Skip to main contentCambridge University Reporter

No 6494

Wednesday 7 February 2018

Vol cxlviii No 18

pp. 377–387



13 February, Tuesday. Lent Term divides.

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

24 February, Saturday. Congregation of the Regent House at 2 p.m.

Discussions (at 2 p.m.)


20 February

24 February

 6 March

24 March

20 March

 7 April

Discussion on Tuesday, 20 February 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, 20 February 2018 at 2 p.m., for the discussion of:

1. Report of the Council, dated 30 January 2018, on the membership and terms of reference of the Audit Committee (Reporter, 6493, 2017–18, p. 360).

2. Topic of concern to the University: Hobson’s Brook (see below).

3. Report of the Council, dated 7 February 2018, on membership of the Regent House for Directors of Research and Principal Research Associates (p. 385).

Discussion of a topic of concern to the University: Hobson’s Brook

5 February 2018

The Registrary gives notice that she has received a request for the discussion of the following topic of concern to the University:

That the Regent House, as the governing body of the University, which is joint leaseholder of land on either side of Hobson’s Brook, consider the adverse ecological consequences to the Hobson’s Brook Corridor (which has been recognized as an area of national importance), potential reputational damage and liability, and risks to the Granta Backbone Network associated with granting permission to the City of Cambridge to erect a footbridge across Hobson’s Brook at Finch’s Walk.

Further information about the topic provided by Professor R. E. Goldstein and Dr A. I. Pesci is available at The request is supported by the following 70 members of the Regent House:

R. Adhikari

H. L. Fox

C. O’brien

A. C. Barbrook

M. Gandy

A. G. Packwood

J. D. Barrow

J. S. Gibson

N. Peake

F. G. G. Basso

R. E. Goldstein

G. G. Peng

N. Berloff

M. Gotham

A. I. Pesci

A. H. Brand

T. G. Griffin

B. J. Phipps

M. E. Cates

G. R. Grimmett

O. Rath-Spivack

C. P. Caulfield

M. W. Gross

C.-B. Schőnlieb

A. D. Chambers

H. M. Grosse Ruse-Khan

D. J. Spiegelhalter

M. C. Chiodo

P. A. Haas

S. Surtees

F. Colucci

C. A. Hall

J. A. Tasioulas

A. J. Crisp

J. P. Haseloff

A. W. Taylor

N. M. Da Silva Oliveira

P. H. Haynes

D. Tong

M. Dafermos

C. M. Hicks

N. M. Vriend

S. B. Dalziel

L. J. Jardine-Wright

P. Wadhams

N. Datta

S. H. Jőnsson

P. C. Warren

A. C. Davis

J. P. Jullien

A. J. Webber

A. M. Donald

E. J.-M. Lauga

N. G. Wickramasekera

N. Dorey

I. B. Leader

B. A. Windeatt

M. L. Dunajski

H. M. O. Leyser

F. G. Woodhouse

E. R. Easterbrook

J. R. Lister

A. M. Young

S. J. Eglen

C. G. A. Mouhot

B. Yuan

E. Eiser

J. A. Neufeld

J. E. Foulkes

J. R. Norris

The Council has agreed that this topic will be included among the matters for consideration at the Discussion to be held in the Senate-House at 2 p.m. on Tuesday, 20 February 2018 (see above).

Grace for submission to the Regent House under Special Ordinance A (i) 5: age limit on membership of the Regent House

5 February 2018

1. In the Easter Term 2017, the Council received a Grace signed by fifty-one members of the Regent House proposing removal of the provision in Statute A III 10 that imposes an age limit on certain classes in the membership of the Regent House (‘the initiated Grace’). As the classes affected by the proposed amendment include College Fellows and specified College officers, the Council agreed to postpone its consideration of the Grace in order to allow time for consultation with the Colleges over the Michaelmas Term 2017 on the Council’s proposed response to the Grace (Reporter, 6481, 2017–18, p. 55). The Council received the comments from the Colleges at its meeting on 22 January 2018 and these have informed the content of this Notice.

2. The age limit has the effect of removing from the next promulgated Roll of the Regent House those in classes (b), (d), and (e) who have reached the age of 70 (Statutes and Ordinances, pp. 5 and 104). A review of Roll data for the last five years suggests that most of those who would remain on, or return to, the Roll, if the age limit were removed, would be entitled to do so as College Fellows in class (d), with the balance made up of University employees continuing in qualifying posts.1

3. The Council has for some time been aware of the need to address the age limit on membership of the Regent House and it agrees with the signatories of the Grace that the age limit should be removed. Its removal would ensure that the arrangements for Regent House membership with respect to those employed by the University are compliant with age discrimination legislation.2 Further, the retention of the age limit in respect of College Fellows and officers would be inconsistent.

4. The Council has also reflected on the views expressed in previous Reports on the criteria for membership of the Regent House, particularly those made by the Grave Committee and the Wass Syndicate.3 Those Reports recommended that entitlement to membership of the Regent House, and thus a say in the governance of the University, should be granted only to those who were active participants in the University’s affairs. The Council agrees that the Regent House should consist of ‘members of the University who are actively engaged in teaching or research, or in administration’.4

5. For the majority of Regent House members, evidence of active participation in the University’s affairs derives from employment by the University or by a College in the role that qualifies them for membership. Within the Colleges, for example, persons holding the office of Tutor, Assistant Tutor, Steward, Bursar, Assistant Bursar, or College Lecturer (if held full-time in a College or Colleges), qualify for membership in class (e)(ii) (Statutes and Ordinances, p. 104). Membership of the Regent House therefore continues whilst they are working in that capacity and ceases when they are no longer employed in that role. However, the position for College Fellows is different in that there is not necessarily a contractual relationship between the Fellows and their College, and the level of commitment to support the activities of the College required of Fellows varies between different types of Fellowship and between Colleges.5

6. The responses from the Colleges to the Council’s consultation have indicated that most Fellows are expected to be active participants in the community and therefore the number of Fellows who do not play an active role will be relatively small. In the light of this, the Council has agreed, in accordance with Special Ordinance A (i) 7, to authorize submission of the Grace (Grace 1, p. 386). The Council has also agreed that an amendment should be circulated to enable consideration of a proposal which would remove the age limit as proposed by the initiated Grace but would also add ‘active participation in the University’s affairs’ to the criteria for membership of the Regent House in all classes (and, if there is support for the amendment, a ballot would be held to allow members to choose between the initiated Grace and the amendment). The Heads of each of the Colleges would be asked to certify whether their Fellows met the new criterion; there would be no definition of the term and therefore it would be a matter for the Heads of the Colleges to determine in their own judgement.

7. Any change to Statute A III 10 approved by the Regent House would take effect from the promulgation of the Roll following the approval of the changes by Her Majesty in Council; the earliest possible date of implementation would therefore be on 6 November 2018.

8. The Council is aware that the age limit is only one of a number of issues concerning the membership of the Regent House that have been identified for review. The Council is separately proposing an amendment to Ordinance to grant membership of the Regent House to Directors of Research and Principal Research Associates (see the Report, p. 385). Other matters6 will be considered as part of the Governance Review,7 with full consultation on those changes before they are put forward.


  • 1The data for those removed from the Roll as a result of the application of the age limit for the period 2012–16 suggests that, of those who would have been entitled to remain on the Roll if the age limit were removed, 86% were College Fellows in class (d), 8% were in both class (d) and another class, and 6% were in another class. 

  • 2The age limit on membership of the Regent House was introduced with effect from November 1996. As a result of subsequent legislation, culminating in the Equality Act 2010, the age limit is now likely to be considered unlawful.

  • 3Reporter, 4578, 1967–68, p. 333 (Report to the Council of the Senate on the Administrative Organization of the University, aka the Grave Committee’s Report); 5399, 1988–89, p. 623 (Report of the Syndicate appointed to consider the government of the University). 

  • 4Reporter, 4578, 1967–68, p. 339 (Report to the Council of the Senate on the Administrative Organization of the University, aka the Grave Committee’s Report).

  • 5As the Regent House is part of the University’s governance structures, its membership is defined by reference to the University. Notwithstanding this, clearly there are both direct and indirect contributions to the work of the University made by Fellows of the Colleges who have no formal connection with the University.

  • 6Including (i) whether it is necessary to retain the residence requirement for College Fellows, given that a criterion for active participation might be understood to supersede that requirement, (ii) whether to consolidate most provisions concerning Regent House membership in Special Ordinance, (iii) whether, in the provision concerning Regent House membership of College officers in Ordinance, the restriction to full-time College Lecturers is appropriate, and (iv) whether there are posts other than Director of Research and Principal Research Associate that ought to be included in order to capture in the Regent House membership those employed on a new contract after reaching the retiring age in an established office.

  • 7For further information on the Governance Review Working Group, see Reporter, 6464, 2016–17, p. 508.

Grace for submission under Special Ordinance A (i) 5: Real Living Wage

5 February 2018

Further to its Notice dated 6 December 2017 (Reporter, 6487, 2017–18, p. 156), the Council considered the following Grace at its meeting on 22 January 2018:

That the University of Cambridge seek accreditation from the Living Wage Foundation in the current academical year and therefore pay the Real Living Wage to all staff and also contractors who work regularly on University premises.

The Council notes that the Voluntary Living Wage (VLW)1 is an hourly rate of pay set independently by the Living Wage Foundation (, which is updated annually in November. It is calculated according to the basic cost of living in the UK. The VLW is currently £8.75 per hour for employers outside London and £10.20 per hour for employers within London. The University is already paying the outside London rate to its employees and temporary workers, but is doing so on an informal basis. The effects of the Grace would therefore be twofold: (i) a commitment to the payment of the VLW, as set by the Living Wage Foundation, as an accredited employer; and (ii) extending the payment of the VLW to contractors and subcontractors.

After receiving the recommendations of its Human Resources Committee and Finance Committee and estimates of the costs involved, the Council supports the proposals made by the Grace. The Council has therefore agreed, in accordance with Special Ordinance A (i) 7, to authorize submission of the Grace (Grace 2, p. 386). The Council notes that the University will be able to abide by the terms of the Grace by starting the process of seeking accreditation in 2017–18 but that the timeframe for implementation could be up to three years, to enable the renegotiation of existing contracts with external organizations on renewal of those contracts. The Council will therefore publish a Notice providing an update on the progress of implementation in the Lent Term 2019.

The Council also considered a request from the signatories that the Council put the Grace to a ballot. The Council has determined that there is no case for calling a ballot given the support of the Human Resources Committee, the Finance Committee, and the Council for the Grace’s proposals. This decision is also believed to be consistent with the wishes of the signatories.


  • 1The Real Living Wage is also known as the Voluntary Living Wage.

Appointment to the office of Pro-Vice-Chancellor for Strategy and Planning

5 February 2018

The Council wishes to make an appointment to the office of Pro-Vice-Chancellor, following the resignation of Professor Duncan Maskell. The Pro-Vice-Chancellorship will be tenable for a period of up to three years in the first instance, from 1 August 2018. The position is open to external and internal candidates, although preference will be given to individuals with a strong connection to the collegiate University.

The Council expects to make this appointment at its meeting on 21 May 2018. The Council will be advised by a Nominating Committee chaired by the Vice-Chancellor and with the following additional members: Professor Ross Anderson, Professor Abby Fowden, Professor Martin Millett, Professor Michael Proctor, and Ms Sara Weller.

Role of the Pro-Vice-Chancellors

The Pro-Vice-Chancellors propose and implement academic strategy and policy, and support the Vice-Chancellor in providing leadership to the University, particularly in their specific areas of responsibility. The Pro-Vice-Chancellors work closely with the Heads of Schools, the Registrary, the Chief Financial Officer (CFO), and other senior colleagues.

In addition to Professor Maskell, whose portfolio covers Planning and Resources, the University has four Pro-Vice-Chancellors with the following portfolios:

Professor Chris Abell, Research

Professor Eilís Ferran, International and Institutional Relations

Professor Andy Neely, Enterprise and Business Relations

Professor Graham Virgo, Education

Following the appointment of the Pro-Vice-Chancellor to succeed Professor Maskell, the Vice-Chancellor may decide to confer the title of Senior Pro-Vice-Chancellor upon one of the Pro-Vice-Chancellors, in accordance with Statutes and Ordinances.

The Pro-Vice-Chancellor for Strategy and Planning: the role

The Council wishes to appoint a Pro-Vice-Chancellor for Strategy and Planning. The Council notes that, with the recent appointment of a CFO who has responsibility for financial planning and sustainability, the University would benefit from having a senior academic leader whose primary responsibility is to promote and develop the academic strength of the University now and into the future. This is to ensure that there is a strong academic voice at the centre of the University’s financial planning and budgeting. Whereas the CFO in broad terms oversees the University’s financial and commercial assets (including those of the wider University group), promoting transparent and understandable financial reporting and budgeting, the focus of the Pro-Vice-Chancellor for Strategy and Planning would be on supporting and strengthening the academic mission of the University, including overseeing the distribution of resources and the capital programme. The office-holder would work closely with the other Pro-Vice-Chancellors, the Heads of School, and other academic leaders across the collegiate University to ensure that the University maintains and enhances its global academic standing. The University’s Unified Administrative Service will provide the necessary resources to support the Pro-Vice-Chancellor in her or his role.

The Pro-Vice-Chancellor for Strategy and Planning: the candidate

The successful candidate will have a record of high achievement as a leader of an academic community (for example a department or faculty or research institute), significant both in size and international standing, and experience in complex resource allocations. The individual will have a proven ability to develop and implement academic strategies in an environment where authority is derived from influence and persuasion, together with a deep understanding of the collegiate University and how to work effectively within it. The successful candidate will have an outstanding record of personal academic achievement and will have strong experience working collaboratively with administrative colleagues.

Applications from members of groups that are under-represented at this level in the University are particularly welcome.

Terms of appointment

The Pro-Vice-Chancellor will be appointed at no less than 80% FTE.

Expressions of interest and further information

The Nominating Committee welcomes expressions of interest from individuals and nominations of potential candidates. Expressions of interest, including a curriculum vitae and covering letter, and nominations, should be sent to the Vice‑Chancellor, University Offices, The Old Schools, Cambridge, CB2 1TN, or by email to, by 9 March 2018. Further information may be obtained from the Registrary (email:

Second-stage Report of the Council on the construction of a new Cavendish Laboratory in West Cambridge and Second-stage Report of the Council on the construction of a new Shared Facilities Hub building in West Cambridge: Notice in response to Discussion remarks

5 February 2018

The Council has received the remarks made at the Discussion on 23 January 2018 (Reporter, 6493, 2017–18, pp. 373 and 374) concerning the above Reports (Reporter, 6490, 2017–18, pp. 289 and 291).

The Council notes the remarks from Professor Parker, Head of the Department of Physics, in support of the new Cavendish Laboratory (Cavendish III) and from Professor Young, Chair of the Shared Facilities Hub Project Board, and Professor Neely, Chair of the West and North West Cambridge Academic Board, in support of the Shared Facilities Hub building.

The Council is grateful to Dr Thomas and colleagues for the diligence with which they have reviewed the proposals for the Cavendish III and Shared Facilities Hub projects, and to the officers in Estate Management for responding constructively to the issues raised.

The Council is submitting Graces (Graces 3 and 4, p. 386) for the approval of the recommendations of these Reports.