Skip to main contentCambridge University Reporter

No 6445

Wednesday 23 November 2016

Vol cxlvii No 11

pp. 122–145



26 November, Saturday. Congregation of the Regent House at 2 p.m. (see p. 144).

2 December, Friday. Full Term ends.

6 December, Tuesday. Discussion at 2 p.m. in the Senate-House (see below).

19 December, Monday. Michaelmas Term ends.

Discussions (at 2 p.m.)


6 December

26 November, Saturday at 2 p.m.

20 December

Discussion on Tuesday, 6 December 2016

The Vice-Chancellor invites those qualified under the regulations for Discussions (Statutes and Ordinances, p. 103) to attend a Discussion in the Senate-House on Tuesday, 6 December 2016, at 2 p.m. for the discussion of:

1. Joint Report of the Council and the General Board, dated 21 November and 18 November 2016, on the consideration of student complaints of harassment and sexual misconduct (p. 132).

Election to the Council

18 November 2016

The Vice-Chancellor announces that the following candidates have been nominated in accordance with Statute A IV 2 for election to the Council, and it has been certified to him that the candidates have consented to be nominated:


Nominated by:

Class (a): two from among the Heads of Colleges

Professor Michael Richard Edward ProctorK

Professor A. C. Davis, K, and Professor N. E. Berestycki, K

Professor Ian Hugh WhiteJE

Professor A. D. Yates, R, and Professor M. R. E. Proctor, K

Class (b): two from among the Professors and Readers

Professor Nicholas John Gay, CHR

Dr A. W. A. Peterson, CHR, and Professor C. W. J. Smith

Professor Fiona Eve KaretDAR

Professor P. H. Maxwell, T, and Professor A. L. Fowden, G

Professor Alison Gail Smith, CC

Professor E. F. Wilson, CC, and Professor H. Griffiths, CL

Class (c): four from among the other members of the Regent House

Dr Stephen John Cowley, EM

Professor R. E. Goldstein, CHU, and Professor N. Peake, EM

Dr Margaret Evelyn Glendenning

Dr N. J. Holmes, T, and Mr J. S. Hulme

Dr Jennifer Hirst, JE

Professor I. H. White, JE, and Professor P. H. Maxwell, T

Dr Richard Michael Mortier, CHR

Dr S. R. Kell, CHR, and Professor J. A. Crowcroft, W

Dr André Tiago Rebelo Marques de Albuquerque Neves, HO

Dr A. J. Hutchings and Dr A. J. Wright

Dr Philippa Jane Rogerson, CAI

Professor P. Robinson, CAI, and Dr S. Palmer, G

Dr Mark Roderick Wormald, PEM

Dr D. M. Holburn, CAI, and Dr M. Frasca-Spada, CC

Ms Jocelyn Margaret Wyburd, CL

Dr R. Padman, N, and Dr P. Fara, CL

No other persons having been nominated, the candidates named above in class (a) are duly elected. It is necessary to hold elections in class (b) to select two from among the three candidates and in class (c) to select four from among the eight candidates. Online voting will open at 10 a.m. on Monday, 28 November 2016 and hard-copy papers will be distributed by the same date to those who have opted to receive them. Those elected will serve for four years from 1 January 2017.

Election to the Board of Scrutiny

18 November 2016

The Vice-Chancellor announces that the following candidates have been nominated for election to the Board of Scrutiny in the classes shown below, in accordance with Statute A VII 3, and it has been certified to him that the candidates have consented to be nominated:


Nominated by:

Class (c)(i): one person who has been a member of the Regent House for not more than ten years on 1 October 2017

Ms Saba Ala’i

Professor M. A. Parker, PET, and Dr M. E. Glendenning

Class (c)(ii): two members of the Regent House

Mr David John Goode, W

Sir Richard Evans, W, and Professor G. L. Fowden, PET

Dr Simon David William Frost

Professor J. L. Heeney, DAR, and Professor J. L. N. Wood, W

No other persons having been nominated, the above candidates are duly elected; the candidate in class (c)(i) to serve with immediate effect until 30 September 2019 and the candidates in class (c)(ii) to serve with immediate effect until 30 September 2017.

Notice in response to the Twenty-first Report of the Board of Scrutiny, 2015–16

21 November 2016

This Notice is the Council’s reply to the Board of Scrutiny’s Twenty-first Report (Reporter, 6433, 2015–16, p. 776) and the Discussion of it held on 11 October 2016 (Reporter, 6440, 2016–17, p. 54).
The Council welcomes the Board of Scrutiny’s constructive comments and wishes to respond as follows to the recommendations made in its Report.

1. The Board recommends that the University publish a comprehensive analysis of the University’s research income in comparison with our major competitors

The Research Policy Committee, the Planning and Resources Committee, and the Finance Committee monitor and benchmark the position against the major competitors, for example through the University’s Sustainability Metrics that are considered by the Council, the General Board, and the Planning and Resources Committee, and the Research Funding Trends data that is presented regularly to the Research Policy Committee. The research strategies of our peers in terms of growth ambitions, themes, mix and type of sponsors, and resources and facilities to deliver those strategies are likely to differ. The Council considers that publication of any further analysis or comparison of our performance with major competitors, however defined, on their research income would be of limited value in the absence of a full understanding of the research strategies of those competitors.

2. The Board recommends that the University review its practice of accounting for Chest and non-Chest income separately

The University’s finances are structured around general, designated, and restricted funds. The general unrestricted funds (Chest funds) available for direct allocation by the Council (on the advice of the Planning and Resources Committee and Finance Committee) are of particular value since they can be applied as best suits the strategic and tactical imperatives of operational and capital needs of institutions and Schools. The Council wishes to keep Chest income and expenditure funded by the Chest in balance over a rolling period and considers it vital that all sources of funds are tightly budgeted, monitored, and controlled. Non-Chest income is a major part of the University’s funding mix and requires a similarly detailed approach to its planning, budgeting, and expenditure. The RAM Review Working Group, set up by the Resource Management Committee, is considering the classification of non-Chest and Chest income. This work will provide an opportunity to review the distinction between non-Chest and Chest income and introduce a more consistent approach to the treatment of income.

3. The Board recommends that substantial new allocations only be made following the submission of a full business plan

The annual planning guidance issued by the Planning and Resources Committee (PRC) continues to reiterate the requirement for all bids for additional Chest allocation to be supported by a full business plan. The Board of Scrutiny has expressed concern, in paragraph 15 of its Report, that the allocation of £1.2m to the University Information Services was not supported by a business plan. The vast majority of this allocation was for the support of the High Performance Computing Facility and a provisional allocation of just under £0.9m was built into the University’s consolidated financial forecasts, but retained centrally. The PRC, on the advice of its Resource Management Committee, has agreed that the confirmation and release of this recurrent allocation is dependent on the production, and approval, of a satisfactory business case. A comprehensive business plan for the High Performance Computing Facility is anticipated as part of the overall University Information Services planning submission on 1 December 2016.

4. The Board recommends that estate strategy focus on meeting the long-term academic needs of the University

A strategic framework for the development of the estate has been approved by the General Board and the Council.1 The framework has a clear focus on meeting the long-term academic needs of the University. The development of the non-operational estate – whether at West Cambridge, where planning permission is being sought for 170,000m2 of commercial research development, or on central sites which may no longer be suitable for operational use – is driven by the goal of enhancing the income streams available to support and improve the financial sustainability of the University’s teaching and research activity.

5. The Board recommends that Council investigate the increasing geographical spread of the University on effective scholarship and access to centrally provided services such as the Office of Postdoctoral Affairs and the Careers Service

Current and planned developments on the Biomedical Campus and at West Cambridge seek to enable effective scholarship by providing fit-for-purpose accommodation in which to undertake teaching and research of the highest quality. The planned consolidation of the physical estate of the Schools of the Physical Sciences and Technology at West Cambridge, and the ongoing development and expansion of the Biomedical Campus, are expected to foster and stimulate interdisciplinary encounters and collaboration.

While some of this collaboration will be facilitated by new academic developments such as the recently completed Maxwell Centre, these must be supplemented by new amenities for staff and students. At West Cambridge, the Site Development Board is currently reviewing options for delivery of the first of the shared facilities ‘hub’ buildings anticipated by the master plan. On the Biomedical Campus, the Clinical School Building is currently being refurbished and reconfigured to prepare the building for increased student numbers commencing in 2017. The requirement for greater and higher quality amenities for University staff and students is likely to be addressed in due course by a master planning exercise for the Biomedical Campus.

As Dr Feldman noted in the recent Discussion, the Office of Postdoctoral Affairs Centre in the city centre has recently been supplemented by facilities on the Biomedical Campus, to be followed in 2017 by a third site at North West Cambridge. The Student Counselling Service is now open two evenings a week to cater for students who may be unable to access the service during regular office hours. The opening hours of other services are under review in the context of the move in 2018 to a Student Services Centre on the New Museums site. The feasibility of providing ‘pop-up’ services on other University sites will also be considered.

6. The Board recommends that Council review how Regents may be effectively engaged in the governance of the University (including Discussions and voting), particularly those working outside the city centre

A number of measures have been introduced with the aim of engaging members of the Regent House in the governance of the University. All members of the Regent House are subscribed to the email alert for the Reporter in order to promote the visibility and awareness of official matters of interest to the Regent House. New members are provided with a leaflet, which provides information on members’ rights and links to further information and resources. The Governance website provides a central point of access for members of the collegiate University who wish to access the unreserved minutes and certain papers of a number of Committees.2 One of the reasons for the introduction of online voting in ballots of the Regent House was to make it easier to vote and thus increase engagement from Regent House members. The forthcoming review of certain aspects of the governance of the University will look further at Regent House membership and engagement in Discussions. The Board’s comments and the report of its Discussion will be provided to the group undertaking that review.

7. The Board recommends that the University review the support it offers to unestablished researchers seeking to bring in funding (not limited to Research Council Fellowships); and develop a consistent policy to support unestablished researchers at different grades seeking to become Principal and/or Co-investigators on grants

The University does have established processes and procedures that enable early career researchers to be given the opportunity to apply for research funding as Principal and Co-investigators at the discretion of the relevant Head of Department or Faculty and subject to the eligibility requirements of the funding agency concerned. The acceptance and management of research funding by the University will always have a cost implication for the Faculty or Department concerned and this can be very significant, particularly where funding agencies provide only a limited share of the full economic cost of the research. It is, therefore, difficult to establish a consistent policy in this area, recognizing that the capacity of Departments or Faculties to host projects will always be limited.

There are already opportunities for postdoctoral researchers to learn about the changing research environment and to develop research leadership capabilities through short courses and extended programmes, and the Researcher Development Programme team within Personal and Professional Development has started discussions about how these opportunities can be extended, in collaboration with the Careers Service, the Office of Postdoctoral Affairs, the PdOC Society, and the Research Operations Office. This topic is also one that is to be raised by the OPdA at Researchers14, a group of other Russell Group universities who meet informally three times a year to discuss topics pertinent to early career researchers, to establish what is done in other universities.

8. The Board recommends that the Council keep the new governance arrangements for North West Cambridge and similar large projects under active review, and also publish sufficient documentation for the Regent House to have confidence in this particular project

Following the second report of the Audit Group3 established by the Audit Committee to investigate the causes of the projected Phase 1 cost over-runs, the governance structure of the North West Cambridge development has been reconstituted. The West and North West Cambridge Estates Syndicate has been replaced by a Board which has a majority of external members with expertise of developments and boards of this nature. New Board members are currently being recruited. The recommendations from the two Audit Group reports4 have been transposed into an action log that the Board monitors regularly. The implementation of the recommendations is reported in a quarterly progress report to the Council and presented by the Chair of the Board. The current position is that 94% of the first Audit Group report recommendations have been fully implemented and 85% of the second report recommendations have either been completed or are in progress. The Chair’s quarterly report informs the Council of the programme, management, quality, and financial performance on a regular basis and details how key risks are being mitigated. The Regent House can read the quarterly progress report and the Council’s comments on it in the Council minutes published on the Governance website. The financial KPIs are reported to each meeting of the Finance Committee.

9. The Board recommends that the Council ensures that Regent House is kept fully informed of the progress of the North West Cambridge development and other large-scale projects in the future, including publishing sufficient document on progress and concerns

The Audit Group notes, in paragraph 39 of its second report, that it is essential that the Regent House is consulted on the question of policy as to whether the University should embark on a large capital project or similar major commercial undertaking and should approve the strategic case, which would include the principle elements of the business plan. However, once Regent House approval has been obtained in this way, the Council as the principal executive body of the University will assume overall responsibility for the future management and administration of the venture, including any more detailed business case that is required, advised in this matter by its Finance Committee. In the case of North West Cambridge, the West and North West Cambridge Estates Board provides the minutes of its regular Board meetings to the Council detailing the progress of the project against its strategic objectives.

In her Discussion remarks, Dr Feldman expressed her concern that the University’s postdoctoral community would suffer fragmentation, isolation, and disengagement due to geographical spread and limited public transport options to and from North West Cambridge. In addition to the OPdA centre Dr Feldman mentions, the Community Centre will be operational from mid-2017 offering facilities for residents and the public. A range of social and leisure activities will also be offered, with OPdA working closely with the Community Centre to ensure postdoc resident engagement. In addition to the OPdA and Community centres, a food store and other retail outlets will be launched starting from late summer 2017. There is a commitment to improving public transport provision to this part of the City as the development’s occupants take up residence. The first of these measures is the increase in frequency to the University’s bus (the Universal, previously the Uni4) implemented in July 2016. This route will be extended into the North West Cambridge development when people move onto site. This will be coupled with extensive travel planning measures, including personalized travel planning, free car club membership for new residents, secure cycle provision, and cycle training.

10. The Board recommends that staff needs regarding housing and transport are integrated into the University’s Estate Strategy and submissions to the Greater Cambridge City Deal Board and other local planning processes

The strategic framework for the development of the estate seeks to improve sustainable travel, both to and from work, and aims to increase the number and range of sustainable travel options available to University staff and students, and to visitors, working closely with the local planning authorities and partners on the Biomedical Campus. A transport strategy will be prepared, and will include detailed proposals for transport initiatives, including initiatives to connect key University sites. The University’s responses to recent City Deal consultations on options for the A428 corridor and the proposed ‘Western Orbital’ bus route have sought to highlight the benefits to the University, the city, and the region of providing direct bus services to the University’s operational sites at West Cambridge and the Biomedical Campus.

The framework provides the impetus to explore opportunities to develop affordable key worker housing within residential communities in addition to North West Cambridge, and alternative rental and ownership models that may give wider, more affordable access to housing than is currently the case.

11. The Board recommends that the University develop a strategy for supporting all staff seeking to purchase living accommodation in the precincts

The University provides a number of schemes to support employees in finding a home, including initiatives to assist new staff moving to the area with the high cost of housing. In addition, the University has approximately 385 properties available for staff and students to rent and a further 700 new homes on the University’s North West Cambridge development, available to qualifying ‘key workers’ of the University at subsidised rents. A further 320 properties from private landlords are listed with the Accommodation Service.

A Remuneration Working Group has been formed in Michaelmas Term 2016 to develop a reward strategy for the University and to consider a number of new initiatives for all staff. The Group will consider schemes to ensure that the University continues to be able to attract staff of the highest calibre, building on the schemes currently offered.

12. The Board recommends a review of the optimum size and operational structure of University administration, in light of the UniForum benchmarking process

The University is pleased to be one of a number of Russell Group members participating annually in the UniForum programme under the aegis of the Resource Management Committee. The benchmarking process will provide evidence of how much Cambridge spends on administrative and support roles, by function and location, in comparison with other participating universities. A Service Effectiveness Survey has been launched which will enable the University to assess the effectiveness of the services provided. The results of both activities will help the University make sound strategic and operational decisions in relation to planning and resource allocation, and will be communicated in Lent Term 2017.

13. The Board recommends that new staff, as part of the induction process, are provided with an improved guide outlining the governance, planning, activity, and spending of the University, with links to appropriate sites, documents, and Statutes and Ordinances to help them understand how the University is governed, what resources they have to effect change where necessary, and what their responsibilities are

As part of the induction process, new staff are directed to the Induction: Online course and the Welcome to Cambridge event which provide an overview of the governance and structure of the University.5 The OPdA runs a mandatory induction event for post-doctoral researchers which explains how the University is run. The University’s Governance website provides further information on the key governing bodies of the University, with links to Statutes and Ordinances and the Reporter. Staff can consult the ‘how to’ and ‘FAQ’ sections of the site for information on their responsibilities and participation in University decision-making. In response to this recommendation, the Governance website will be updated to include additional links and information, including a summary of key sites and documents relating to the budgeting and planning processes of the University as an introduction to new staff members.

14. The Board recommends that the University measure the use of its estate facilities to investigate whether they are being optimally utilized, develop appropriate mechanisms to allows its resources to be used by local communities and businesses, and make these mechanisms available for the Colleges to use

The University recognizes that a number of its built assets are not fully utilized; of acute concern is the infrequent and inefficient use of teaching and meeting rooms. Current and planned developments on the University estate present a significant opportunity for change, and will be informed by the work of the PRC’s oversight group for teaching, learning, and examination space, which is chaired by the Pro-Vice-Chancellor (Education). Options for sharing facilities between the University and Colleges are being given serious consideration. Departments and institutions with the capacity and infrastructure to do so, such as the Fitzwilliam Museum and the Institute of Continuing Education, make their facilities available for commercial hire. Any new, shared facilities at West Cambridge are planned to be accessible to a wider community in addition to University staff and students. Many of the University’s historic buildings are unsuitable for this purpose, however.

15. The Board recommends that an early date be set for the delivery of a holistic review of HR policy and practice and that appropriate resources are made available to facilitate a thorough and effective process that addresses all current and future issues

In addition to the established cycle of HR policy reviews, the HR Committee has appointed a number of working groups with membership representative of the University community to review and take forward work in key areas of HR policy and practice, including but not limited to: recruitment; promotion; career development; reward; and wellbeing. The HR Division is also conducting an in-depth review of its core business processes to identify opportunities for greater efficiency and effectiveness, and will continue to update its website content to ensure it is accessible and relevant. The resourcing implications arising from this work will be carefully considered and activity prioritized accordingly. At the Discussion of the Board’s Report, Professor Evans expressed concern about the publication of amendments to the University’s Retirement Policy in the form of a Notice. The Council has stated its intention to consult the Regent House on questions of policy which in the Council's judgement are likely to prove controversial (Statutes and Ordinances, p. 110). They will do this by submitting a Grace to the Regent House for the approval of a provisional decision or statement of intention; where appropriate, such a Grace will allow for the expression of a preference between alternative options. In this case, the changes were not deemed to require a Grace and therefore a Notice was approved by the Council for publication.


Equality and Diversity Strategy and Action Plan (2016–21)

21 November 2016

The Council and the General Board have approved the adoption of the Equality and Diversity Strategy and Action Plan (2016–21), to guide and govern equality- and diversity-related activity for the period 2016–21. The Strategy and Action Plan is available at, and will be updated on the Equality and Diversity website as work progresses on individual workstreams to achieve the objectives set.

Equal Pay Review 2016

The University is committed to the principles of equal pay for work of equal value, freedom from discrimination, and recognition and reward of the University’s staff as its greatest asset. As part of this commitment the University analyses equal pay data annually and publishes an Equal Pay Review biennially. This is the University’s sixth Equal Pay Review.

The first Equal Pay Review was commissioned by the University to take place in 2008 as part of the proposals in the Second Joint Report of the Council and the General Board on new pay and grading arrangements for non-clinical staff (Reporter, 6002, 2004–05, p. 745).

The Review Group’s first three reports were published on an annual cycle, on 18 February 2009 (Reporter, 6141, 2008–09, p. 510), 21 April 2010 (Reporter, 6185, 2009–10, p. 688), and 15 December 2010 (Reporter, 6208, 2010–11, p. 318). Subsequently, the University agreed to publish an Equal Pay Review on a biennial cycle, but continue to collect and analyse data annually. Biennial reviews were published on the 26 November 2012 (Reporter, 6287, 2012–13, p. 151) and 17 December 2014 (Reporter, 6370, 2014–15, p. 300). All Equal Pay Reviews and can be found on the HR Division website at:; the 2016 Equal Pay Review is also available at

The Equal Pay Review 2016 brings together the following pay data as at 31 July 2016:

gender representation and average salaries1 (basic pay and total pay by grade, staff category, and working hours);

salaries paid to new employees;

additional pensionable and non-pensionable payments for the 12 months ending 31 July 2016.

The appendices include median2 and inter-quartile ranges3 where appropriate, in order to provide further insight into potential gender pay issues and for benchmarking purposes. The commentary primarily refers to the mean pay gap, but additional median pay gap information is also provided.

This report examines the impact of the above by gender and highlights differences and pay gaps including market comparisons. It also comments on progress made on matters of concern raised in previous equal pay reviews including the equal pay Key Performance Indicators which highlight key themes in equal pay at the University of Cambridge.

Equal Pay Review 2016


  • 1Average (mean) salary is the sum of each single salary spine point value (or total pay if appropriate) divided by the number of instances. 

  • 2The median salary is the middle value of all single salary spine point values (or total pay if appropriate) when placed in lowest to highest order.

  • 3The inter-quartile range is the difference between the upper quartile (i.e. the value of all payments three quarters of the way from lowest to highest) and the lower quartile (i.e. the value of all payments one quarter of the way from lowest to highest)