No 6576
Wednesday 5 February 2020
Vol cl No 18
pp. 324–333
13 February, Thursday. Lent Term divides.
22 February, Saturday. Congregation of the Regent House at 2 p.m.
23 February, Sunday. Preacher before the University at 11.15 a.m., Professor Rae Langton, N, Knightbridge Professor of Philosophy (Hulsean Preacher).
3 March, Tuesday. Discussion at 2 p.m. in the Senate-House (see below).
|
Discussions (Tuesdays at 2 p.m.) |
Congregations (Saturdays unless otherwise stated) |
|
3 March |
22 February, at 2 p.m. |
|
17 March |
21 March, at 11 a.m. |
|
28 March, at 11 a.m. |
The Vice-Chancellor gives notice that the Discussion announced for Tuesday, 18 February 2020 has been cancelled. The next Discussion will take place on Tuesday, 3 March 2020 (see below).
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, 3 March 2020 at 2 p.m., for the discussion of:
1.Topic of Concern to the University: Enabling accessible, safe cycling and sustainable transport (Reporter, 6575, 2019–20, p. 306).
In addition to those entitled to attend under the regulations, this Discussion will be open to all students and employees of the University Group and the Colleges.
Further information on Discussions, including details on format and attendance, is provided at https://www.governance.cam.ac.uk/governance/decision-making/discussions/.
The Council has received the Board of Scrutiny’s Twenty-fourth Report (Reporter, 6563, 2019–20, p. 42) and the remarks made at the Discussion on 5 November 2019 concerning the Report (Reporter, 6567, 2019–20, p. 118). The Council welcomes the Board’s constructive feedback on the issues raised and its elucidation of points of importance for the benefit of those within the collegiate University. It has provided its response below to the Board’s specific recommendations and the remarks made on them, as well as to other points raised by speakers at the Discussion.
The Board makes several recommendations and comments relating to the University’s financial position. Financial sustainability remains a key focus for the Council. There are a number of approaches to this, including measures to increase efficiencies and reduce costs, and steps to identify and support new income streams to bring the academic University back into surplus. The Board notes some of these measures in its narrative, including adjustments to the process for prioritising capital expenditure, commitments from Schools and non-School institutions to reduce expenditure, and interim mechanisms to foster revenue-generating or cost-saving projects whilst revised planning and budget processes are developed. The Council has also, however, given priority to certain projects, including better support for student mental health and wellbeing, and it is maintaining its commitments in other areas, such as the agreed funding for academic promotions.
The Council takes this opportunity to note the importance of philanthropy in supporting these endeavours. The Board’s Report this year notes the considerable success of the University’s Development and Alumni Relations team in the last few years. These efforts have proved fruitful not just in areas where the interests of the University and donors are shared, but also by drawing attention to areas which could be transformative for the University, such as the provision of graduate studentships.
The Council continues to encourage the ongoing work in the Research Office and the Finance Division to improve the level of management information available on cost recovery levels on externally funded research, including trends over time. The Council agrees that a report along the lines recommended by the Board would be valuable. The Pro-Vice-Chancellor (Research) has indicated that this could be published during Lent Term 2020.
Overall, the University does not achieve full economic cost recovery on research, and hence with continuing growth in activity levels, there is a corresponding need for higher levels of cross-subsidy.
The Council agrees with the Board’s recommendation. It recognises that, although the current focus on Chest expenditure allocations, highlighted in paragraph 28 of the Board’s Report, has the advantage of consistency of presentation over time, it no longer provides a meaningful insight into the University’s overall budget, or of the reasons behind the allocations of available central resources in the context of total sources of funds available over time.
To address these shortcomings, the Finance Division is developing a revised approach to the University budget. During 2019, it has made significant progress defining the scope and timetable for delivery of a programme of work to: (1) develop transparent income and expenditure accounts for Departments, Schools and Non-School Institutions; (2) introduce these into a revised financial budgeting and planning framework; and (3) implement a revised approach to resource distribution informed by an altogether clearer understanding of the income earned and costs incurred across the University.
This revised budget model would provide a more granular understanding of the relative contributions made by activities across the academic University, and hence transparency of the underlying cross-subsidy that is a fundamental and inherent feature of the University finances.
The Council agrees that the University’s capacity to measure and assess quantifiable performance data is currently limited. Objective-setting and reporting is expected to be central to the revised approach to strategic planning. The priority in the first instance is to identify and communicate the academic goals in the Schools, so that other parts of the University, including non-academic Institutions, clearly understand where to focus their efforts and resource over the next few years.
In relation to financial information and performance specifically, the Planning and Resources Committee has authorised the development of a Finance Transformation Programme, one of the main objectives of which is to identify and address gaps in financial information or insight, including management information and financial performance management, to enable more effective governance and decision making. Further information on the Finance Transformation Programme is available here: https://www.finance.admin.cam.ac.uk/finance-business-transformation-programme.
The senior leadership team in Estate Management has undertaken a thorough review of progress being made in addressing risks arising from deficits in the health and safety compliance of the University’s estate. The review concluded in September 2019.
The review has identified that, whilst material progress has been made, the organisational structure, resources and processes being applied were insufficient to maintain adequate progress of the compliance programme.
The senior leadership team has now put in place the following to assist with the delivery of the programme:
•Appointed a senior facilities manager to act as full-time programme lead, supported by an experienced programme manager;
•Identified a cadre of some thirty facilities and maintenance professionals from within Estate Management to provide the necessary resources to make substantive progress. This team has been re-located to Greenwich House as a focal point for the team’s activities;
•Accelerated the implementation of a technology platform to enable buildings and facilities compliance data to be captured and processed; and
•Commenced implementation of revised and improved processes to expedite risk identification and resolution. These processes follow industry standards for survey, assessment, analysis, deficit rectification, and certification. Analysis tools and technology are being applied to ensure data capture and analysis are optimised.
The review also considered governance of the compliance programme. The senior leadership team has concluded that oversight and governance of the programme should remain primarily with the Buildings Committee, with a secondary line of reporting to the Health and Safety Executive Committee.
Noting the changes now made to this programme, the senior leadership team has evaluated the estimated duration of activities. This takes into account the possible scope of unknown health and safety deficits – the buildings assessment work is still underway – and has concluded that full compliance assurance should be possible within 18–24 months. Regular status reports will be made to the Buildings Committee to provide insight on progress and any material risks that may be identified during assessments.
The Council received an update from the Working Group in December 2019. It has agreed to publish a report in Lent Term 2020 setting out proposals for changes to the membership of the Regent House. The Council has also agreed that there should be the opportunity to comment on those proposals at a Discussion and to hold indicative votes of the Regent House to gauge support for them.
The Registrary, with the UAS senior leadership team, keeps existing UAS structures and staffing under review to ensure they remain fit for purpose as the University’s needs change. There are many examples.
•A reorganisation of the senior leadership team in the Finance Division has resulted in a closer connection between the Director and key work streams, such as treasury and reporting. In addition, the creation of a Head of Investment Appraisal and a Head of Financial Planning and Budgeting has increased the amount of senior resource available to address the University’s strategic financial priorities and concerns regarding the provision of timely financial information to the University.
•In Estate Management, in addition to the restructuring to address compliance concerns, consideration is being given as to how the management of the University’s academic and commercial estate could be more effectively integrated.
•With the opening of the new Student Services Centre, the opportunity has been taken to bring together previously disparate parts of student-related support as well as the operational functions (finance, HR, etc.) so that they now operate more cohesively and with less duplication.
•Senior officers have recently established a ‘Resourcing Group’ to assess all vacancies arising in the UAS to determine whether and how they should be refilled. The objective is to take collective responsibility across the UAS for recruitment decisions and, importantly, to enable synergies to be identified and exploited.
•Other programmes either under way or in the planning stages include the Finance Transformation Programme (as mentioned above), the HR Improvement Programme and the development of a site-based shared resourcing model at West Cambridge.
However, under 25% of the University’s professional services staff are in the UAS; the vast majority – approximately 4,500 individuals – are in Schools, Departments and Faculties. Looking only at the UAS will therefore give a partial view and sometimes will not lead to the optimum result. The historical focus on the UAS now needs to shift to encompass the University’s professional services support as a whole.
In pursuit of this more holistic view, in late 2018, as the Board is aware, the ourcambridge programme was launched. It has a three-fold aim: to support professional services staff, to simplify processes and to optimise ways of working. The objective is to ensure that all professional services staff feel, and are, valued and, through more effective ways of working, are better able to add value. It is designed and delivered by the University’s professional services staff; in other words, it is ‘bottom up’. And, distinctively, it is about all professional services staff, wherever they sit in the University, whatever they do.
One of the struggles in the University’s administration – and this was identified in the Vice-Chancellor’s 2018 mycambridge consultation – is the siloed nature of many of the University’s activities. There are few, if any, end-to-end processes. Instead, there are often myriad layers of burdensome process. If professional services staff are to feel that they are providing valuable, and valued, support to the academic endeavour, the University needs to consider moving away from a model based on the administrative primacy of the smallest unit towards one which welcomes greater integration and co-ordination – not for everything but for those processes which span large parts of the University. Collectively, across the University, we need to think about the best place for delivering professional services and the best way in which to do so.
The programmes mentioned above – ourcambridge, the Finance Transformation Programme, the HR Improvement Programme and the pilot on shared resources in West Cambridge – have begun this work. Relevant committees will continue to receive reports on progress towards a more harmonised operating model. The Registrary and her colleagues would welcome further opportunity to discuss these issues with the Board.
The Council acknowledges that there has been an extended period of pay restraint. However, Cambridge is only one of the many universities represented nationally by the University and College Employers Association (UCEA) in the national pay negotiations. UCEA proposed a final offer of 1.8% (higher for lower paid staff) which was rejected by the Unions and resulted in the ballots for industrial action over the summer. This offer of 1.8% compared with an inflation figure at that time of 1.7%, based on CPIH.1 While progress at a national level on pay is complicated by the process of collective negotiation, the University is in dialogue with UCEA to help bring about genuine progress. Although the dispute remains active at this time, the University has implemented the national offer, but with a commitment to amend the national offer should further negotiations between the Unions and UCEA result in a different agreed rate. On a local level the University has also introduced a £10 Cambridge Living Wage.
In addition to these national negotiations, work has continued to develop the overall reward package offered to staff during 2018–19. Within the last two years an additional £500,0002 has been allocated to academic promotions, with a further £300,000 planned for 2019–20 and further significant increases anticipated in 2020–21 when the new academic career pathways scheme is implemented. Similar work to improve reward for other staff categories is also being developed. For example, a redesign of the Contribution Reward Scheme for academic-related and assistant staff in grades 1–11 is being developed. As part of this work, a recent consultation exercise on proposals to change the single contribution payment element of the Scheme took place, with the results expected to be considered by the HR Committee in Lent Term 2020.
Finally, whilst the University Group remains in surplus, the Council does not believe it is sensible to assess the University’s long-term financial sustainability based on the value added by Cambridge Assessment and Cambridge University Press. As noted above, the underlying position is that the academic University is running a recurring operating deficit.
The Council’s Project Board on Student Mental Health and Wellbeing has produced a strategy and implementation plan for a whole-institution approach – that is, across the University and the Colleges – to delivering an ‘upstream’ preventative population-level programme, promoting excellence in wellbeing as a fundamental component of a Cambridge education. The Council has recently endorsed proposals to foster closer collaboration between work on student and staff mental health.
The Project Board has also commissioned an external audit of the current support system across the Colleges and University to explore interconnectivity, efficacy and efficiency of support services. It is anticipated that the findings and recommendations of the audit will be used to inform any future improvements needed to ensure that the support system provided by the Colleges and University is robust and sustainable and able to provide targeted, accessible, effective and timely services to support those students experiencing difficulties sustaining their mental health or wellbeing. The audit is expected to report in January 2020.
Staff wellbeing continues to be an important aspect of a number of initiatives towards an inclusive Cambridge, building on the People Strategy and picking up on matters highlighted in the staff survey in March 2019. Phase 1 of the ourcambridge programme, which ran over the last year, has focused on improving staff morale and job satisfaction among professional staff, as well as on improving processes. Dignity at Work sessions have aimed to develop a culture of recognising and taking action on inappropriate behaviour. A University-wide network of over 130 wellbeing advocates has been established covering more than 85 academic departments. These advocates provide a key local point of contact for staff, build mental health awareness and promote wellbeing. A number of lunchtime briefings have covered the topics of mental health awareness, managing stress in the workplace and strategies for positive thinking.
The Council recognises the need to provide support for international students, in particular postgraduate students. The General Board’s Education Committee is working with the Graduate Union to consult international students about their experiences in Cambridge with a view to considering what actions might need to be taken to ensure that they are well supported.
The University is using its influence to call for both sets of negotiators, as well as the USS Trustee, to work in partnership, and in full transparency, to develop a shared approach to USS’s valuation and scheme governance. The Council believes this is key to maintaining the long-term sustainability of the scheme and the current benefit structure.
1CPIH refers to the consumer prices index including owner-occupiers’ housing costs.
2This figure indicates the budget set aside for academic promotions; the actual expenditure will be dependent on the decisions made, which will be based on academic judgement, not the funding available.
The Council has received the remarks made at the Discussion on 8 October 2019 (Reporter, 6563, 2019–20, p. 53) regarding the topic of concern to the University on the University response to the climate crisis beyond divestment (Reporter, 6552, 2018–19, p. 694). It wishes to convey its thanks to those who participated in the Discussion and drew attention to a number of important points across a wide range of topics. It also wishes to apologise for the delay in publishing this response. The replies to comments made by the speakers have been grouped under headings below.
A common theme was that the University should be doing more to reduce its carbon footprint. Progress has been made. The Council approved a Carbon Reduction Strategy in 2018 (available at: https://www.environment.admin.cam.ac.uk/carbon) that sets out a revised approach for achieving a zero-carbon target. Since the Strategy was published, the University has adopted a revised, science based carbon reduction target for its scope 1 and 2 (direct) emissions. The target commits the University to becoming zero-carbon against its scope 1 and 2 emissions by 2048,1 with an aspiration to achieve its zero-carbon goal at least ten years ahead of the target date.
Professor Leslie, in his capacity as Chair of the Environmental Sustainability Strategy Committee (ESSC), notes the actions that are being taken to eradicate scope 1 and 2 emissions (see below). He also draws attention to the need to reduce growth if the University is to make progress on its scope 3 (indirect) carbon emissions.2 The Council acknowledges the scale of the challenge. It also recognises that a cultural shift has taken place, with staff and students wishing to make change happen. The data gathering on the University’s scope 3 emissions is an important first step in being able to prioritise and monitor the effectiveness of measures to reduce these emissions; this exercise is underway and expected to take some time. Meanwhile, ESSC will oversee the development of some qualitative scope 3 targets and proposals on these will be submitted to Council in May 2020.
Dr Hutchings comments on the University’s ability to draw on its considerable research strengths across the disciplines to develop better strategies. The Council agrees that the University should take advantage of this knowledge base. The launch of an ambitious new climate change initiative, Cambridge Zero,3 aims to capitalise on those strengths and draw out new ways of tackling some of the issues that stand in the way of greater progress. Building on expertise in a wide range of policy and research areas within the University and working with external partners, Cambridge Zero aims to develop and share innovative ideas that will accelerate progress towards a zero-carbon future, from facilitating transition to greener energy sources to developing a zero-carbon economy based on sustainable agriculture, industry, infrastructure, transport and healthcare, policy changes that will support real-world deployment of innovations, and the advancement of climate repair solutions.
The Council recognises that, to achieve its Science Based Target (SBT), the University will need to take significant action within the next ten years or so, and to reduce its scope 1 and 2 emissions by around 75% (against 2015 levels) by 2030. Strands of work already underway to reduce its direct emissions include:
•Investigating opportunities to remove gas from the estate;
•Embedding carbon considerations and whole-life costing into the capital process from the very early stages, including whether to build a new building; as Professor Leslie notes, all new buildings need to be subject to a full life-cycle analysis for finance and to ensure their carbon emissions are compliant with the University’s carbon reduction targets;
•Increasing the generation of on-site renewables;
•Being one of twenty universities which are a part of a landmark deal to purchase renewable energy via a Power Purchase Agreement. Cambridge is purchasing 20% of its electricity from a certified zero carbon source for ten years (https://www.staff.admin.cam.ac.uk/general-news/university-of-cambridge-in-landmark-renewable-energy-deal).
Timescales for many of these projects are not possible to determine until initial feasibility work has been undertaken, but the University’s SBT provides the trajectory of necessary emissions reductions.
Several speakers suggest that the University’s carbon targets are not ambitious enough and also refer to climate justice, by focusing on the moral and ethical arguments for change:
•What the University’s Carbon Reduction Strategy is trying to do is that which is necessary and within the University sphere of control and influence. The aspiration is for the University to lead by example and encourage others to do the same.
•The University’s SBT has been set in accordance with best practice and the latest climate science and data. The Council recognises that the target will need to be revised in the light of new scientific knowledge and has asked the ESSC to present revised targets accordingly.
Mr Breckenridge suggests that the University is certain to miss its core carbon reduction target set in 2010. This target was replaced by a revised target as part of the Carbon Reduction Strategy adopted in 2018, and replaced again, in 2019, by the SBT. Mr Breckenridge also notes that the University has missed several of the targets in the 2018 Environmental Sustainability Vision, Policy and Strategy:
•The ESSC endeavours to be open and honest in the reporting of progress through the annual Environmental Sustainability Report (https://www.environment.admin.cam.ac.uk/Annual-Report).
•In retrospect the way in which the University’s previous carbon reduction targets were set was arbitrary. The SBT‑based approach to setting targets is not arbitrary, and is instead informed by the findings of the latest climate science on the levels of carbon reduction that are necessary.
•A large contributory factor to not meeting all targets is growth.
Professor Anderson recommends that the University should go carbon-neutral now, by using carbon offsets. The Council supports the view of the ESSC that offsetting should be used as a last resort for carbon reduction. The Council also accepts the advice of the ESSC that external offsetting schemes should not be deployed at this time, due to insufficient confidence in the robustness of these schemes. Instead, a different approach is being taken:
•The Council has already agreed in principle to the development of an internal offsetting scheme, for addressing the University’s unavoidable emissions.
•An expert working group is being established to develop an internal offsetting scheme for the University. This group will, as part of its role, consider an appropriate price for carbon (some research shows that the social cost of carbon should be set in excess of £100/tCO2 in the EU); verification of carbon offsets; and how funding raised through an internal scheme could be used most effectively in reducing the University’s carbon impact.
Mr Simms proposes that the SBT is expanded to cover the wider University, including Cambridge Assessment, Cambridge University Press, and the North West Cambridge development. Work to develop a SBT for the North West Cambridge development, as well as for the Colleges, is underway. It will be for individual Colleges to decide whether they want to adopt a SBT. Work to develop a SBT for Cambridge Assessment and Cambridge University Press will be undertaken in 2020, once the Colleges and NWC development work has been completed. One key characteristic of SBTs is that they are organisation-specific. They are developed using a model that reflects the scale and scope of the organisation in question. Some units of the wider University are significantly different to the academic portion of the University in terms of their scale, scope and function, which is why it has been necessary to develop targets for the wider University through the development of a series of different models. This work is being completed in phases, as it is not practical to undertake it all at once.
Mr Simms asserts that, for the University to claim to have set carbon reduction targets, when an estimated 80% of their total emissions are not even measured, let alone included in the targets, is misleading.
•Communications around the SBT have been clear that the target only relates to the academic University’s scope 1 and 2 targets. The Council has asked the ESSC to report back on the development of scope 3 targets within 2019–20. Some of these targets may be qualitative, as quantitative scope 3 targets cannot be set until better baseline data is available. Improving understanding and data around scope 3 emissions is a huge undertaking. Work has already started.
•The University’s key financial systems need to require staff to consider carbon as part of their decision-making and to collect data necessary to measure scope 3 emissions. This will be achieved through the Finance Transformation Programme.
Professor Leslie notes that scope 3 includes emissions from air travel. Both he and Dr Hutchings suggest that virtual conferencing needs to become a more widely accepted alternative. The Council will return to this important point once it has received the ESSC’s proposed scope 3 targets.
Mr Banks, Mr Hawkins and Mr Memon suggest that the University should not accept research funding or sponsorship from fossil fuel companies. The Council’s Committee on Benefactions and External and Legal Affairs is seeking to develop a set of principles governing the acceptability of donations and other funding to the University from fossil fuel companies. It held a workshop to explore the matter in more detail in November 2019 and is due to receive draft guidelines for further consideration in Lent Term 2020.
The Research Office has committed to undertake a pilot project on the carbon cost of research. This will include exploring opportunities with funders to determine, for example, whether they are willing to include environmental impact as a factor when making decisions on the purchase of equipment and to support carbon offsets.
Ms O’Brien draws attention to the University’s responsibility to disabled people in assessing the impact of any changes to be introduced as part of the University’s carbon reduction programme, including the elimination of plastics.4 The Council agrees that these changes should not have a disproportionate impact on disabled people or any other group and will continue to assess this.
Several speakers comment on the infrastructure and facilities for walkers and cyclists on the University’s estate, giving examples of design issues. The University’s Transport Strategy (available at: https://www.environment.admin.cam.ac.uk/travel/find-out-about-universitys-transport-strategy) recognises that high-quality walking and cycling infrastructure encourages sustainable travel. The Strategy includes commitments to the improvement of pedestrian and cycling facilities on its estate and the review of its own standards for pedestrian and cycling infrastructure and other facilities in light of good practice standards elsewhere. Proposals for walking and cycling improvements will be shared with members of the Transport Consultation Group prior to implementation for feedback. Staff members can receive information on these proposals by joining the Transport Consultation Group (see: https://www.environment.admin.cam.ac.uk/travel/find-out-about-universitys-transport-strategy/contribute-travel-consultations). A process of prioritising improvements on the University’s estate has been developed. Where required for the larger projects, transport consultants will be appointed to investigate the potential to design cycle infrastructure where possible to Dutch design principles for schemes which are within the University’s control.
Dr Thomas suggests that the work done by the Cycling and Walking Working Sub-Group was ignored. This Sub-Group (along with others) was set up to provide input into the University’s Transport Strategy being created by the Transport Working Group. The Transport Working Group considered the Walking and Cycling Transport Strategy developed by Dr Thomas and Professor Anderson, and some of its elements have been included in the Transport Strategy. Now that the Transport Strategy has been approved, all of the Sub-Groups have been disbanded as they are no longer needed. As part of the Transport Strategy implementation, further thought is being given to how to engage with the cycling community about cycling initiatives, which may be on a site-by-site basis or more widely for the whole University. Staff members who are interested in providing feedback on the University’s cycling commitments can join the Transportation Consultation Group.5
Dr Danish recommends that the University do more to lobby for improvements to public highways and paths. The University works closely with the local councils to encourage them to proceed with projects which will benefit cycling, walking and public transport, and to prioritise sustainable transport modes. However, for schemes proposed on the public highway, the University is not the approving body and therefore the final decisions are out of the University’s control.
Mr Lucas-Smith proposes that there should be a target for cycling of 60% of staff journeys. The Environmental Sustainability Vision, Policy and Strategy 2015–2020 includes, for sustainable travel, the target that 75% of staff members should regularly commute to work by the sustainable modes of travel (walking, cycling, bus, train, motorcycle, car sharing or working at home, i.e. not in a single occupancy car). Travelling by any mode of sustainable transport will lower the University’s scope 3 carbon emissions, among other benefits, and therefore there is no plan to set targets for individual travel modes. Instead, a series of Key Performance Indicators for the Transport Strategy is being developed, so that success can be measured and reported annually, including levels of cycle traffic and uptake of cycle schemes.
Dr Thomas queries the appropriateness of having a policy of offering free car parking. As part of the Transport Strategy, there is a commitment to reviewing the University’s car parking policy by 2020–21. During that period, the University will consider charging for parking as a means of supporting its strategy to reduce the University’s environmental impact from travel. Work to evaluate charging for parking will include consideration of the needs of staff, alongside the input of University institutions and Colleges.
Professor Anderson comments on the mileage rates paid by the University. The Finance Committee recently approved increases to the University’s travel and subsistence rates in line with inflation on the understanding that these would be revisited as part of a broader review of the University’s transport and environment strategies.
1Scope 1 and 2 emissions are those arising from the use of electricity and gas. In 2017–18, the University’s direct emissions (scope 1 and 2) were around 65,000 tCO2e (not 100,000 tons as stated in the remarks).
2Scope 3 emissions are those that arise upstream and downstream of the University’s operations and activities. They include emissions from the University’s supply chain, business travel, staff commuting and waste.
4Plastic straws have been removed from University Catering Service outlets and replaced with straws made from PLA, which is 100% compostable, after testing against alternatives.
The 2018–19 Equality and Diversity Information Report is now available online at https://www.equality.admin.cam.ac.uk/equality-and-diversity-cambridge/equality-information-and-reports. The Report provides a summary of activities and initiatives in support of the University’s Equality and Diversity Strategy and presents an overview of equality information on the University’s staff and student communities.