is submitted to the Audit Committee. The annual report of the Resources Sub-Committee of the Bursars’ Committee on Value for Money is also submitted to the Audit Committee.
The third such meeting took place in March 2012. The Committee has affirmed that these meetings provide a sensible and satisfactory exchange as part of the annual assurance mechanism for College Fee Transfer arrangements (see Appendices F(i) and F(ii)).
The Committee has agreed a protocol enabling the Director of Finance, on an annual basis, to report satisfaction with the use of the funds transferred following agreement that reliance could be placed in this regard on the Recommended Cambridge College Accounts rather than through audit certificates.
(e) Non-standard items
In addition to the standing agenda items, the Audit Committee has considered the following items as part of its business during the 2011–12 financial year:
i. Review of Woolf inquiry report recommendations
The Audit Committee was asked by Council to consider the recommendations of the Woolf inquiry report concerning certain matters at the London School of Economics against the University’s own processes for the solicitation and acceptance of donations. A working group was set up for this purpose, chaired by the Chair of the Audit Committee. It will be reporting back to the Council in the 2012–13 academical year on changes, as necessary, to current policies, practices, and governance arrangements concerning the acceptance of benefactions, the admission of postgraduate students, the acceptance of research funding, and the establishment of international partnerships.
ii. Bribery and corruption
The Audit Committee considered and recommended the University policy and procedures against bribery and corruption. This was approved by Council at the meeting on 23 April 2012 and adopted by the University and associated bodies.
iii. Review of subsidiary company governance
At the request of the Audit Committee, important work to review the assurance arrangements for the University’s nine wholly owned subsidiary companies was undertaken by a review sub-committee. The review found that governance was generally sound with examples of best practice, but that a watching brief was needed and some strengthening of the relationship between the University and certain subsidiaries. In May 2012 a follow-up report was received by the Committee outlining the actions taken by the subsidiaries in response to the Committee’s recommendations. This demonstrated that good progress had been made. Some more work was required with three subsidiaries where reviews of governance structures were already underway but not completed. The Audit Committee will be receiving an updated report by the end of the calendar year.
iv. Cambridge University Press
A Joint Oversight Group is providing support to the Cambridge University Press executive and monitoring the Press’s response to the questions raised in the external auditors’ report for the academical year 2010–11 about the suitability and effectiveness of the Press’s financial and operational controls. The Group, chaired by the Chair of the Audit Committee, is assisting and advising the Press on the introduction, implementation, and acceptance of appropriate risk-based controls over several reporting periods and a finance change programme in support of the business including a major new systems implementation and the associated transformation. A regular progress review is provided to the Committee.
8.5 Workshops
Audit Committee workshops are opportunities to discuss strategic issues in more depth, often based around an expert presentation. These workshops operate in part as professional development opportunities for the Committee’s members. During the financial year 2011–12, one workshop was held. The topic was the North West Cambridge development. The Project Director, Roger Taylor, presented and provided an update on the project to date focussing on the risk register and financial aspects of the project appraisal.
This section is used to report matters of internal control and governance that are of interest to the Audit Committee, but which fall just outside the financial year in question or concern longer-term, continuing developments.
(a) University of Cambridge bond issue
By a Grace submitted to the Regent House on 9 February 2011, the Council was given authority, on the advice of the Finance Committee, to arrange external finance of up to a total amount of £350m, earmarked for the Capital Plan and the North West Cambridge development.
At the time of writing, the University had secured an Aaa rating from Moody’s and had successfully raised £350m through a public bond issuance. A constituent part of the closing of the bond issue was the provision of a legal opinion from Mills & Reeve to the joint lead managers, HSBC Bank plc, confirming that the University was acting constitutionally in executing the bond issue.
(b) Working group on Council business
The Council agreed, at a meeting in April 2011, to establish a working group to consider the role and functioning of the Council and the management of its business. The group, which is chaired by the Chair of the Audit Committee, has submitted several recommendations during 2011–12. These have been approved by the Council resulting in significant change to the format of the materials presented to the Council. The working group is currently in the second phase of its activities and considering broader questions around the Council’s role and functioning. The Council handbook is being revised and will include a section setting out the legal duties and responsibilities of members of the Council as Charity Trustees.
1The Vice-Chancellor attended this meeting to give his annual report to the Audit Committee.
2Statues and Ordinances of the University of Cambridge, pp. 1025–6.
3Statutes and Ordinances of the University of Cambridge, p. 57.
Members of the University and persons affiliated to University Societies are advised that the affixing of advertisements to the railings of the University Church is restricted by the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and the Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisements) (England) Regulations 2007.
Advertisers are obliged in the vast majority of cases to obtain permission from the University Church prior to display. Such permission, if given, is subject to conditions pursuant to the policy adopted by the Church with regard to regulating the same.
Further details may be supplied upon application to Tobias Shaw Paul, Assistant Verger (email: tsp26@cam.ac.uk or via UMS to Great St Mary’s, the University Church).