Reports

Report of the Council on the financial position and budget of the University, recommending allocations from the Chest for 2016–17

The Council begs leave to report to the University as follows:

1. This Budget Report reviews the financial position of the University and recommends allocations from the Chest for the financial year 2016–17.

2. Information on trends in staff and student numbers, research, and expenditure patterns is provided in the usual way in Appendices 1–4 .

Overview

3. The 2015 Budget Report drew attention to the significant level of uncertainty in the political and economic landscape, and observed the potential for considerable change in higher education policy and funding in the future with the potential to have an impact on the University’s financial position.

4. This year’s Budget Report follows the Chancellor’s Autumn Statement1, and the publication, in November 2015, of the Higher Education Green Paper Fulfilling our Potential: Teaching Excellence, Social Mobility and Student Choice2 and Sir Paul Nurse’s Review of the Research Councils.3

5. The Green Paper and the Nurse Review have provided greater clarity on the scope of the changes planned for the governance of and funding arrangements for the higher education sector, although the precise details will not emerge until later this year. Further, this year’s Budget Report will be published shortly before the referendum, on 23 June 2016, on the United Kingdom’s membership of the European Union. There is, therefore, the potential for a major upheaval in the external environment which may have wide-ranging ramifications for the economy, and, ultimately, the higher education sector.

6. This year’s Budget Report shows a deterioration in the financial forecasts compared to the 2015 Budget Report, which anticipated that the Chest would remain in balance for most of the planning period. The Chest is now expected to remain in deficit for the planning period. This is predominantly a result of a reduction in forecast income, as described later in this Report. While the University is in a strong position to manage short-term, temporary deficits on the Chest, the Council observes that this position is unsustainable for the medium- to long-term, and supports the principles outlined later in this Report to raise income and to use non-Chest income, as well as Chest income, to support academic strategies.

7. The Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE) funding for 2016–17 is broadly in line with expectations. HEFCE teaching funding includes the removal of £2.7m of institution-specific, high-cost provision from 2016–17; this assumption was already built into forecasts in the previous planning round. HEFCE research funding is slightly higher than forecast following an increase in overall mainstream Quality-Related (QR) research funding.

8. The Chest forecasts for the planning period continue to assume a modest 1% per annum increase in allocations to School and non-School institution (NSI) budgets. Schools and Departments are continuing to draw on their accumulated Chest-derived reserves to mitigate the constraint exercised on allocations since 2011–12.

9. Overall, the budget for 2016–17 forecasts a deficit on Chest income and allocation of just over £3m. The Chest is expected to remain in deficit for the remainder of the planning period.

External and internal environment

Referendum

10. On 23 June 2016, there will be a referendum to determine whether or not the United Kingdom remains a member of the European Union.4 It is not possible, at this point, to do more than speculate about what an exit from the European Union might mean for the economy in general, and for the higher education sector in particular. A subgroup of the Risk Steering Committee is discussing options, gathering information and considering how far-reaching the implications of an exit from the EU might be, but preparation of a full risk assessment and contingency plan is premature.

Higher Education Green Paper

11. The Higher Education Green Paper, Fulfilling our Potential: Teaching Excellence, Social Mobility and Student Choice, has set out proposals to reform the Higher Education system, including plans for a Teaching Excellence Framework and the creation of a new Office for Students to replace HEFCE.5 A technical consultation to consider how the proposals for a Teaching Excellence Framework might be implemented is expected in early summer.

Sir Paul Nurse Review

12. The government has committed to taking forward the recommendations in the Nurse Review of the Research Councils. These include a recommendation for greater co-ordination and collaboration between policy-makers and the research community. One proposed approach is the formation of a Ministerial Committee that will help ministers to engage with science, although other options may emerge.6 A new oversight body, Research UK, is anticipated, although there is considerable uncertainty about how it might operate and the effect it might have on the funding landscape. The review envisages Research UK will discharge five primary roles, including the management of funds to support cross-cutting activity across the Research Councils.7 The government has described its role as ‘shaping and driving a strategic approach to science funding, ensuring a focus on the big challenges and opportunities for UK research’.8 The extent to which this new body will take on the research functions that currently sit with HEFCE is unclear, as is the future arrangement for determining distributions of QR research funding. This will be informed by the outcome of the Stern review of the Research Excellence Framework, which will be reported to the government later in 2016. It is expected that it will include consideration of simpler, light-touch methods for assessing research performance in which data and metrics are used in addition to peer review.9

Strategic research reviews

13. As part of a strategy to maintain the quality and volume of its research activity and to respond to potential changes in the external environment, the University has initiated a programme of strategic research reviews. The purpose of the reviews, which will include expert external advice, is to ensure that the University is best placed to exploit new and emerging research opportunities, maximize impact, and enhance its international research profile. Each of these factors is critical if the University is to maintain or increase its share of mainstream QR funding, which currently makes up 16.5% of the University’s central funding.

14. Schools and Departments are also encouraged to maximize engagement with the commercial sector and will be supported in this by the Pro-Vice-Chancellor for Enterprise and Regional Affairs. For instance, the relocation of AstraZeneca to the Biomedical Campus, and increasing collaborations with a range of others, including GlaxoSmithKline, present a particular opportunity to maximize research and development activity in pharmaceutical research. This is strengthened by the development of the Cambridge Academy of Pharmaceutical Sciences.10 Similar strategic developments are on-going in many other areas of the University’s activity, and these must be built on. Current examples include the transfer of more MRC units into the University,11 the Maxwell Centre, which opened in April 2016,12 and the National Research Facility for Infrastructure Sensing.13

Financial sustainability

15. In order to improve the financial sustainability of its teaching and research activities, the University must find ways of enhancing its income streams in addition to maintaining its focus on financial restraint in spending and achieving value for money. The tight fiscal regime introduced since 2010 has been crucial in attaining greater financial sustainability. However, this must not constrain prudent investment in order to deliver longer term growth in strategically important areas of academic activity. The University must become better placed to secure and increase future revenue streams for reinvestment in teaching and research, and its academic and financial planning processes must be informed by this objective. The Planning and Resources Committee (PRC) will take this into account when it sets the strategic and financial assumptions for the next planning round. Upholding the University’s reputation for excellence will be paramount.

16. Philanthropy will continue to be a crucial part of the strategy to raise income, and significant Chest funds have been committed to support Development and Alumni Relations in order to maximize the output of the current Campaign. However this is not a panacea and cannot be the only solution. Measures will need to be taken by the academic community, hand-in-hand with strategies led by the central bodies. There must, therefore, be appropriate mechanisms and incentives in place to ensure that the academic community can benefit directly when its strategies also help to raise income, thus contributing to an improved overall financial position. In recognition of this, the Resource Management Committee has approved the formation of a subgroup, which will carry out a thorough review of the Resource Allocation Model (RAM). The review will include consideration of the purpose of the RAM in the allocations process, its structure and application, the level of ease with which it can be used and understood, and how its coverage might be expanded beyond informing Chest allocations.

17. The University may wish to explore whether the distinction between Chest and non-Chest income is helpful. The merits of differentiating these two core income streams must come under scrutiny when the Chest is forecasting a deficit over the planning period while Schools – through their Departments – report unrestricted reserves14 totalling £193m at the 2014–15 year end. The PRC, in its annual planning guidance, has emphasized the importance of using all sources of funding in support of Schools’ strategic priorities for teaching and research, and has continued to call for greater transparency on non-Chest activity, particularly trading activity.

18. The University will continue to focus on restraining expenditure and increasing efficiency where there is scope to do so without putting core services at risk. The University’s participation in a detailed benchmarking exercise will give a clearer indication of the level of resourcing needed to support the University’s administrative infrastructure. At the same time, the Schools are reviewing their governance structures and examining relationships between their Departments and Faculties with the aim of identifying and removing layers of duplication and any inefficiency. Notwithstanding the continuing drive for efficiencies in administrative functions, there are some areas where investment in core functions may pay substantial dividends in terms of disproportionately increased income. A clear case in point may be the administrative support for Research Grants and Contracts and it may be that the on-going review of the Research Office will determine that further investment is necessary.

Capital

19. The Estates Strategy Committee is overseeing the preparation of the University’s estate strategy, which will be published in Michaelmas Term 2016. A priority will be to ensure that the University’s buildings and facilities are fit for purpose and can support an evolving, world-leading University. The strategy will also include consideration of the principles for the effective management of the University’s estate and it will explore the potential for generating long-term revenue from the non-operational estate as a way of enhancing the University’s income streams.

20. The University continues to invest in physical infrastructure. This year sees the opening of the Dyson Centre for Engineering Design, the David Attenborough building, and the Maxwell Centre on the West Cambridge site. Work continues on the second phase of the development of the New Museums site, and planning for phase 3 is in progress. A review of the Sidgwick site masterplan is nearing completion and the conclusions are expected in summer 2016. Construction has commenced on the Chemistry of Health Building on Union Road, and on Capella, a new building on the Biomedical Campus that will bring together researchers from the Schools of the Biological Sciences and Clinical Medicine. Plans for a new Cavendish Laboratory are also well underway and the University has submitted a Full Business Case to the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills to secure the £75m investment that was announced by the Chancellor in the Autumn Statement.15

21. The scale of the University’s plans to invest in the estate is ambitious. Average expenditure over the next ten years is anticipated to be in the region of at least £100m per annum. In addition to this, the Capital Plan forecasts expenditure of well over £2bn in the medium- to long-term, including projects to redevelop the Biocentrum and to relocate the Departments of Engineering and Chemistry to West Cambridge.

22. The ongoing development and modernization of the ageing estate is essential if the University is to continue to recruit and retain the best staff, and to protect and maintain its leading global position in teaching and research. The substantial sums required present challenging goals for fundraising; the PRC will keep the attainability of these goals under review as part of the strategy for funding the University’s Capital Plan alongside other funding schemes such as UKRPIF and resourcing from the University’s Capital Fund. Given the scale of the Capital Plan, however, the Council considers that the University may need to review its ability – and willingness – to commit central funds over and above current levels if the strategic priorities as articulated by Schools and NSIs are to be delivered.

Planning Round 2015

Guidance and assumptions

23. In June 2015, the PRC agreed again to continue the Planning Guidance issued in previous years. Schools and NSIs have, therefore, prepared forecasts of income and expenditure assuming a 1% increase in Chest allocation for 2016–17 over 2015–16 and for each year thereafter. Schools and NSIs also have the opportunity to bid for additional allocation in support of investment in strategic priorities. The outcome of this exercise is outlined in paragraph 36.

24. Assumptions about future pay awards are a key area of sensitivity in the financial projections of this Budget Report and increases in pay inevitably lead to significant, additional recurrent costs. A central contingency is set aside to mitigate this risk for Chest-funded posts, but the risk of extra costs remains. For modelling purposes, the pay award assumed in the planning guidance was 1% per year during the planning period. Apart from National pay awards, all additional pay costs arising from promotions, increments, and regrading are met from within allocations to the Schools and other NSIs except where separate provision is made. The Finance Division’s pay model is used to identify how University-level forecasts would change for different pay assumptions.

25. A default inflation assumption of 2% has been used for non-pay inflation in all years unless there have been compelling reasons to adopt an alternative assumption for specific classes of non-pay expenditure.

26. The RMC continues to use the current RAM and RAM Distribution Model to ensure that incentives are in place to maximize Chest income and minimize Chest costs. The RAM Distribution Model is based on end-of-year RAM calculations, whereby, if a School’s RAM surplus exceeds 5% of its out-turn, then 10% of the surplus above the tolerance band is added to the School’s allocation in the next round. Similarly, if a School’s RAM deficit exceeds 5% of actual out-turn, then 10% of the deficit below the tolerance band is subtracted from the allocation. The operation of this mechanism based on the accounts for 2014–15 has resulted in an increase in core allocation in 2016–17 for one School and a reduction for another (see the summary of additions to allocations in the table below, p. 529). The effectiveness of this mechanism will be examined as part of the review of the RAM mentioned in paragraph 16.

27. For the purposes of this Report, allocations to Schools and NSIs are assumed to be fully spent even if a balance is carried forward to the next year. This is the mechanism by which Chest-derived reserves accumulate.

Financial forecasts

Fees and HEFCE funding

28. The Secretary of State sets out the annual funding for higher education in a letter to HEFCE that is typically sent in the winter. This year’s Funding Letter from HEFCE was delayed to 4 March 2016,16 and, as a result, the announcement of grants for each institution funded by HEFCE has also been later than expected.

29. Appendix 5 describes HEFCE funding in 2016–17. The University’s allocation of HEFCE funding for teaching continues to decrease with a reduction of £3.5m compared to 2015–16. This is driven in the main by the withdrawal, as anticipated, of institution-specific, high cost distinctive provision and the winding down of the supplement for Old Regime students admitted before 2012 and paying the lower fee.17

30. The University’s allocation of HEFCE funding for research has increased by £1.9m due substantially to increases in mainstream QR funding and Charity Support funding.18

31. As always, the allocations outlined in the HEFCE grant letter are provisional since the academic and government financial years differ. A government budget cut in 2017–18 may therefore result in a ‘claw-back’ from the 2016–17 HEFCE allocations.

Actual 2014–15 and forecast 2015–16

32. The actual Chest out-turn for 2014–15 is provided in Table 1 of this Report (p. 531 ). The overall position on the Chest was a surplus of £16.1m compared to a £6.7m surplus anticipated in the 2015 Budget Report (Reporter, 6387, 2014–15, p. 550). The improvement is due to lower than forecast expenditure on certain administered funds.19

33. Table 2 (p. 531 ) summarizes the forecast out-turn for the Chest in 2015–16. In the 2015 Budget Report the overall position on the Chest was forecast to be a small surplus of £2.7m. The forecast is now for a deficit of £3.8m driven by the withdrawal of HEFCE non-consolidated, transitional research income, lower academic fee income, and a fall in overhead income to the Chest. The impact of the withdrawal in HEFCE funding was minimized by a £2.5m provision already included in Chest forecasts to mitigate the risk of a ‘claw-back’ in HEFCE funding as described in paragraph 31.

34. Activities funded outside the Chest (and excluding Cambridge University Press, Cambridge Assessment, and the Cambridge Trusts) were previously forecast to result in a deficit of £8.4m in 2015–16 after making a contribution to the Chest for central costs. This component of the budget is difficult to predict with precision but there is currently no reason to expect a significantly different out-turn by the end of the year.

Forecasts for 2016–17

35. Forecast Chest income for 2016–17 is £442.3m compared to £446.3m assumed in the 2015 Budget Report. The reduction of £4m is driven in the main by a reduced estimate of tuition fee income, which has been revised downwards to take into account lower than projected student numbers in 2015–16, and a change in the forecast proportions of Overseas students and Home/EU students.20 Research grant overhead income to the Chest is also forecast to fall as a result of reduced rates of growth in the Schools of Clinical Medicine, Technology, and the Physical Sciences, as well as a shift in research income mix from Research Councils to the European Commission and Charities.21

36. A breakdown of the forecasts for 2016–17 is shown in Table 4 (p. 533 ). Forecast expenditure includes a number of bids for additional Chest allocation beyond the core 1% increase built into the planning guidance. Bids were scrutinized at an annual planning meeting with each School and NSI, and reviewed again by the RMC. In the current planning round, the RMC has agreed to recommend increases to allocations in 2016–17 totalling £5.6m as detailed in the summary below. Approximately £0.8m of the increase to Schools is cost-neutral, representing their share of premium M.Phil. Degree fee income and RAM Distribution Model adjustments. The additional allocation for the NSIs is £4.2m, over half of which is to support the work of Development and Alumni Relations for the current Campaign.

Summary of new additions to allocations in 2016–17, (£000)

2016–17	Additions to allocation	RAM Distribution Model	Total addition to allocation
School of Arts and Humanities		(12)	(12)*
School of the Humanities and Social Sciences	265		265
School of the Physical Sciences	300		300
School of Technology		532	532
School of the Biological Sciences	117		117
School of Clinical Medicine	152		152
Schools total	834	520	1,354
CUDAR (including CAm)	2,541		2,541
Fitzwilliam Museum	28		28
Kettle’s Yard	125†		125
University Information Services‡	1,187		1,187
UAS (incl. DRC)	229§		229
Office for Postdoctoral Affairs	115#		115
Total non-School institutions	4,225		4,225
GRAND TOTAL	5,059		5,579

Table notes:

* A separate, non-recurrent grant of £125k was approved by RMC for the benefit of the School of Arts and Humanities in 2016–17.

† This represents a supplementary allocation for two years only.

‡ The allocation to the High Performance Computing Service is subject to provision, and approval by RMC, of a full business plan.

§ In addition to the recurrent allocation, a non-recurrent grant of £126k in total will be available to support the Sports Service over the next three years.

# A supplementary allocation of £115k was agreed for 2016–17 pending the development of a business plan for a Postdoctoral Foundation.

37. At the same time as approving a number of increases in allocation, the RMC has also approved a series of measures to realize non-recurrent Chest savings totalling £19m over the planning period. The application of these savings, which includes the claw-back of certain unspent reserves, has been phased to smooth the effect on the bottom line of the Chest forecast.

38. The RMC has also considered the forecasts for the Administered Funds. These centrally-held funds (of which a substantial portion is for direct allocation to Schools or represents the Colleges’ share of fees to be offset against gross fee income) meet University-wide costs or provide specific streams of funding against which Schools and NSIs may bid. The forecasts for 2016–17 are broadly in line with the forecast in the previous Budget Report.22

39. The Administered Funds include the estate maintenance budget, for which the allocation is £18.3m in 2016–17. Estate Management’s forecasts are informed by an asset prioritization model, which has enabled the production of more sophisticated data to support maintenance planning and the identification of higher and medium priorities for maintenance works over the planning period.

40. The Operating Budget described in this Report is developed and managed on a fund accounting basis. The University’s annual Financial Statements are prepared on a financial accounting basis consistent with generally accepted accounting principles. A number of adjustments are needed to convert the Operating Budget to a format comparable to the Income and Expenditure account seen in the University’s Financial Statements. The main adjustments are to remove capital expenditure from the Operating Budget and bring in a depreciation charge, to estimate the amount of spend against reserves and build-up of reserves, and, with a change to new accounting standards, inclusion of certain donations received. To aid comparison with the Financial Statements, such a conversion of the Operating Budget for 2016–17 is shown in Table 5 (p. 534 ). The Council considers, however, that the format used in Table 3  is the appropriate one for planning.

Forecasts for 2017–18 to 2019–20

41. The forecasts for the Chest show a deficit across the planning period, which, over the three years from 2017–18 to 2019–20, is forecast to total just under £23m.

42. Tuition fee income beyond 2016–17 is based on expected changes to the composition of the student population and the changing fee structures. A significant increase in tuition fee income is forecast from 2017–18, at which point the number of undergraduate clinical students is expected to increase from 160fte per annum to a maximum 273fte per annum as a result of the full cohort of students remaining in the University for their clinical training. The forecast additional income to the University is £1.5m although there will be significant increases in accompanying costs.

43. Projections of expenditure beyond 2016–17 have been built up from the detailed plans at School and NSI level submitted in December 2015.

44. Pay awards have been assumed to be 1% per annum across the planning period with a contingency set aside to allow for any variation in actual pay awards.

Conclusions

45. The University is in a strong position to manage short-term, temporary deficits on the Chest as forecast in this year’s Budget Report. However, improving the financial sustainability of a growing volume of teaching and research activities over the longer-term will necessitate an increase in income. This may require some initial investment in strategically important academic areas in order to deliver growth, and enhance and sustain future revenue.

46. To this end the University will develop its strategic planning and resource management policies in order to ensure there are appropriate mechanisms and incentives to allocate resources where needed and drive change. Above all, upholding the University’s reputation for excellence will be critical, and will ensure the University is well-placed to manage risk and respond, as necessary, to ongoing uncertainty in the external environment.

Recommendations

47. The Council recommends:

I. That allocations from the Chest for the year 2016–17 be as follows:

(a)to the Council for all purposes other than the University Education Fund: £183.3m

(b)to the General Board for the University Education Fund: £262.2m

II. That any supplementary HEFCE grants which may be received for special purposes during 2016–17 be allocated by the Council, wholly or in part, either to the General Board for the University Education Fund or to any other purpose consistent with any specification made by HEFCE, and that the amounts contained in Recommendation I above be adjusted accordingly.

16 May 2016	L. K. Borysiewicz, Vice-Chancellor	David Good	Shirley Pearce
	Chad Allen	Nicholas Holmes	Michael Proctor
	Richard Anthony	Fiona Karet	Cornelius Roemer
	Jeremy Caddick	Stuart Laing	John Shakeshaft
	R. Charles	Mark Lewisohn	Susan Smith
	Anne Davis	Priscilla Mensah	Sara Weller
	Margaret Glendenning	Rachael Padman	I. H. White

TABLES AND APPENDICES

2015 Budget Report - Tables and Appendices

Report of the Council on revised governance arrangements for the development of the West and North West Cambridge sites

The Council begs leave to report to the University as follows:

1. This Report proposes certain amendments to the arrangements for the governance of the North West Cambridge development and the further development of the West Cambridge site, which have been prompted by a review of the governance and delivery arrangements for the North West Cambridge development undertaken by the North West Cambridge Audit Group.

2. The Council has considered the findings of the Audit Group, as set out in its two reports, and has approved the Group’s recommendations (Reporter, 2015–16; 6400, p. 53; 6421, p. 442). The majority of the recommendations of the first report have already been acted upon; the remainder will now be implemented following approval of the recommendations of the second report. This Report puts forward amendments to implement a number of the recommendations in the second report, as noted below.

3. The Group’s second report,1 which focusses on the lessons to be learned in the management of large-scale commercial projects, makes several specific recommendations in relation to the terms of reference and membership of the body responsible for delivery of the North West Cambridge development, namely:

(a)That the West and North West Cambridge Estates Syndicate should be reconstituted as a Board, as a title better reflecting its responsibilities (Recommendation 4);

(b)That the membership of the Board should be revised to reduce the number of members who must also be members of the Regent House from five to two, to reduce the number of such members required to be present for a meeting to be quorate from two to one, and to introduce a requirement that the majority of the members should be external (Recommendation 11);

(c)That, once the Regent House has approved a large capital project or similar major commercial undertaking, the Council should have overall responsibility for the management and administration of the venture, without being expected to seek further permissions from the Regent House, except where the University’s Statutes and Ordinances expressly require it (Recommendation 14);

(d)That consideration be given to the need for a Chief Financial Officer to take overarching responsibility for large commercial undertakings (Recommendation 15) and that the Chief Financial Officer attend meetings of the Board, replacing the University officer who is currently a member of the Syndicate (Recommendation 18). The Council has agreed that a Chief Financial Officer should be appointed.

4. The Council agrees with the view of the Audit Group that the Council is the body that should be expected to ‘assume overarching executive decision-making responsibility in respect of large-scale commercial undertakings’ (paragraph 39 of the Group’s second report). In order for the Council to assume this role, it is necessary for the body advising the Council on the management of such a project to operate as if it were a board of directors and to be answerable to the Council. The Council is therefore proposing in Recommendation I of this Report that the West and North West Cambridge Estates Syndicate should be disbanded and replaced with a board that reports directly to the Council.

5. The Audit Group’s second report, in paragraph 29, recommends that, of the two members of the Regent House on the Board, one should be the Pro-Vice-Chancellor whose responsibilities most closely align with the North West Cambridge development, and the other should not be otherwise connected with the management of that development. The Council believes that the latter position on the Board should be reserved for a member of the Regent House who is independent of those with senior management or leadership responsibilities in the University. In the proposed regulations for the Board the definition used in determining eligibility for the membership of the Board of Scrutiny has therefore been applied. The Council has also proposed that the number of members appointed by the Council should be up to nine and no less than five, of whom two will be members of the Regent House, and the quorum accordingly reduced from five to four, of whom one shall be a member of the Regent House.

6. In order to provide a smooth transition, it is proposed that, if this Report’s recommendations are approved, the membership of the Syndicate would become the membership of the Board with immediate effect, vacancies would be filled in accordance with the new membership arrangements for the Board, and any remaining changes to the membership would take effect from the expiry of the periods of office of the existing members.

7. The opportunity is being taken to establish a definition of ‘external member’, which employs the wording used to describe the eligibility to serve as a member of the Council in class (e) under Statute A IV 2(e), as set out in Recommendation II.

8. The Council recommends:

I. That the regulations for the West and North West Cambridge Estates Syndicate (Statutes and Ordinances, p. 134) be rescinded and replaced with the regulations for the West and North West Cambridge Estates Board as set out in Annex I.

II. That a new Section 6 introducing a definition of ‘external member’ be inserted in Special Ordinance A (vii) (Statutes and Ordinances, p. 71) so as to read:

6. In any Ordinance or Regulation the term ‘external member’ shall mean any person who at the time of appointment is not qualified to be a member of the Regent House except under Statute A III 10 (a)(ii) nor is an employee of the University or a College.

16 May 2016	L. K. Borysiewicz, Vice-Chancellor	David Good	Rachael Padman
	Chad Allen	Nicholas Holmes	Shirley Pearce
	Ross Anderson	Alice Hutchings	Michael Proctor
	Richard Anthony	Fiona Karet	Cornelius Roemer
	Jeremy Caddick	Stuart Laing	John Shakeshaft
	R. Charles	Mark Lewisohn	Susan Smith
	Anne Davis	Priscilla Mensah	Sara Weller
	Margaret Glendenning

Annex

West and North West Cambridge Estates Board

1. The West and North West Cambridge Estates Board shall consist of the following, the majority of whom shall be external members:

(a)a person appointed by the Council as Chair who shall be a person with experience and expertise in matters relevant to the affairs of the Board;

(b)up to nine and no fewer than five members appointed by the Council who shall be persons with experience and expertise in matters relevant to the affairs of the Board (two of whom shall be members of the Regent House, one of whom shall not be a senior officer in the University1 and shall have no previous association with the management of the West and North West Cambridge Estates and one of whom shall be a Pro-Vice-Chancellor).

Subject to Regulation 12 below and the General Regulations for Boards, Syndicates, etc., members shall be appointed for four years from 1 January following their appointment.

The Chief Financial Officer shall attend meetings of the Board.

2. The Registrary shall appoint the Secretary of the Board.

3. No business shall be transacted at any meeting of the Board unless at least four members are present, of whom at least one is a member of the Regent House.

4. Within the strategic and financial framework and any other limitations set by the Council or the University, as amended from time to time, the Board shall be responsible for:

(i)the management, development, and stewardship of the North West Cambridge Estate (being the University’s land and property holdings in the area between Madingley Road, Huntingdon Road, and the M11 motorway); and

(ii)the development and stewardship of the West Cambridge Estate (being the University’s land and property holdings in the area bounded by Madingley Road, Clerk Maxwell Road, the Coton Footpath, and the M11).

The Board shall have authority to establish such sub-committees reporting to the Board as it sees fit.

5. Subject to the restrictions set out in Regulations 4, 6, and 7, the Board shall be authorized to exercise in the name of the University in relation to the affairs of the Board all the powers of the University, except in so far as the Statutes and Ordinances expressly or by necessary implication provide otherwise.

6. The approval of the Finance Committee shall be required for any proposal to borrow money or to establish or acquire an interest in any company registered under the Companies Acts or otherwise.

7. For the avoidance of doubt, no proposal relating to the erection, demolition, or substantial alteration of any building for academic or (non-commercial) research purposes shall be implemented unless it has been specifically approved by Grace of the Regent House.

8. The Board shall make an Annual Report to the Council, which shall include a budget and audited accounts and which shall be published to the University either as a whole or in summary. The Board shall make such other reports and take such other steps as the Council may require from time to time.

9. Members of the Board shall register and declare all personal and business interests which may, or may be perceived to, influence their judgement in connection with the affairs of the Board and, where appropriate, shall withdraw from related business and discussions. The Council may from time to time determine procedures for the financial regulation and conduct of the affairs of the Board after consultation with the Chair of the Board.

10. There shall be the post of a Project Director for the North West Cambridge project. The duties of the Project Director shall be determined jointly by the Chair of the Board and the Director of Estates Strategy. Appointments and reappointments to the post of Project Director shall be made by the Board.

11. The Council shall have the power in exceptional circumstances to discharge the Board and to assume full responsibility itself for the management, development, and stewardship of the West and North West Cambridge Estates for the time being.

12. The Council shall have the power at any time to revise the period of a person’s appointment as a member of the Board.

Joint Report of the Council and the General Board on the public display of Class‑lists and related matters

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

1. In this Report the Council and the General Board seek approval for the discontinuation of the public display of class-lists outside the Senate-House and in Colleges and University institutions.

2. At the beginning of the 2015–16 academical year, the General Board received, through its Education Committee, a petition, signed by c. 1,200 current and former students on behalf of the ‘Our grade, our choice’ campaign, which asked the University to consider two options: (a) the discontinuation of publicly displayed class-lists or (b) a more flexible procedure for students to opt to have their names excluded from such lists. The Board noted that the University of Oxford had discontinued the public display of its class-lists in 2009. In order to determine how to proceed, the General Board consulted all Faculty Boards (and equivalent bodies), the Colleges, CUSU, and the Proctors. The Board’s consultation invited comments on four options: (a) maintenance of the status quo; (b) greater flexibility for individual students to opt out; (c) the discontinuation of lists being posted outside the Senate-House but continuing to be distributed to Faculties and Departments, with each College receiving the results of that College’s students only; and (d) the discontinuation of public displays of class-lists anywhere in the collegiate University. The Board also invited comments on the value of the ‘Baxter’ and ‘Tompkins’ tables, on the continuation of the Special Class-Lists Number of the Reporter and on the current arrangements for the publication in the Reporter of those candidates approved for Graduate Student qualifications awarded by Degree Committees and the Board of Graduate Studies (including the titles of theses to be deposited in the University Library).

3. Thirty-seven responses were received: seventeen from Colleges, fifteen from Faculty Boards and University institutions, and five other responses (including a response from CUSU). Only one Faculty Board and one College were in favour of option (a) above. No respondent supported option (b) above. No respondent supported the notion of publicly displayed but anonymized class-lists. The majority of Colleges supported the discontinuation of public displays of class-lists (in all fora) but distinguished between public display and the need to make class-lists available to Colleges for legitimate academic reasons. Colleges strongly supported full class-list data and mark books being made available to them for a variety of purposes including: the need to track their students’ performances within the larger cohort; to compare the College’s performance with that of other Colleges; to monitor their performance as academic providers (including the performance of Directors of Studies and Supervisors); as an essential tool in informing the College’s recruitment and admissions policies; as a set of information necessary in advising their students; and for the production of references and the award of prizes and studentships.

University institutions took a similar view, i.e. the discontinuation of public displays but the circulation of full class-list data to themselves. In addition to reasons comparable to those given by the Colleges, Faculties and Departments cited the value of such data in: rankings for postgraduate admissions decisions; the allocation of graduate studentships; admission to Parts of Triposes which do not admit students on matriculation; the comparison, in inter-departmental Triposes, of departmental performances; and the timely organization of the allocation of projects, of the following year’s laboratories and of departmentally organized supervisions.

CUSU supported the discontinuation of publicly available class-lists and the release to Colleges of data relating to that College’s students only. Following consultation with students, it is the opinion of CUSU that it should be for each student to determine with whom to share her or his result.

Other points made were whether the names of prize-winners should continue to be published and the need for certain external bodies to receive class-list data.

Only one College supported the retention of the ‘Baxter’ and ‘Tompkins’ tables. The significant majority would not be concerned were these tables no longer able to be produced, on the understanding that Colleges would receive the class-list data referred to above.

There was general support for the retention of the Special Number of the Reporter, as representing a definitive historical record and a means of discouraging students from misrepresenting their class.

The majority of respondents saw no need to alter current practice in relation to the publication, in the Reporter, of successful candidates for Graduate Student qualifications, noting that the names of those failing to achieve such qualifications were not published, that there was no public differentiation, so far as the M.Phil. Degree is concerned, between levels of pass, and that the publication of titles of dissertations to be deposited in the University Library remained of scholarly value.

4. After considering the responses received, the General Board’s Education Committee agreed to recommend to the Board that:

(i)this current Report be drafted;

(ii)procedures should remain to ensure that the signed class-lists produced by Boards of Examiners are retained centrally as an historical record;

(iii)class-lists and mark books should be distributed to Colleges and University institutions but, so far as the Colleges were concerned, they should be anonymized save only for the names of the College’s own students; and that they should be distributed on condition that these data remained confidential and released to individuals within the College on a ‘need to know’ basis;

(iv)publication of a Special Number of the Reporter should continue but that rather than indicate those achieving particular classes, it should list all students who had satisfied the requirements for the examination concerned;

(v)the names of prize-winners should continue to be published in the Reporter;

(vi)the information provided to students on the use of their personal information, in the context of the Data Protection Act 1998, be reviewed and where necessary amended in light of the proposals contained in this Report;

(vii)further consideration should be given by the University to the analyses of classing data; and

(viii)no changes should be proposed to the current arrangements for Graduate Students.

5. The General Board, in accepting the recommendations of its Education Committee, also agreed that any new arrangements should not place additional burdens on Boards of Examiners or University institutions. The Board has agreed that, if the proposals in this Report are approved, a pilot exercise, involving the Student Registry and a number of Colleges and University institutions, be conducted in the Long Vacation 2016. The Council has endorsed the General Board’s position in these matters.

6. The Council and the General Board accordingly recommend:

I. That, with effect from 1 October 2016, the practice of publicly displaying class-lists in any forum in the collegiate University should be discontinued.

II. That, with effect from the same date:

Regulation 6 of the regulations for Allowances to Candidates for Examinations (Statutes and Ordinances, p. 237) be amended so as to read:

6. The names of students to whom the Council make allowances under Regulation 3 (other than under sub-paragraph (b)(i)) shall not be appended to the lists of successful candidates for the examinations for which they were severally entered, but the Registrary shall make arrangements for the students’ records to be amended as necessary.

Regulation 4 of the regulations for the Publication of Lists of Successful Candidates in Examinations (Statutes and Ordinances, p. 244) be deleted and the remaining regulations re-numbered and amended so as to read:

4. The Registrary shall arrange for copies of each complete list, anonymized save for the College’s own students, to be sent to each College as soon as possible after receiving them.

5. The Chair of Examiners shall communicate to the Registrary as soon as practicable a statement of the day on which the Registrary may expect to receive the list.

6. In any case in which the Chair of Examiners satisfies the Vice-Chancellor that a list provided in accordance with the foregoing regulations needs amendment, the Vice-Chancellor may authorize an amended list.

III. That, with effect from the issue to be published in 2017, the title of the Special Number of the Reporter be amended from ‘Class-Lists’ to ‘Examination Results and Prize-Winners’.

16 May 2016	L. K. Borysiewicz, Vice-Chancellor	Nicholas Holmes	Shirley Pearce
	Chad Allen	Fiona Karet	Michael Proctor
	Richard Anthony	Stuart Laing	John Shakeshaft
	Jeremy Caddick	Mark Lewisohn	Susan Smith
	R. Charles	Priscilla Mensah	Sara Weller
	Anne Davis	Rachael Padman	I. H. White
	David Good

27 April 2016	L. K. Borysiewicz, Vice-Chancellor	Abigail Fowden	Rachael Padman
	Chad Allen	David Good	Richard Prager
	Philip Allmendinger	A. L. Greer	Helen Thompson
	Robert Cashman	Patrick Maxwell	Graham Virgo
	Anne Davis	Martin Millett	Chris Young

Note of dissent

Cambridge’s success has been due in part to competition between Colleges. Abolishing the Tompkins table will remove a key incentive for Colleges and leave us at a disadvantage to Oxford, which still publishes its Norrington table despite having discontinued the public display of class-lists. And just as Colleges need to know which of their Directors of Studies are effective, so also departments need to know which Colleges are teaching their subjects well. Both departments and Colleges said they needed class-lists in the consultation. Restricting class-lists to the central administration will make it less likely that failings will be fixed. Prospective students will also be less able to find out which Colleges teach their subject well, and the resulting information asymmetry will decrease the value of a place at Cambridge. It will also be socially regressive, as it will disadvantage people without existing Cambridge connections.

From the viewpoint of governance, Regents and members of Council will be less able to hold the senior management team to account if the administration can cherry-pick the statistics presented in reports.

Finally, making performance information less available goes against the grain of transparency and of modern data-driven approaches to management; these are needed in order to create better metrics of added value, so that less traditional Colleges can be assessed fairly.

For all these reasons we oppose this report as a poorly-conceived centralizing measure, likely to undermine the University’s academic standards and performance, and to damage its system of governance.

16 May 2016	Ross Anderson	Alice Hutchings
	Margaret Glendenning	Cornelius Roemer