Reports

Twenty-second Report of the Board of Scrutiny

Introduction

1. The Board of Scrutiny provides independent analysis and oversight and, on behalf of the Regent House, it examines the Annual Report of the Council (including that of the General Board); the Abstract of the Accounts; and any Report of the Council proposing allocations from the Chest. It also has the right to comment on related matters that it believes should be drawn to the attention of the University, including issues of policy. Further information about the Board can be found at http://www.scrutiny.cam.ac.uk/ and in the Statutes and Ordinances.1, 2 The Board has the right of reporting to the University and this is its Twenty-second Report.

2. By offering this scrutiny and certain recommendations, the Board aims to assist Regents to engage in governance, and this is intended to be complementary to, not in contention with, the Council and General Board. Nevertheless, the Board was set up following the recommendations of the Wass Syndicate to provide an additional mechanism for holding the Council to account for the increased powers it acquired, particularly in relation to the items that the Board is required to examine.3 The Board hopes both to assist the Council and to help Regents to engage and make decisions about business; which may, for example, involve them commenting at Discussions; opposing, supporting, or proposing amendments to Graces; or promoting Graces. From its perspective, the Board may be in a position to comment more freely than the Council or to give greater attention to certain areas of business and although it has some capacity to act on its own account, it cannot supplant the responsibilities of members of the Regent House collectively as the governing body, any more than it can substitute the work of the Council. We hope that this Report encourages discussion and collaborative thinking across the University.

Activity of the Board in 2016–17

3. During this academical year the Board held meetings with the Director of the Human Resources Division, Ms Emma Stone; the Director of Estates Strategy, Dr Jason Matthews; the Director of University Information Systems, Dr Martin Bellamy; the Chief Executive of Cambridge Assessment, Mr Simon Lebus; the Director of Admissions for the Cambridge Colleges, Dr Sam Lucy; the Director of Undergraduate Recruitment, Mr Jon Beard; the Vice-Chancellor, Professor Sir Leszek Borysiewicz; the Senior Pro-Vice-Chancellor, Professor Duncan Maskell; the Pro-Vice-Chancellor for Education, Professor Graham Virgo; the Acting Registrary, Ms Emma Rampton; the Director of Finance, Mr Andrew Reid; and the Chair of the School of Humanities and Social Sciences, Professor Phil Allmendinger. Additional Information and assistance was provided by the Head of the Registrary’s Office, Dr Kirsty Allen; by the University Draftsman, Ms Ceri Benton; and by Ms Suzanne Fowler, on behalf of the Human Resources Division. The Board is duly grateful to all of these individuals for their time and records its thanks.

4. Additionally, the Board wishes to acknowledge and commend the considerable help given during the year by Ms Rachel Rowe and Ms Gwyneth Barton (parental-leave cover for Ms Rowe) in preparing working notes and minutes. Dr David Secher and Dr Mike Franklin were members of the Board during part of the academical year and the Board thanks them warmly for their contribution.

Summary

5. Cambridge continues to perform outstandingly as a Higher Education Institution, both nationally and internationally, but the sector is increasingly competitive and the outlook unsettled. This presents the University with significant challenges, particularly in maintaining strategic vision while operating at a high level. Competing successfully will require resolution to protect and resource our core purposes of scholarship and innovation, and the staff who deliver them, while maintaining and evolving our facilities for the future. Understanding and managing conflicting demands for our resources will be a crucial test for the University.

Work of the Chancellor and Vice-Chancellor

6. The Board notes the Council’s report of the work of the Chancellor, The Lord Sainsbury of Turville. Given the constitutional position of the Chancellorship, and recognizing other duties beyond the ceremonial and formal are likely to be ambassadorial or advisory and difficult to acknowledge in a report, this work should not go unrecognized.

7. The Vice-Chancellor, Professor Sir Leszek Borysiewicz, has been a repeated and forthright advocate of the University’s international engagement and social agency, as exemplified by his response to the result of the 2016 referendum on membership of the European Union. There are now challenges that have to be navigated in conditions of poor visibility and potentially sudden changes of direction in public policy, but the Vice-Chancellor was outstanding in identifying the possible consequences and challenges before the vote and for working to achieve a concerted institutional response in the aftermath.

Education

The Teaching Excellence Framework

8. In league tables and comparative data, the University performs well in educating first degree and taught Masters students. A rigorous admissions process, tutorial and teaching support through the Colleges, and a demanding approach to learning all help to ensure that the University’s graduates are sought after by employers and by other universities for further study in the United Kingdom (UK) and overseas.4 That said, there are areas where the University’s position may be jeopardized, some of which are beyond its immediate control. To that end the Board notes with appreciation the University’s engagement with national government and the efforts of the Vice-Chancellor and the Pro-Vice-Chancellor for Education to inform the near-constant process of change in the sector.

9. The University secured a Gold rating in the Teaching and Excellence Framework (TEF), but the Board shares the concerns that were expressed during the consultations in relation to the metrics and linkage of TEF performance and permitted fee increases. The nature of a Cambridge education with its substantial provision of personal teaching provides a particular student experience that is costly to deliver. Although there has been an overall decline in applications to UK universities,5 Cambridge has seen an increase, but there is little room for complacency. We note that some courses have seen a perceptible decline in applications over a five-year period from 2011, according to data produced by the Admissions Office.6

Access and participation

10. Despite the University’s opposition in principle, the TEF has given some universities the opportunity to charge higher fees. Consequently, a university education is increasingly an investment with a price from which applicants and their families expect a return. Many Cambridge courses, however academically strong, are traditionally less vocational than some in other universities. Although Cambridge graduates enjoy excellent prospects, competition from well-established universities abroad may begin to attract UK-based applicants and there are already pressures on school-leavers to contemplate alternatives to university. The ‘earn and learn’ option through apprenticeships and more vocational courses is growing in popularity and employers are now offering training as an alternative to university, with the incentive of reaching ‘graduate-level’ employment faster and without accumulated debt.

11. The General Board has successfully negotiated a new access agreement for 2017–18 with the Office for Fair Access (OFFA). Concerns about cost and perceived benefit amongst potential applicants could impact adversely on access initiatives, particularly if the prestige associated with a Cambridge degree in the employment market weakens. In the interests of pursuing their own equal-opportunities and widening participation agendas, some employers are now ceasing to require applicants to state where they have graduated or what class of degree they obtained.7 If this continues, the effort required to present predominantly non-vocational tertiary education as an attractive option to the most able will increase.

International Higher Education sector and student satisfaction

12. The Board recognizes that it is a challenge to form and sustain a long-term admissions and teaching strategy that can withstand a fluid international situation and the requirements of national access and admissions objectives. Internationally the sector is unsettled. Even if national policy on student migration were to become more accommodating, the University’s competitive position would still be determined by the interaction between the growth in global demand for educational services and the sustained investment in tertiary education in some other countries. In this situation, the General Board is justified in paying close attention to our students’ experience under the Learning and Teaching Strategy. Whilst the actual student experience is more important than comparative survey scores, these cannot be ignored. Therefore the work being done by the Pro-Vice-Chancellor for Education and the Education Committee to address areas that can be improved seems appropriate. The establishment of the Centre for Teaching and Learning is welcomed. Additionally, a Council-led review of the Careers Service has just taken place, and the Board looks forward to the Service, the General Board, and the wider University, working together to address its recommendations and those from the Examinations Review Working Group.

Research

13. The result of the Referendum and future action around the UK and its departure from the European Union (EU) are of concern with regards to research funding (For example, Cambridge is the Leading Horizon 2020 recipient amongst all EU Universities.8) While the University continues to secure significant funding from UK Research Councils and charities, the potential impending loss of EU funding highlights the need to identify other sources. In this context, the Board notes the development of the Pro-Vice-Chancellor roles, and specifically the appointment this year of Professor Andy Neely as Pro-Vice-Chancellor for Enterprise and Business Relations. Given the encouragement by the Research Councils for partnerships with industry, the potential loss of access to EU funding, and the continued efforts by the University to secure research funding at 100% or greater level of Full Economic Costing (FEC), a key task will be to establish clear links and communication across the University around partnership with industry. This, along with the University’s engagement with major funding agencies, suggests the need for the Pro-Vice-Chancellor for Research and the Pro-Vice-Chancellor for Enterprise and Business Relations to promote clear, two-way communication across the research community in order to share research objectives with potential funders and disseminate knowledge of funding opportunities when they arise.

Governance

Governance review

14. In its Annual Report the Council announced that a review of governance would commence in accordance with a timetable agreed with the Vice-Chancellor Elect, concentrating on three areas: the Regent House, the Council, and Discussions. A Notice in early May9 announced the membership of the review group and invited initial comments by late July 2017, indicating that these would be solicited from Heads of Schools and Departments, Chairs of Faculty Boards, and Heads of Colleges. In earlier Reports, the Board has made recommendations pertinent to these areas and so submitted some suggestions of principle that the review might consider. In brief these were as follows:

15. The Regent House: this lies at the heart of the University’s democratic self-government and it has expanded in size in recent times, as has the University. The deliberative and legislative functions beyond its electoral duties do, however, make the composition of the Regent House significant as well as its size. Fairness around inclusion and recognition of accumulated experience in post and commitment to the institution are principles that are important in a complex collegiate University. Certain qualifications for membership currently in operation appear to act inequitably and may need review. As a matter of policy, the Board is aware of the ‘fifty-member’ Grace seeking to remove the current age-limit on membership, but hopes that any change would follow the principle of fair treatment rather than, for example, privileging some Fellows of Colleges inequitably.

16. The Council: in its response to the review, the Board advocated caution before proposing changes to Council membership, noting that beyond the Council’s own composition and internal operations, its wider structural relationship with the Regent House is also significant.

17. Discussions: the Board had already noted poor participation, except when particular items of business attract higher levels of interest, so it welcomes the proposed review. Wide access to Discussions is an important principle, as is the constitutional safeguard whereby Regents or the Board can insist that particular matters are discussed. The Board would be inclined to support proposals to revise the conduct of Discussions, including if necessary changes to the format, chairing arrangements, or location, but it would be concerned by a move to an online only forum as the nature of contributions and their impact might be very different. Some form of Discussion conducted on a ‘Question and Answer’ (Q&A) model might be considered, allowing members of the University, with notice, to raise concerns directly with senior officers and with some opportunity for debate around the responses.

18. As an example of how this might work, the Board notes the method adopted for the discussion of the Wass Syndicate’s Report in 1989, i.e. holding a more informal Discussion (of the Senate rather than of the Regent House at that time) in the University Centre, at which the Vice-Chancellor, the Chair of the Syndicate, Sir Douglas Wass, and other Syndics were present to take questions and respond to comments. Some one hundred and thirty Senior members attended, as well as some Junior members and Assistant Staff. A summary of remarks made was published instead of a verbatim report.10, 11

Engaging Regents in governance

19. Informed participation in governance is a valuable right and although much good work in explaining the University’s governance arrangements and engaging members of the Regent House has already been done through the Registrary’s Office (work by the Draftsman and the Reporter team which should be applauded), the Board suspects that some Regents, particularly newcomers or those who are purely College-based, may still benefit from further outreach.

20. Understanding the respective duties and powers of the Council and of the Regent House is important. The Council is diligent in reporting on its responsibilities and operation (including reference to Council members as charity trustees) and Annex B of the Council’s Report12 is an extended statement of these responsibilities and of actions taken in pursuance of them. Whilst well-informed about the Council’s operation in its Annual Report, Regents may not always appreciate the nature or potential of their engagement in return and the statement that the Council ‘informs and advises the Regent House through Reports, Notices, and Graces, and through considering remarks made at Discussions’ is somewhat opaque. Reports and Notices notwithstanding, Graces are matters for decision by the Regent House rather than information (unless balloted and accompanied by Fly-sheets) and ideally comments at Discussions should inform and advise the Council (and also the wider Regent House).

21. The Board accepts problems with potential ‘information overload’ and ensuring effective communication with a larger, more diverse, and more transient membership of the Regent House. It is aware that these considerations apply just as much to the Board of Scrutiny’s engagement with Regents. The utility of the Board’s reports diminishes if it does not connect, so the Board hopes to work collaboratively to identify and discuss any further initiatives that might be taken in this area.

22. The Council should give further attention to the communication of business with the Regent House and to the proactive engagement of Regents in governance. Major reports, such as the annual reports of the Council and the General Board, and the chief financial reports, could be presented to Regents by additional means beyond publication in the Reporter, leading to, for example, a more ‘open’ form of Discussion, with a question and answer format, to permit actual debate.

Finance

23. The 2016 financial statements for the University (including Cambridge University Press (CUP) and Cambridge Assessment (CA) are considered within the context of the last seven years: 13

£m	2010	2011	2012	2013	2014	2015	2016	6-yr growth
Turnover	1,193	1,251	1,322	1,438	1,504	1,643	1,799	+50.8%
Surplus / (deficit)	20	3	48	73	44	339	112
Net assets	2,415	2,590	2,641	3,074	3,177	4,243	4,355	+80.3%

The outcome in 2016 followed the pattern of previous years: turnover and net assets grew significantly and the University returned a modest surplus on its operating activities. This is consistent with a well-established pattern of steady growth in the University’s operations over several decades, coupled with a balanced operating result. The same pattern of growth is true of the academic University (i.e., excluding activities such as CUP, CA, the Trusts, and other subsidiary undertakings) as well as the consolidated University. The relative strength of the University’s current financial position is underlined by the modest level of net debt (i.e., debt balances less cash in the bank) on the balance sheet (~£50m) compared with its asset base (> £4bn). The most significant financial risk at present is long-term pension liability, reflecting the difficulties faced by various defined benefit pension schemes, including the Cambridge University Assistants Contributory Pension Scheme (CPS) and the Universities Superannuation Scheme (USS). An accounting liability for these schemes of £756m has been recognized, although this figure probably fails to reflect the full liabilities associated with the USS. The ongoing difficulties faced by these pensions schemes continues to cause concern, particularly in the context of the ‘last-man-standing’ structure of the USS, which could expose the University to the liabilities of other member institutions. The overall USS has recently indicated a significant further growth in the size of the scheme deficit from £10bn (end March 2016) to around £12.6bn (end March 2017) based on the actuarial assumptions previously used; it is 83% funded based on those assumptions.

24. The Board accepts that the situation with the USS is complex and subject to changes in the wider economic situation nationally and internationally, but notes that pensions are accorded only a medium priority in the People Strategy Action Plan. The Board addressed the issue of the USS in two recommendations in the 20th Report and we encourage further exploration of avenues that might protect both the University’s financial position and the interests of staff.

Allocations Report 

25. The Chest is essentially the sub-set of income and expenditure streams of the academic University that the Council categorizes as unrestricted, i.e., funds that the central administration can apply more or less as it sees fit. This contrasts with items such as funding income for specific research projects. It is mostly out of the Chest that the core permanent academic staff of the University and the core infrastructure of the Departments are funded. A seven-year summary of Chest allocations is as follows:

£m	2010	2011	2012	2013	2014	2015	2016	6-yr growth
Total Chest income	342.8	350.9	367.2	366.3	387.9	402.8	430.7
Less College fee	(41.5)	(40.8)	(41.6)	(43.3)	(44.9)	(45.3)	(64.1)
Net Chest income	301.3	310.1	325.6	323.0	343.0	357.5	366.6	+21.7%
Chest expenditure:
Academic departments	(158.8)	(162.5)	(161.9)	(168.5)	(172.6)	(175.1)	(180.2)	+13.5%
Academic institutions and services	(28.0)	(26.1)	(27.3)	(27.9)	(31.9)	(35.3)	(42.1)	+50.4%
UAS	(31.1)	(31.7)	(32.1)	(32.0)	(32.6)	(33.5)	(30.0)	-3.5%
Estates-related	(40.0)	(35.6)	(39.0)	(39.3)	(42.2)	(43.9)	(50.9)	+27.3%
Other	(44.7)	(49.5)	(70.7)	(60.3)	(62.2)	(53.6)	(65.5)	+46.5%
Surplus / (deficit)	(1.3)	4.7	(0.4)	(5.0)	1.5	16.1	(2.1)

The Board notes the restraint in spend on the Unified Administrative Service (UAS) over the period, but also that the growth in expenditure on academic departments over the last seven years has barely kept pace with inflation; rising just 13.5% compared to CPI growth of 12.4% over the period 2010–16. Chest expenditure has also failed to keep pace with the growth in overall Chest income (+21.7% over the period, even after adjusting for the amounts paid to Colleges for the College fee). Whilst the Chest is not the only source of income flowing into academic departments, it is nonetheless critical in sustaining the core academic purpose of the University, especially in subjects where additional income streams are harder to establish. This contrasts with the more significant growth in the overall extent and complexity of the University’s activities. Inter alia, these include the number of post-doctoral researchers and the number of post-graduate courses offered, both of which are directly associated with the overall workload of academic staff. In the absence of significant growth in academic staff numbers, it seems likely that the workload for the average academic, including administration, has therefore increased. By contrast, more significant growth in Chest expenditure on institutions and services has been observed (+50.4% over the period under consideration). Of note is that expenditure on Cambridge University Development and Alumni Relations (CUDAR) and Cambridge in America (CAm) has doubled since 2010 and now accounts for about £14m per annum; accounting for 50% of the increased expenditure observed in institutions and services over this same period. Estates-related expenditure has risen by 27.3%; although that is understandable in the context of the University’s capital plan. The Board is concerned that expenditure on support activities (however important in their own right) may distract from financial support for the University’s core purpose, i.e. academic achievement. A policy of prolonged austerity for academic departments against expansion of the overall level of activity in the University may undermine the quality of provision that has been at the heart of Cambridge’s competitive advantage in the Higher Education sector.

26. The University should consider the balance between Chest expenditure on academic departments and on other activities and review whether departments will be adversely affected by the extrapolation of current trends over the next 10–20 years.

Capital expenditure 

27. The University’s significant investment in CUDAR/CAm and Estates Management should be interpreted in light of the dramatic growth in capital expenditure in recent years:

£m	2010	2011	2012	2013	2014	2015	2016	6-yr growth
North-West Cambridge	2	4	5	14	24	61	147
Other additions to intangible assets, fixed assets, heritage assets, and investment property	85	72	69	100	134	172	198
Total	87	76	74	114	158	233	345	+303%

The University has identified approximately £4.6bn of potential building projects over approximately 20 years. North-West Cambridge has featured in earlier reports of the Board, but £198m of capital expenditure in 2016 relates to other projects. Realization of these projects implies an average spend of about £200m per annum on buildings alone, and a doubling of the current net asset-base over this period. Of this expenditure, approximately £80m is funded by internally generated resources. A very significant proportion will therefore need to be raised by a combination of government grants and charitable donations. Capital investment on this scale is unprecedented and the University faces significant challenges in managing and financing this level of construction. While it may be essential to maintaining Cambridge’s position in the future, the case for such expenditure is not always fully understood and the evolution of decision-making on such substantial and lengthy capital projects needs to be transparent.

28. The Board highlights the need for a detailed timeline of proposed capital projects, their critical dependencies, and their funding timescales, including a risk-benefit analysis projected over 20, 30, and 40 years.

Human Resources: financial aspects 

29. Chest expenditure on academic departments supports the salaries of most academic Staff in the University. Cost of Living increments over the period 2010–16 have amounted to about 6.25% or approximately 1% per annum. This is about half the growth in Chest expenditure on academic departments over the equivalent period (13.5%). The Board doubts whether continuing to offer sub-inflationary pay increases to core academic and academic-related staff for the next seven years is sustainable. It is understood from the Allocations Report that the budgeted pay growth for the planning period concerned remains at 1% per annum. At the same time, the Board notes a sharp rise in the number of staff paid in excess of £100,000 per annum.14

	2010	2011	2012	2013	2014	2015	2016	6-yr growth
employees paid >£100,000 per annum	190	198	204	228	254	279	332	+74.7%
employees paid >£250,000 per annum	2	3	5	6	6	6	9	+450%

The Board accepts that there may be good reasons for this, but nonetheless feels that the rise in employees within this category sits uncomfortably with the sub-inflationary increases offered to the vast majority. The University should be prepared to invest more in the much larger number of employees earning less than £100,000 to help maintain the high standards that our staff deliver.

Human Resources

30. The University has developed an ambitious Human Resources (HR) portfolio to address known concerns. There has been significant progress in some areas, such as developing University-wide policies and holding well-being seminars, but there are a number of important issues that still require attention.

Promotions

31. Staff surveys across institutions and Schools indicate that the promotion processes are regarded as unfair by 65% – 73% of those responding. While promotion statistics provide no evidence of bias by gender, rank of post applied for, number of applications made, or years of service, approximately one-third of academics who apply for promotion are unsuccessful. Almost all of those applying meet absolute criteria for promotion, leaving the decision to be based on criteria that lack transparency to the applicants.

Pay and reward

32. Pay and reward is of great concern to staff, with less than half of those responding to surveys agreeing that pay is fair. The Board is pleased that the University has established the Remunerations Working Group; however, there is significant concern about the lack of academic and academic-related representation, including both lower and higher ranks. Additionally, while the Board welcomes the publication of the People Strategy 2016–202115 we note with some concern that, in the underpinning People Strategy Action Plan,16 some of the objectives under Reward have not been given a high priority commensurate with concerns raised in staff surveys. For example, the development of a ‘reward strategy underpinned by sound reward principles which support the delivery of the University mission’ has been given medium priority; the development of an ‘attractive range of benefits which help to differentiate the University as an employer of choice’, also has medium priority; and ‘effective reward mechanisms in place to retain high performing staff’ has been given low priority. The Board suggests that a reappraisal with University staff of the priority list within the People Strategy Action Plan is warranted.

33. The University has tried to address staff concerns about low pay through reviews of other Russell Group Universities, and while the latest comparisons suggest that pay at Cambridge is on a par with the four other institutions that have responded, some caution is recommended. The University should benchmark pay across both national and international institutions, and data for most high-ranking universities are publicly available. While mechanisms exist to augment salaries above standard scales, either via market pay or advanced contribution supplements, there is a consistent bias towards higher supplements for men, independent of grade or School that raises concern. Men on average receive 31% more in market pay supplements. There exists lack of transparency of how these supplements are awarded. Pay incentives are most often provided at the time of employment, suggesting a need to investigate a gender bias in hiring and negotiating. As mentioned already in this report, the effective deterioration in pay relative to cost of living urgently requires addressing.

34. The University needs to address pay relative to cost of living and prolonged constraints on annual uplifts. It should review the balance of resources being invested in higher-paid staff particularly in relation to the retention of staff at all levels and the equitable use of supplementary payments.

Morale and Dignity at Work

35. Whilst the vast majority of staff surveyed feel proud to work for the University, only 58% of those surveyed report that they are valued by the University and morale appears highly variable across Schools and institutions. This asymmetry not only compromises the working environment but will undermine the ability of the University to retain staff.

36. There is a Dignity at Work Policy, under which all members of the University community are expected to treat each other with respect, courtesy, and consideration. Nevertheless, in surveys one in every ten respondents reports having experienced bullying or harassment in the past year, and about half of these considered that reporting this would have a negative impact on them. As there should be no tolerance of bullying or harassment, further action is indicated to bridge the gap between policy and what actually occurs.

Estates

Capital Plan and related governance

37. The Board recognizes that Estate Management is experiencing a period of significant change, including expansion of its strategic and developmental functions in pursuance of the Capital Plan, at the same time as maintaining the existing estate. Whilst the University has appointed a new Director of Estates Strategy with the significant and relevant experience necessary to meet the challenge, the University needs to support this appointment through the continued recruitment and retention of key staff; a process that we understand is proceeding more slowly than anticipated.

38. The processes by which large projects are governed continue to cause some concern. Communication will be critical as our capital projects move forward. The Board welcomes the approach of the Director of Estates Strategy in increasing the availability of clear, easily accessible information about related activities and projects; and two-way communication is essential. The Board also appreciates a proposal to produce an annual report from the Estate Management Division. It would help the University to understand the needs and issues and also the decisions taken by those charged with managing particular areas of its activities if annual reports to the Council and the General Board were made more widely available, and for those already available, if greater notice could be provided to Regents rather than just a weblink in the Reporter.

39. The Board recommends that communication is further improved by continuing to develop informative online content about estates activity across the University, including comprehensive master plans of key sites which are updated regularly. In pursuance of transparency and understanding of University operations, the Board also suggests that in general annual reports made to the Council and the General Board, should be made available via the governance hub, as well as by a weblink in the Reporter.

Greater Cambridge Partnership (formerly The City Deal)

40. The Board welcomes the appointment of Professor Phillip Allmendinger as the University’s representative on the Executive Board of the Greater Cambridge Partnership and supports the separation of this role from the portfolio of a single Pro-Vice-Chancellor. It is important to engage productively with local political processes and this requires both expertise and ideally some continuity. The Board suggests that progress is periodically reviewed and discussed through the Regent House.

Summary of Recommendations

1.The Council should give further attention to the communication of business with the Regent House and to the proactive engagement of Regents in governance. Major reports, such as the annual reports of the Council and the General Board, and the chief financial reports, could be presented to Regents by additional means beyond publication in the Reporter, leading to, for example, a more ‘open’ form of Discussion, with a question and answer format, to permit actual debate.

2.The University should consider the balance between Chest expenditure on academic departments and on other activities and review whether departments will be adversely affected by the extrapolation of current trends over the next 10–20 years.

3.The Board highlights the need for a detailed timeline of proposed capital projects, their critical dependencies, and their funding timescales, including a risk-benefit analysis projected over 20, 30, and 40 years.

4.The University needs to address pay relative to cost of living and prolonged constraints on annual uplifts. It should review the balance of resources being invested in higher-paid staff particularly in relation to the retention of staff at all levels and the equitable use of supplementary payments.

5.The Board recommends that communication is further improved by continuing to develop informative online content about estates activity across the University, including comprehensive master plans of key sites which are updated regularly. In pursuance of transparency and understanding of University operations, the Board also suggests that, in general, annual reports made to the Council and the General Board, should be made available via the governance hub, as well as by a weblink in the Reporter.

19 September 2017	Lydia Drumright (Chair)	Simon Frost	Timothy Milner
	Saba Ala’i	D. J. Goode	Elspeth Morfoot
	Gemma Burgess	Stephen Kell	Cristiano Ristuccia
	Gordon Chesterman	Carmel McEniery	Ian Wright

Glossary of abreviations

CA	Cambridge Assessment
CAm	Cambridge in America
CPS	Contributory Pension Scheme
CUDAR	Cambridge University Development and Alumni Relations
CUP	Cambridge University Press
EU	European Union
FEC	Full economic costing
HR	Human resources
TEF	Teaching Excellence Framework
UK	United Kingdom
USS	Universities Superannuation Scheme