Skip to main contentCambridge University Reporter

No 6449

Wednesday 14 December 2016

Vol cxlvii No 15

pp. 266–287



14 December, Wednesday. Last ordinary number of the Reporter in the Michaelmas Term.

19 December, Monday. Michaelmas Term ends.

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

25 December, Sunday. Christmas Day. Scarlet Day.

5 January, Thursday. Lent Term begins.

11 January, Wednesday. First ordinary number of the Reporter in the Lent Term.

17 January, Tuesday. Full Term begins.

Discussion on Tuesday, 20 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, 20 December 2016, at 2 p.m. for the discussion of:

1. Report of the General Board, dated 30 November 2016, on the rescinding of the Medical and Veterinary Sciences Tripos and the introduction of two new Triposes, the Medical Sciences Tripos and the Veterinary Sciences Tripos (Reporter, 6447, 2016–17, p. 189).

Amending Statutes for Clare College

12 December 2016

The Vice-Chancellor begs leave to refer to his Notice of 10 November 2016 (Reporter, 6444, 2016–17, p. 104), concerning proposed amending Statutes for Clare College. He hereby gives notice that in the opinion of the Council the proposed Statutes make no alteration of any Statute which affects the University, and do not require the consent of the University; that the interests of the University are not prejudiced by them, and that the Council has resolved to take no action upon them, provided that the Council will wish to reconsider the proposed Statutes if they have not been submitted to the Privy Council by 12 December 2017.

Elections to the Council in classes (b) and (c)

9 December 2016

The Vice-Chancellor announces that the following persons have been elected to serve as members of the Council in classes (b) and (c) from 1 January 2017 for four years:

Class (b) (Professors and Readers): Professor Nicholas John Gay, CHR, and Professor Fiona Eve Karet, DAR.

Class (c) (members of the Regent House other than Heads of Colleges, Professors, and Readers): Dr Stephen John Cowley, EM, Dr Philippa Jane Rogerson, CAI, Dr Mark Roderick Wormald, PEM, and Ms Jocelyn Margaret Wyburd, CL.

Details of the poll and of the transfer of votes under the Single Transferable Vote regulations are as follows:

Election in class (b)

Number of valid votes cast: 939 (no invalid votes)      (Quota: 313)

First count

Transfer of Professor Gay’s surplus

Second count


Professor Nicholas John Gay, CHR




First elected

Professor Fiona Eve Karet, DAR




Second elected

Professor Alison Gail Smith, CC










Election in class (c)

Number of valid votes cast: 939 (no invalid votes)      (Quota: 188)

First count

Transfer of Dr Cowley’s surplus

Second count

Transfer of Dr Neves’s votes

Third count

Transfer of Dr Wormald’s surplus

Fourth count

Transfer of Dr Hirst’s votes

Fifth count

Transfer of Dr Glendenning’s votes




Dr Stephen John Cowley, EM








First elected

Dr Margaret Evelyn Glendenning












Dr Jennifer Hirst, JE








Dr Richard Michael Mortier, CHR












Dr André Tiago Rebelo Marques De Albuquerque Neves, HO





Dr Philippa Jane Rogerson, CAI











Third elected

Dr Mark Roderick Wormald, PEM










Second elected

Ms Jocelyn Margaret Wyburd, CL












Fourth elected



















Joint Report of the Council and the General Board on the consideration of student complaints of harassment and sexual misconduct: Notice in response to Discussion remarks

12 December 2016

The Council has considered the remarks made at the Discussion on 6 December 2016 (p. 284) concerning the above Report (Reporter, 6445, 2016–17, p. 132).

The Council notes the remarks made by Dame Barbara Stocking, Ms Sebatindira, Dr Wormald, and Professor Dame Athene Donald in support of the Report’s proposals as part of the collegiate University’s response to cases of harassment and sexual misconduct.

The Council agrees with Dr Freer that, in dealing with a complaint concerning such alleged misconduct, the rights of both the student making a complaint and the student about whom the complaint is made should be recognized and that both students should be treated fairly. Currently there is only one formal response to such a complaint by the University, namely referral for consideration as to whether to bring a charge under the University’s disciplinary procedures. If the procedure for handling complaints by one student about the conduct of another student that has been proposed in this Report is approved, there will be an alternative to the disciplinary route; as it is not a disciplinary procedure, the possible outcomes of this procedure are a number of resolutions agreed with the parties, not penalties. The procedure put forward in this Report builds on models of similar procedures operated in universities in the USA that have successfully offered a means of resolving such complaints.

The Report proposes, in recommendation IV, an amendment to ensure that when a complaint is also the subject of a police investigation or a criminal prosecution, the University Advocate has discretion on whether and when to bring a charge. As the Report notes in paragraph 8(b), in line with UUK guidance, the University Advocate will not normally commence an internal investigation until it is clear that the complainant is not planning to make a complaint to the police or that the police have concluded their own investigation and no criminal charge has been made or criminal proceedings have concluded. The procedure for handling cases of harassment and sexual misconduct between students also applies these principles.1

The proposed procedure thus provides a way of addressing a complaint by one student about another that, for whatever reason, does not become a matter before the criminal court. The focus is on consensus; both parties must be willing to participate in order for the procedure to work as intended.2 The University Advocate has no role in the operation of the procedure; the University Advocate will become involved only where a complaint is referred on to the Advocate for consideration on whether to bring a disciplinary charge.

Although no penalties can be imposed under the proposed procedure, the potential risk of self-incrimination through admissions made during investigation of the complaint is acknowledged. The procedure therefore confirms that students have a right to legal representation and to seek advice and support,3 and that they must be made aware of the ways in which their personal information could be used as a result of participating in the investigation of the complaint under the procedure (including the risk of an admission being used in a later police investigation or criminal court case, or in an internal disciplinary case).4

Where a complaint is brought under the procedure, the identity of the complainant may be provided to the person about whom the complaint is made, together with sufficient information to enable that person to understand the gist or substance of the complaint,5 but a respondent will be free to choose not to co-operate with the handling of the complaint going forward. The General Board is under a duty to keep under review the explanatory notes accompanying the procedure and the question of the extent to which any adverse inference may be drawn from a respondent’s silence will be specifically addressed in short order in the next iteration.

The Council notes the relevance of much of Dr Freer’s remarks to the work of the review committee tasked with revising the University’s student disciplinary procedures; these comments will be referred to the review committee for consideration in its ongoing work.

The Council is submitting a Grace (Grace 1, p. 283) for the approval of the recommendations of this Report.


  • 1Paragraph 3.6 of the procedure and the corresponding paragraph of the explanatory notes. Whilst those operating the procedure will endeavour to establish at the outset whether or not a complaint is going to be submitted to the police, it is recognized that a complainant might take the matter to the police halfway through an internal investigation by the University, resulting in the suspension of the University procedure.

  • 2Paragraph 6.4.2 of the procedure and the corresponding paragraph of the explanatory notes.

  • 3Paragraph 4.2 of the procedure and the corresponding paragraph of the explanatory notes.

  • 4See the policy on the use of personal information, appended to the explanatory notes, which explains the way in which information will be shared, particularly paragraph 6 in connection with police investigations and criminal prosecutions. 

  • 5See paragraph 4 of the policy on the use of personal information, appended to the explanatory notes.

Teaching Excellence Framework – Year 2

12 December 2016

Further to the Council’s Notice dated 11 July 2016 (Reporter, 6433, 2015–16, p. 749), the Council and the General Board, on the recommendation of the Planning and Resources Committee and the General Board’s Education Committee, and with the support of the Colleges’ Committee, have agreed that the University will participate in Year Two of the Teaching Excellence Framework (TEF).

In Year One of the TEF, providers who successfully completed a quality assessment review were awarded the first level of TEF and will be able to raise their fees in line with inflation from the 2017–18 academical year. The University agreed to take part in Year One and anticipates that the tuition fee will be raised to £9,250 for those students starting their undergraduate studies in October 2017.

For Year Two, institutions which apply will be rated Gold, Silver, or Bronze1 based on metrics of graduate employment, student retention, and student satisfaction as determined by aspects of the National Student Survey, as well as on a narrative. The award of a rating will be announced in Spring 2017 and will last for three years. For the first year, the ratings will not carry any differentiation in fees. All institutions participating in TEF2 which meet basic standards will therefore be allowed to raise fees in line with inflation for 2018–19. Institutions which do not participate in TEF2 but have an access agreement approved by the Office for Fair Access will be permitted to charge a maximum annual fee of £9,000 from October 2018.


  • 1These ratings replace the originally proposed ratings which included Meets Expectations.

Research Excellence Framework: consultation

Deadline: 30 January 2017 at 5 p.m.

The UK higher education funding bodies are consulting on detailed arrangements for research assessment in a second Research Excellence Framework (REF). Further information is available on the HEFCE website:

The General Board would welcome comments by 5 p.m. on Monday, 30 January 2017 so that these can be taken into account in drafting a response on behalf of the University. Responses can be provided by email to Input to the consultation is also being sought from the Colleges, the Research Policy Committee, the Heads of the Schools, and from Chairs of Faculty Boards and Heads of Department.

Annual Reports

The following Annual Reports have been received by the Council and the General Board and are available on the websites indicated.

Cambridge Assessment Annual Report and Accounts, 2015–16

Language Centre Annual Report 2015–16 [embedded link to issuu in right-hand menu]