Skip to main contentCambridge University Reporter

No 6490

Wednesday 10 January 2018

Vol cxlviii No 14

pp. 268–305



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

16 January, Tuesday. Full Term begins.

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

24 January, Wednesday. End of first quarter of Lent Term.

27 January, Saturday. Congregation of the Regent House at 2 p.m.

28 January, Sunday. Preacher before the University at 11.15 a.m., Canon Dr Paula Gooder, Director for Mission Learning and Development, Diocese of Birmingham and Canon Theologian, Birmingham Cathedral.

Discussions (at 2 p.m.)


23 January

27 January

  6 February

24 February

20 February

24 March

  6 March

  7 April

20 March

Discussion on Tuesday, 23 January 2018

The Vice-Chancellor invites those qualified under the regulations for Discussions (Statutes and Ordinances, p. 105), to attend a Discussion in the Senate-House on Tuesday, 23 January 2018 at 2 p.m., for the discussion of:

1. Joint Report of the Council and the General Board, dated 5 December 2017 and 29 November 2017, on the definition of student used in certain procedures applicable to students and in committee membership (Reporter, 6487, 2017–18, p. 164).

2. Report of the General Board, dated 29 November 2017, on the establishment and re-establishment of certain Professorships (Reporter, 6487, 2017–18, p. 168).

3. Joint Report of the Council and the General Board, dated 11 December 2017 and 29 November 2017, on the governance of the Careers Service (Reporter, 6488, 2017–18, p. 179).

4. Annual Report of the Council for the academical year 2016–17, dated 20 November 2017 (Reporter, 6489, 2017–18, p. 197).

5. Annual Report of the General Board to the Council for the academical year 2016–17, dated 1 November 2017 (Reporter, 6489, 2017–18, p. 212).

6. Reports and Financial Statements for the year ended 31 July 2017 (Reporter, 6489, 2017–18, p. 218).

7. Second-stage Report of the Council, dated 9 January 2018, on the construction of a new Cavendish Laboratory in West Cambridge (p. 289).

8. Second-stage Report of the Council, dated 9 January 2018, on the construction of a new Shared Facilities Hub building in West Cambridge (p. 291).

9. Second-stage Report of the Council, dated 9 January 2018, on the provision of additional hockey and changing facilities at the Wilberforce Road Sports Ground (p. 293).

Further information on Discussions, including details on format and attendance, is provided at

Additional Discussion on 26 June 2018

The Vice-Chancellor has approved an addition to the scheduled Discussions in 2017–18, in order to enable the Report of the General Board on Senior Academic Promotions to be discussed at the earliest opportunity; the additional Discussion will take place at 2 p.m. on 26 June 2018 in the Council Room.

Amending Statutes for Robinson College

8 January 2018

The Vice-Chancellor begs leave to refer to his Notice of 24 November 2017 (Reporter, 6486, 2017–18, p. 145), concerning proposed amending Statutes for Robinson 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 8 January 2019.

‘Scarlet days’ and flying of the University Flag from the Old Schools in 2018

Scarlet days

The Vice-Chancellor wishes to remind members of the University of the days in 2018 appointed by regulation for the wearing of festal gowns by Doctors (which are also the days on which the academical dress of other universities may in general be worn). Under this regulation he is also designating 20 June (Congregation for Honorary Degrees) as an additional ‘Scarlet day’ in 2018.

  1 April

Easter Day

10 May

Ascension Day

20 May


27 May

Trinity Sunday

20 June

Honorary Degrees

27, 28, 29, and 30 June

General Admission to Degrees

  1 November

All Saints’ Day

  4 November

Commemoration of Benefactors

25 December

Christmas Day

Flying of the University Flag from the Old Schools

Published for information are the days when the University Flag will usually be flown:

  6 February

Accession of HM The Queen

21 April

Birthday of HM The Queen

23 April

St George’s Day

  9 June

Official Birthday of HM The Queen

10 June

Birthday of HRH The Duke of Edinburgh

14 November

Birthday of HRH The Prince of Wales

The University Flag will also be flown on all Congregation days, including 1 October (Address by the Vice-Chancellor and Election and Admission of the Proctors), 20 June (Honorary Degrees), and General Admission to Degrees.

Twenty-second Report of the Board of Scrutiny: Notice in response

8 January 2018

This Notice is the Council’s reply to the Board of Scrutiny’s Twenty-second Report (Reporter, 6478, 2017–18, p. 24) and the Discussion of it held on 24 October 2017 (Reporter, 6482, 2017–18, p. 90).

The Council wishes to express its gratitude for the particularly constructive comments made in the Twenty-second Report and responds as follows to the recommendations made.

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.

The Council agrees that good communication is a vital prerequisite if members of the Regent House are to be able to engage fully in the University’s governance processes. It welcomes the Board’s desire to work collaboratively to identify and discuss any initiatives that might be taken in this area. As the Report references, the Council has commissioned a review of three aspects of the University’s governance which, alongside membership of the Regent House and Council, includes the format of Discussions. An initial information-gathering exercise was carried out in the Easter Term 2017 and meetings of the Governance Review Working Group commenced in November 2017. It is anticipated that one of the Group’s first steps will be to prepare proposals for consultation, which will be followed by an opportunity to make comments on that report at a Discussion.

Further, the Council is sympathetic to the Board’s suggestion of having ‘some form of Discussion conducted on a Question and Answer model’, perhaps along the lines of the recent town hall consultation meetings organized by the Divestment Working Group. The nature of any change to the form of Discussions, or alternative ways of discussing business, will be considered by the Governance Review Working Group, and the Board’s recommendations, as well as Professor Evans’s comments on this issue, will be provided to the Group.

The Council further notes Dr Thomas’s comments about the value of Regent House membership to the postdoctoral community, and accepts that inequities within any membership class should be removed. Regent House membership will be considered in detail by the Governance Review Working Group, and opportunities for further comment on this issue will feature within the review process.

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.

The Board has commented on the balance between Chest expenditure on academic departments and on other activities, drawing on high-level figures produced in Table 1 of the annual Allocations Report. In response to the Board’s specific recommendation, the Council makes the following observations.

The Board has referred to the published data in the annual Allocations Reports, but has drawn comparisons between forecast year-end figures for 2009–10 and actual figures for 2015–16.1 Actual year-end figures for 2009–10 differed slightly from forecasts that were prepared at an earlier point. A like-for-like comparison requires actual reported figures for both 2009–10 and 2015–16, and also needs to take into account several changes in the organization of academic institutions and the UAS over the period from 2009–10 to 2015–16.2 This includes the transfer of MISD from the UAS to the new University Information Services in 2014. Table 1 below makes the necessary adjustments in order to provide a like-for-like comparison of the growth in Chest expenditure over the period in question. In the financial tables of the Allocations Report and in this response, references to Chest expenditure are synonymous with Chest allocations. Expenditure from Chest-derived reserves held and controlled by Schools and the academic departments within the Schools, and by non-School institutions, is not included.3 The figures below show nominal growth.

Table 1

Total Allocations less College Fees

Like for Like basis using actuals



6 yr Growth

Academic Departments




Academic Institutions and Services








Estates Related




Other (less College Fees)




Total Allocations less College Fees




The two main areas of growth are in the categories ‘Academic Institutions and Services’ and ‘Other’. When adjusted for inflation over this period, these two categories are, in fact, the only two which represent significant real terms growth in expenditure. A more granular analysis of each category is provided in Table 2.

(i)The majority of Chest expenditure reported under Academic Institutions and Services is the investment in CUDAR. This investment is viewed as critical to the success of the £2 billion fundraising Campaign anticipated to benefit, in particular, the academic community of the University.4 Most of the remaining Chest expenditure is in the UIS, which provides core services that are fundamental to the provision of IT across the University and includes the operation of the High Performance Computing Service.

(ii)Nearly all of the Chest expenditure under the category ‘Other’ is for ‘Teaching and Research’ activity and comprises bursaries and scholarships, journals subscriptions, and graduate and research staff training. It also includes the ring-fencing of HEIF and Charity Support funds for subsequent distribution to academic departments. This Chest expenditure is visible in the financial tables of the 2017 Allocations Report under a distinct category named ‘Teaching and Research’. The above points are examples of how the sharp distinction between ‘academic departments’ and ‘other activities’ that this recommendation suggests is not necessarily correct, as investment in ‘other activities’ often directly benefits academic departments. ‘Other’ also incorporates provision for a centrally-held contingency. This contingency meets or contributes to increases in Chest pay costs that are the result of pay settlements above the assumed 1%, or driven by changes in employer national insurance contributions. Schools and their academic departments have benefitted from distributions from this fund.

Table 2

Like for Like basis using actuals

Academic Institutions



6 yr Growth













Other Academic Institutions







Other (less College Fees)



6 yr Growth

Teaching and Research








Human Resources








General Expenditure




Staff and Student Services







In conclusion, the scale of Chest expenditure on academic departments and growth over the last six years should take into account not only the category ‘Academic Departments’, but also, at the least, Chest expenditure included in ‘Other’. If the expenditure on ‘Teaching and Research’ is included, the growth in Chest expenditure on academic activity over the last six years is just over 21%.

Academic Specific Allocations



6 yr Growth

Academic Departments




Teaching and Research







The Council notes that future planning will be informed by the UniForum benchmarking exercise, which is already revealing areas of activity which are under-resourced, when compared with peer institutions.

Finally, as noted at the beginning of this response, references to Chest expenditure in the financial tables of the Allocations Report are references to Chest allocations. Therefore in assessing the balance between total Chest expenditure on academic departments and other activities, the Board might also wish to take into account expenditure from Chest-sourced reserves that have accumulated in Schools and their Departments following several years of underspends against Chest allocations.5 Since 2009–10, Chest reserves in Schools and academic departments have reduced from a high point of £53m in 2012–13 to £45m in 2016–17. Chest reserves in the non-School institutions reduced from a high point of £6m in 2011–12 to £2m in 2016–17, none of which were held in the UAS.6 In addition to Chest reserves, Schools and academic departments hold £164m of unrestricted non-Chest reserves at the end of 2016–17. It is reasonable to expect that academic departments use all sources of funds available to them towards education and research priorities over forthcoming 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. 

The Planning and Resources Committee (PRC) has commissioned a ‘capital development pipeline’ forecasting University capital expenditure (excluding North West Cambridge) over a twenty-year period to 2038. The pipeline – on which updates will be reported to PRC at regular intervals – captures all projects registered via PRC’s Capital Projects Process, together with emerging proposals in the academic University, work relating to the redevelopment of the Old Press/Mill Lane site and the current Cambridge Assessment properties on Regent Street and Hills Road. The total estimated cost of delivering all of the projects in the pipeline exceeds £4bn. The University’s current funding mechanism for capital projects cannot support expenditure on this scale, and therefore, without a change in this mechanism, it will not be possible for some projects to be taken forward. As indicated in the most recent Budget Report, alternative funding models are being explored in the first instance by the Chief Financial Officer and the Director of Estate Strategy. Alongside this, PRC has challenged Schools and institutions to prioritize their proposals for capital expenditure more clearly than in the recent past; a prioritization tool is being developed to support this work, driven by academic and financial criteria but also informed by estate-specific criteria relating to planning and design, construction, maintenance and sustainability, and by an assessment of the deliverability of a project (including capital and recurrent (operational) funding arrangements and dependencies such as site- and estate-wide infrastructure and land supply).

The academic and financial case for each project is scrutinized by PRC as part of its Capital Projects Process, and summarized for the wider University in a Report or Reports seeking Regent House approval for each project. Reports are also used to inform the University of master planning for strategic sites.7 The Board of Scrutiny’s recommendation concerning further, informative online content about estates activity is addressed in the response to Recommendation 5.

In her discussion remarks, Dr Drumright emphasizes a need to take into account rapid changes in academia when considering the long-term development of the estate. The strategic framework for the development of the University estate seeks, inter alia, to deliver flexible space and adaptable buildings, and stimulate collaboration across the University. The new Cavendish Laboratory (Cavendish III), for example, has been designed to accommodate the diverse requirements of cutting-edge physics research and its cognate disciplines, and to be responsive to the needs of physics research in the future. Similarly, the strategy for the Department of Engineering’s planned move to West Cambridge is structured not around the Department’s traditional academic divisions, but themes and missions tuned to the interests of research councils, government bodies, corporate sponsors, and donors. The strategy seeks to break down the boundaries between disciplines in engineering and between Engineering and other University departments. As a third example, the master planning process for the School of the Biological Sciences supports the School’s vision to reorganize its current departments into thematic clusters, providing flexible and interconnected space to facilitate interaction between disciplines, to encourage interdisciplinary research, and to allow new disciplines to emerge.

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.

The areas covered by the Board and by speakers at the Discussion relating to staffing and remuneration are considered to reflect a key strategic priority by Council. The Council share the Board’s concerns about pay relative to cost of living and acknowledge that the pay restraint observed within the sector over a period of years has had a real impact on staff, is unsustainable, and represents a significant risk to the University. While developments and initiatives designed to improve the situation are outlined below, the Council acknowledges that these measures do not fully mitigate the impact of a real terms decline in pay which has been experienced by staff over recent years.

Pay and reward

The Board notes that under the People Strategy 2016–21 the objectives to develop ‘a reward strategy’ and an ‘attractive range of benefits’ are given medium priority. A reappraisal has been undertaken and both items have now been ranked as high priority objectives, as now published in the HR Work plan 2017–18,8 alongside ‘competitive, fair, equitable, and sustainable pay structures’ to progress work in tackling the gender pay gap. In addition, the objective to have ‘effective reward mechanisms in place to retain high performing staff’ has been moved from low to medium priority and work will commence on this priority in the current academical year. Further, the Human Resources Committee is in consultation with Council in regards to the possible extension of the Voluntary Living Wage to indirectly, as well as directly, employed staff. The University already pays the voluntary living wage to all direct employees and Temporary Employment Service workers on an informal basis. Further consideration on seeking full accreditation as a Voluntary Living Wage employer is due to be discussed at the meeting of the Human Resources Committee on 18 January 2018 and any further recommendation will be brought to the Council.

Constraints on annual uplifts and rise in number of employees earning in excess of £100k

The Board comments on the prolonged constraints on annual uplifts to pay. The Council notes that the average pay increase for Cambridge University staff over the last twelve months is 3.8%, when the annual pay award of 1.7% is combined with the automatic service increments that staff have received. This figure is above the average RPI and CPI figures for the last twelve months and well above the private sector average. However, notwithstanding these average figures, the Council accepts that there will be staff members whose pay has declined in real terms over recent years, and that the impact of this on an individual level can be significant.

The Board notes a rise in the number of employees earning in excess of £100,000 per annum, and the need to invest in the larger number of employees earning less than £100,000. The figures for 2016–17 show an increase of twelve employees earning in excess of £100,000 in the academic University. The remaining increase relates to employees within the wider University group (i.e. including Cambridge University Press and Cambridge Assessment) where a combination of factors has led to the rise. An additional explanatory note has been included in the University’s financial statements. The Council understands that, considering the other issues covered by the Board in relation to reward and recognition, any increase in employees at this level of remuneration is a matter which should be, and is being, scrutinized carefully. Further, the HR Committee and the Remuneration Committee will be considering internal and external pay relativities, as well as the equitable use of supplementary payments, during the course of the year.

The Council is also keenly aware of the external focus on university senior staff pay, the possibility of a remuneration code for Higher Education (with particular emphasis on the transparency of remuneration committees, their processes, and the rationale behind pay-related decision-making), and proposed legislation for top to average pay-ratio reporting alongside the new gender pay gap reporting requirements. The remit and membership of the HR Committee and the Remuneration Committee are currently under review to ensure that the University’s governance of these areas remains appropriate.

As requested by the Board, the membership of the Remuneration Working Group will also be reviewed to ensure adequate representation of academic and academic-related staff and of different levels of seniority. The Remuneration Working Group is undertaking a technical review of reward mechanisms to examine all additional pay and remuneration elements. Recommendations will be brought to the HR Committee in Lent Term 2018. Market pay, a reward element available to all grades of staff, will be reviewed as part of this exercise. A rigorous approval process is already in place for considering applications, and the following details are required when a case is put forward: proposal, business case, strategic rationale, supporting evidence including competing offers, external benchmarking, internal relativities and gender pay analysis, and affordability.


The Board states that the University should benchmark pay across national and international institutions. The University actively participates in a number of national HE pay benchmarking surveys, including the Advanced Russell Group pay survey, on an annual basis. International benchmarking, however, is more challenging. In 2016, the University commissioned a pilot international benchmarking exercise as part of a consortium of five UK universities. 37 international organizations were invited to participate. Despite considerable efforts to encourage participation, take-up and engagement was low, as international institutions appeared hesitant to share their pay information, in addition to which language and technical barriers appeared difficult to overcome.

Gender inequality

The Council dedicated part of its Strategic Away Day on 25 September 2017 to discuss the gender pay gap and how best to address this important issue. Work is now underway to progress the suggestions and proposals of Council members. Under the Equality Act 2010 the University is also required to publish gender pay gap figures by 30 March 2018. The University has been reporting its gender pay gap on a voluntary basis since 2008 through biennial Equal Pay Reviews, albeit with a slightly different methodology to the new mandatory reporting.

The comments of the Reverend J. L. Caddick and Mr D. J. Goode are also noted. Many of their points are addressed above. As regards employee benefits, the Remuneration Working Group is developing a comprehensive benefits strategy for the University. Many staff do make use of the CamBens scheme, which includes savings on everyday necessities. The intention now is to adapt and extend existing benefits to widen their scope, to improve accessibility, and to communicate better the value of existing benefits; in addition, new benefits will be developed, in particular in relation to housing and wellbeing. The benefits package is not intended to replace the need for fair and effective pay or other reward and recognition arrangements, but rather to complement those elements as part of a broad remuneration package.

In conclusion, the Council fully acknowledges the need to ensure that the University has a meaningful, appropriate, and fair remuneration structure, and confirms that this will be a key priority for the coming year. In light of this, proposals have been put forward in the 2017–18 planning round to ensure any necessary changes to remuneration arrangements will be adequately resourced.


The Board’s comments on the perceived fairness of University promotions processes are noted. A new Academic Career Paths (ACP) model has been developed to replace the current Senior Academic Promotions (SAP) scheme, and a wide consultation has been initiated.9 In particular, evaluative criteria have been drafted to define academic excellence for promotion to each senior office, informed by indicators of excellence. The intention behind the publication of these indicators is to enhance the transparency of the scheme. It is also recognized that an appropriate budget for the ACP Scheme must be established. As noted by the Board, under the SAP Scheme, most applicants are evaluated as being above the quality threshold but not all are successful because of the additional budgetary limit. It is proposed that the ACP Scheme should seek to close the gap between the quality and budgetary thresholds. In addition, it is hoped that the proposed development of a career development process will provide clear guidance and constructive feedback to candidates. Overall, the objectives of the new proposals are to ensure that candidates are better prepared to apply for the right office, clearly understand the criteria against which they will be evaluated for promotion and, if they are unsuccessful, understand what they need to do to make a stronger application in the future. 

The People Strategy five-year action plan (2016–21) also includes the development of career pathways for staff in professional services, and the review and re-alignment of contribution and progression schemes for all staff categories is already in progress.

Dignity at work

The Council agrees that there should be zero tolerance of bullying and harassment at Cambridge. The successful launch of the recent Breaking the Silence campaign to tackle sexual misconduct demonstrates a growing appetite for cultural change. This work will be extended to include bullying and other forms of harassment to bring about a change in attitudes and behaviour, giving those affected the confidence and support to come forward. The HR Division work plan for 2017–18 includes cultural change as a key priority. However, this cannot be achieved in isolation. It will require support and input across the University from staff, leaders, institutions, and trade unions.

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.

The strategic framework for the development of the estate, approved by the Council and the General Board in 2016, has been published on the University website.10 It provides the framework and context for the overall programme of estate-related activity in the University, including but not limited to capital building projects. This will be supplemented in 2018 by a new web resource providing information on significant site developments across the estate, including master plan documents and indicative timetables for implementation (where applicable) and key planning application documents for capital building projects (specifically design and access statements). The Estate Management website will also be refreshed to ensure that it is both easily navigable and populated with the most relevant and up-to-date information. An interactive map will show the location of planned site developments and major building projects.

The Council does not support Dr Thomas’s proposal for individual members of the University to review draft planning applications. Planning application documents reflect building proposals developed with representative users and project boards, scrutinized by the Buildings Committee and site-specific Development Boards, and agreed by the Planning and Resources Committee via its Capital Projects Process. Members of the University, appointed to serve on those boards and Committees, are involved at each stage of the approval process. In addition, first-stage Reports of the Council are published to seek agreement in principle for the construction of new buildings before a planning application is submitted.

In relation to the latter part of the recommendation, the Board notes that the Reporter currently provides links to the Annual Reports as they are received by the Council and the General Board. For ease of reference, in future, notice of the publication of these Annual Reports will be given once a year in the Reporter. They will continue to be available on the websites of the institutions concerned.

Response to further Discussion remark

Finally, the Council notes the remarks of Dr Thomas on the internal processing of research funding. The suggestion to include ‘time to grant’ as a key performance indicator (KPI) for the Research Operations Office is both helpful and timely in the context of the ongoing actions to take forward the recommendations of the Review of Research Administration. This specific performance measure is recognized as a useful metric by research offices at the Russell Group institutions and its use at Cambridge will therefore be explored further. Development and Alumni Relations recognizes the importance of prompt processing of funds to ensure a positive giving experience for donors. To date, the office measures time from gift to release (to cause to be supported), as well as monitoring backlog levels in this regard in CUDAR and CAm. It plans to systematize the tracking of relevant KPIs across the offices as part of its operational management this year in the wake of the implementation of AMICUS, the new fundraising and alumni relations database.


  • 1 2015–16 figures are referred to in this response as, at the point of writing the Board’s Report, these were the figures available. The trends for the 2016–17 year follow the same pattern. 

  • 2The changes are the following: £5.5m from the UAS into ‘Academic Institutions and Services’ following the integration of MISD and UCS, £0.8m from ‘Other’ to the UAS in association with the transfer of the Sports Service and the Counselling Service, £0.7m from ‘Academic Institutions and Services’ to the School of Arts and Humanities following the transfer of the Language Centre, and £5m from ‘Other’ to ‘Estates Related’ in association with Capital Equipment Funding. 

  • 3See below for information about the level of reserves held in Schools and non-School institutions. For the purpose of the Allocations Report (and as summarized in paragraph 41 of that Report), Chest allocations are assumed to be fully spent each year even if a balance is carried forward to the next year.

  • 4Total funds raised for the benefit of the six Schools and the academic departments within the Schools totalled just over £341m as at 31 July 2017. Overall, the Campaign has raised £435m for the University (including Affiliated Museums, Libraries, and Cambridge Trust), and £507m for the Colleges, as at 31 July 2017.

  • 5See footnote 3.

  • 6UAS reserves had been fully spent down by the end of 2015–16. 

  • 7See, for example, the Council’s Report on the future development of the West Cambridge site:

  • 8

  • 9 [Raven only].

  • 10

University Composition Fees

8 January 2018

In the following Notice, the Council proposes amendments to the fees for certain categories of students.

University Composition Fees in 2019–20

The Council proposes a 3% increase in the unregulated 2019–20 new entrant Home rates of fee.

Except as noted below, the Council proposes a 5% increase in the 2019–20 new entrant rate of fee for Overseas/International students and in the fee rates for continuing Overseas/International students admitted in earlier years whose fees are not fixed for the duration of the course. (The fees are fixed for the duration of the course for all postgraduate students admitted after 1 September 2015 and for all Overseas/International undergraduate students admitted after 1 September 2018.) The Council considers that the balance of the increase over inflation should be invested in improvements to the student experience.

Overseas/International medical students admitted in and after 2019 will be required to pay the full cost of their clinical placements. The cost is currently met by the Department of Health on behalf of all students and is currently about £36k–£37k per student per year in each of the three clinical years. Although the actual cost is not known, the University must, in the prospectus to be published early in 2019, provide as clear advice as possible to potential international applicants.

£20k has been added to the 2018–19 rate of the fee (subsuming the 5% increase that would otherwise be added) so that the cost is spread over the full six years of the course. As a hedge against a downturn in the admission of international students to medicine in 2019 the University has applied to HEFCE for an increase of 15 in the Home student quota.

The Council is accordingly submitting a Grace to the Regent House (Grace 1, p. 303) for the approval of the fees set out in the Schedule attached to this Notice.


Schedule - Proposed Amendments to Composition Fees

Cavendish III building: Naming approved

18 December 2017

The Advisory Committee on Benefactions and External and Legal Affairs, on behalf of the Council, and with the concurrence of the General Board, has approved the naming of the Cavendish III building on the West Cambridge site as the Ray Dolby Centre, in recognition of a benefaction of £75m from Cambridge in America, following a donation from the Dagmar Dolby Fund.

Election of a member of the Council’s Finance Committee in class (b)

2 January 2018

The Head of the Registrary’s Office has received the following nomination for the Council’s Finance Committee, for election in class (b) by the Representatives of the Colleges:

Ms Lesley Margaret Thompson, LC, nominated by Dr T. K. Carne, K, and Mr P. C. Warren, CL

No other candidates having been nominated, Ms Thompson is duly elected, to serve as a member of the Finance Committee for three years from 1 January 2018.

Teaching and Learning Innovation Fund, 2017–18

Deadline for 2017–18 bids: 22 January 2018

The Digital Teaching and Learning Sub-committee is pleased to remind members of the University that the Teaching and Learning Innovation Fund is still accepting bids for 2017–18, for the purpose of implementing innovative practice in any area of learning and teaching provision. The Fund has been developed specifically to provide start-up funding for creative or exploratory projects ineligible for other sources of funding; bids should focus on new approaches or initiatives that enhance learning and teaching. The Sub-committee expects to be able to support up to ten projects in 2017–18.

Any innovative project will be considered and need not necessarily be IT-focussed; however, bids in support of technology to enhance teaching and learning are particularly welcome. Requests for funding primarily or solely for the purchase of equipment will not be accepted.

Application forms and examples of successful bids are available at:

Note that normally grants will be between £10,000 to £20,000 but exceptionally requests for smaller grants will be considered. The Fund is only available for internal members of the University of Cambridge, and external bids will not be considered.

Successful applicants will report back to the Sub-committee within a year of funds being allocated, including evaluation of the project’s success. Projects should therefore be realistic and take these time constraints into account when submitting a bid. Successful applicants will be asked to contribute to activities sponsored by the Cambridge Centre for Teaching and Learning.

Please note: Departments are not restricted to one application and all applications should be approved by the Head of Department.

Application forms should be submitted to Daniela Manca, Educational and Student Policy, Academic Division, 17 Mill Lane, Cambridge (email:, by Monday, 22 January 2018. Ms Manca may be contacted with queries or requests for further details about the Fund.