Skip to main contentCambridge University Reporter

No 6586

Wednesday 24 June 2020

Vol cl No 28

pp. 470–529

Reports

Joint Report of the Council and the General Board on a revised fitness to practise procedure

The Council and the General Board beg leave to report to the University as follows:

1. Providers of courses leading to professional qualifications have a duty to ensure that students on those courses are fit to practise, that is, they have the character, professional competence and health to practise in their chosen profession. This Report proposes the amalgamation of existing University procedures concerning fitness to practise within one new procedure in Ordinance.

2. The review of existing procedures has been prompted by the issue of new guidance for the HE sector. In November 2019, the Office of the Independent Adjudicator (OIA) published a new chapter of its good practice framework on handling complaints and academic appeals, to cover fitness to practise.1 From 1 September 2020, the guidance will be used by the OIA in assessing complaints from students about the management of concerns about their fitness to practise.

3. Following the launch of the OIA guidance, consultation took place during Michaelmas Term 2019 and Lent Term 2020 with the Faculty Boards providing professional courses (Biology, Clinical Medicine, Veterinary Science, and Education) and staff involved in the current fitness to practise procedures about potential changes to those procedures. The revised procedure is supported by the General Board’s Education Committee. It reflects the findings of the consultation and subsequent feedback on proposed amendments, including comments made during external legal review.

4. The revised procedure sets out to achieve the following:

(a)to establish one procedure concerning fitness to practise, to provide consistency of treatment for students on all relevant courses in the University. The new procedure amalgamates the separate procedures in Ordinance concerning the fitness to practise of preclinical and clinical medical students and of preclinical and clinical veterinary students, and also the procedure concerning PGCE students not previously included in Ordinance;

(b)to ensure compliance with the OIA’s good practice framework;

(c)to ensure the procedure is as accessible and transparent as possible, including specifying what students can expect from the process and timeframes for investigation and decision-making;

(d)to include reference to the University’s general powers for precautionary action while any University investigation is ongoing.

5.The Council and the General Board recommend:

I.That, with effect from 1 September 2020,2 the amendments to Ordinances as set out in Annex A be approved.

23 June 2020

Stephen Toope,Vice-Chancellor

Anthony Freeling

Mark Lewisohn

Madeleine Atkins

Nicolas Gay

Edward Parker Humphreys

Gaenor Bagley

David Greenaway

Richard Penty

Alessandro Ceccarelli

Nicholas Holmes

Andrew Sanchez

R. Charles

Fiona Karet

Jason Scott-Warren

Stephen J. Cowley

Christopher Kelly

Mark Wormald

Sharon Flood

Philip Knox

Jocelyn Wyburd

23 June 2020

Stephen Toope,Vice-Chancellor

John Dennis

Anna Philpott

Philip Allmendinger

Nicholas Holmes

Richard Rex

Kristine Black-Hawkins

Ali Hyde

Graham Virgo

Alessandro Ceccarelli

Patrick Maxwell

Mark Wormald

Ann Copestake

Nigel Peake

Christopher Young

ANNEX A - Joint Report on a revised fitness to practise procedure

Footnotes

Joint Report of the Council and the General Board on a revised fitness to study procedure (Procedure to Support and Assess Capability to Study)

The Council and the General Board beg leave to report to the University as follows:

1. Following a period of consultation during Easter Term and Michaelmas Term 2019, a number of proposed amendments to the Procedure to Determine Fitness to Study have been discussed. This Report reflects the findings of the consultation and subsequent feedback on proposed amendments and submits a revised procedure for approval.

2. The Office of Student Conduct, Complaints and Appeals has undertaken consultation with Departments, Colleges, the General Board’s Education Committee and its Student Health and Wellbeing Committee, and the Senior Tutors’ Committee and its Standing Committee on Student Welfare and Finance, in order to ensure that proposed amendments would be fit for purpose and in line with the needs of students, Departments and Faculties, and Colleges.

3. The proposals set out to achieve the following:

(a)the inclusion of an informal and entirely supportive stage as part of the procedure, so that concerns can be managed by Departments and Faculties with the benefit of guidance, and a consistent level of support can be provided to students at the earliest opportunity. This change will mostly affect the management of concerns about postgraduate students, as the Colleges will continue to lead on the early management of concerns about undergraduate students;

(b)the amendment of the title so that the purpose of the procedure can be more clearly understood by students and staff;

(c)the simplification of the referral pathway from a College fitness to study procedure to the University procedure. Currently, a College can only refer a case for review under the University procedure if it has determined that its own procedure is either not fit for purpose or has broken down. If these changes are approved, the College’s Senior Tutor can agree with the Head of the Office of Student Conduct, Complaints and Appeals (OSCCA) that the matter should be referred for consideration under the University procedure;

(d)removal of the explicit powers of precautionary action within the procedure, and replacing these powers with reference to the University’s generic precautionary action procedure in Special Ordinance D (v);

(e)replacing the review stage of the procedure with a right to have a review considered under the generic Review of Decisions of University Bodies Procedure which handles similar reviews of matters concerning students;

(f)to ensure the relevant case-handling procedures and principles are explicitly referenced throughout the procedure, in order to have a consistent and transparent approach throughout all formal student procedures;

(g)to confirm in Statute that the right of students to continue on their course (or any course at the University) may be withdrawn or the membership of students removed under the formal part of the procedure. The first would be applicable in cases where it has been determined that students are not capable of continuing to pursue their course of study (or any course of study). The second would be reserved for cases where removal of membership was considered necessary for the safety and/or wellbeing of the Collegiate University community.

4.The Council and the General Board recommend:

I.That, subject to the approval of Her Majesty in Council, the Statutes of the University be amended as set out below and that these amendments be submitted under the Common Seal of the University to Her Majesty in Council for approval, to come into effect on a date approved by the Council.

(a)That the first sentence of Statute B I 2 (Statutes and Ordinances, p. 14) be amended to read as follows:

Membership of the University is for life, or until resignation, or until deprivation by decision of a University court, disciplinary panel or any body granted authority in Ordinance to assess capability to study.1

1 See the Procedure to Support and Assess Capability to Study, [p. 000].

(b)That new sub-paragraph (c) be inserted in Statute B III 4 (Statutes and Ordinances, p. 15), to read as follows:

(c)concerning the circumstances in which a University body shall have authority to withdraw the right of a student to continue to study on a given course, or on any course, offered by the University.

II.That, with effect from 1 October 2020, the amendments to Ordinances as set out in Annex A be approved.

23 June 2020

Stephen Toope,Vice-Chancellor

Anthony Freeling

Mark Lewisohn

Madeleine Atkins

Nicolas Gay

Edward Parker Humphreys

Gaenor Bagley

David Greenaway

Richard Penty

Alessandro Ceccarelli

Nicholas Holmes

Andrew Sanchez

R. Charles

Fiona Karet

Jason Scott-Warren

Stephen J. Cowley

Christopher Kelly

Mark Wormald

Sharon Flood

Philip Knox

Jocelyn Wyburd

23 June 2020

Stephen Toope,Vice-Chancellor

John Dennis

Anna Philpott

Philip Allmendinger

Nicholas Holmes

Richard Rex

Kristine Black-Hawkins

Ali Hyde

Graham Virgo

Alessandro Ceccarelli

Patrick Maxwell

Mark Wormald

Ann Copestake

Nigel Peake

Christopher Young

ANNEXES to the Joint Report on a revised fitness to study procedure

Joint Report of the Council and the General Board on revised probationary arrangements for academic and academic-related staff

The Council and the General Board beg leave to report to the University as follows:

1. This Report proposes that revised probationary arrangements for academic and academic-related staff be introduced, as part of a wider piece of work to revise and combine probationary arrangements for all staff categories. It is intended that the annexed new Probationary Policy and procedures will be implemented with effect from 1 October 2020.

2. The proposals set out in this Report have been developed following consultation with the unions Unite, UNISON and UCU, and key stakeholders within Schools and non-School institutions.

3. This work builds on the current probationary arrangements for staff, which were introduced in recognition of the benefits of a structured probationary scheme.1 They provide an essential mechanism for the review of performance during the early stages of appointment, and to deal with performance issues and take appropriate remedial action at an early stage.

4. The impetus for the revision of the current probationary arrangements is two‑fold:

(a)to combine, as far as reasonably practicable, the University’s approach to probation across the different staff categories, to ensure fairness and consistency;

(b)to complement the introduction of the new Academic Career Pathways (ACP) scheme, which will replace the Senior Academic Promotions scheme with effect from the beginning of the academic year 2020–21.2 The new ACP scheme seeks to provide a more transparent and structured career progression route for both academic and professional staff, in line with the University’s People Strategy, whilst emphasising the importance of inclusivity and standards of conduct as part of the evaluation process. The new probationary arrangements for academic staff have been aligned with the ACP promotions excellence criteria, with confirmation of tenure carried out by the relevant Selection Committee or alternative School-level committee.

5. The new Probationary Policy sets out the overarching principles of probation, including the duration of probationary periods, expectations around induction, mentoring, and the use of the Staff Review and Development scheme after probation has been passed. It applies to all staff categories with the exception of Professors and Readers.

6. The Probationary Policy refers to the relevant procedures for managing probation according to staff category, of which there are now three:

(a)Probationary procedure for academic-related, assistant and research staff, which combines the University’s approach to these separate staff categories in one single procedure, to achieve consistency in practice across those categories and to simplify University processes;

(b)Probationary procedure for academic staff, which largely reflects current practice, with some adaptations in light of the new ACP scheme (set out below). Importantly, it remains the case that the probationary period for the holder of an academic office will be five years unless waived or reduced to a period of not less than three years, for example, where officeholders have held a senior academic position at another university and have already acquired the relevant skills and experience. It also remains the case that on confirmation of appointment, holders of an academic office who have met the probationary requirements will hold office, subject to the provisions of Statute C, or any Special Ordinance made under it, until the retiring age or until the end of their tenure, in the case of fixed-term appointments, as long as they satisfactorily perform the duties of the office. Further, the ability to extend probationary periods where there has not been sufficient time to demonstrate suitability due to factors such as absence on account of illness or family commitments, has been retained;

(c)Probationary procedure for academic staff in the School of Clinical Medicine and clinical academics in other schools, which takes into account that clinicians may hold a co-terminous appointment, as well as the requirement to assess clinical activity during probation in line with the standards expected by the relevant NHS Trust.

7. In terms of content, the new Probationary Policy and associated procedures have not changed significantly and have adopted the style and language of the current probationary arrangements. However, new developments include:

(a)clarification for all staff categories that the probation reviewer will be the Head of Institution, although depending on the size of the institution and the nature of the probationer’s role, the Head of Institution may delegate these duties to the line manager, supervisor or Principal Investigator. The Head of Institution will retain overall responsibility for the probationary process and decide (or recommend as appropriate) whether to confirm the appointment;

(b)renewed emphasis on the responsibilities of the probation reviewer in the management of probation, including induction, support and record-keeping;

(c)references to induction, professional development, mentoring and the University’s Staff Review and Development scheme in one place;

(d)a new Appointment Support process, to apply to unestablished staff categories. This will permit institutions to apply a less formal support mechanism to existing staff with at least one year’s service, who are transferring from one University post to another;

(e)the application of the ACP evaluative criteria and indicators of excellence and impact to probation, i.e. research; teaching and/or researcher development; and service to the University and the academic community, and the promotion of the University’s values of mutual respect. It should be noted that the requirement to demonstrate an ‘upward trajectory’ during probation has been removed in response to the discussion of the Report of the General Board on arrangements for the implementation of the ACP scheme on 28 May 2019.3 Further, the requirement for academics to meet the highest international standards of excellence for confirmation of appointment at the end of probation has been removed in recognition of the fact that this would be the standard expected of a Professor or Reader;

(f)an emphasis on making reasonable adjustments under the Equality Act 2010 for disabled persons and the consideration of wider contextual factors for all staff categories;

(g)the inclusion of the right to be accompanied by a trade union representative or work colleague at a final decision meeting considering unsatisfactory performance and the ability to attend by way of video or teleconference call;

(h)the introduction of a probationary appeal procedure for all unestablished categories (academic, academic-related, assistant and research staff), for consistency and to ensure parity of treatment. At present unestablished academic-related appeals are considered under the relevant disciplinary and grievance procedures;

(i)a rationalisation of probationary periods for academic-related, assistant and research staff categories, so that they are consistent and in place for no longer than reasonably necessary, after taking into account seniority and the impact on financial security;

(j)clarification of probationary periods for comparable unestablished academic posts, which take account of the length of the fixed term contract.

8. Approval will be subject to any future minor revisions to take into account operational requirements, for instance the updating of references to training and professional development.

9. Should these proposals be approved, the implementation of the new Probationary Policy and procedures would take effect from 1 October 2020. For staff members currently under probation at that date, the probationary period as set out in their terms and conditions of employment would apply, save that they would be managed under the relevant new procedural arrangements.

10.The Council and the General Board recommend:

  I.That, with effect from 1 October 2020, the Probationary Policy and procedures annexed to this Report be approved, replacing existing probationary arrangements.

23 June 2020

Stephen Toope,Vice-Chancellor

Anthony Freeling

Mark Lewisohn

Madeleine Atkins

Nicolas Gay

Edward Parker Humphreys

Gaenor Bagley

David Greenaway

Richard Penty

Alessandro Ceccarelli

Nicholas Holmes

Andrew Sanchez

R. Charles

Fiona Karet

Jason Scott-Warren

Stephen J. Cowley

Christopher Kelly

Mark Wormald

Sharon Flood

Philip Knox

Jocelyn Wyburd

23 June 2020

Stephen Toope,Vice-Chancellor

Nicholas Holmes

Graham Virgo

Philip Allmendinger

Patrick Maxwell

Mark Wormald

Kristine Black-Hawkins

Nigel Peake

Christopher Young

Ann Copestake

Anna Philpott

John Dennis

Richard Rex

ANNEXES to the Joint Report on revised probationary arrangements

Report of the Council, recommending provisional allocations from the Chest for 2020–21

The Council begs leave to report to the University as follows:

Overview

1. The Council is required ‘before the end of the Easter Term or as soon as possible thereafter,’ to ‘publish a Report on the financial position of the Chest, recommending allocations for the ensuing financial year’.1 The exceptional circumstances of the COVID‑19 pandemic, and the far‑reaching consequences for every aspect of the collegiate University, present the Council with a challenge that is without recent precedent. The very wide range of potential outcomes related to COVID‑19 means that it is difficult at this point to report with clarity on the consequences for the financial position of the Chest, and inadvisable to determine Chest allocations for 2020–21.

2. The Council expects further information to be available early in Michaelmas Term on student numbers, the University’s capacity to carry out on‑site research and teaching, and any financial support from the UK government. Collectively these will have a significant effect on the response required by the University and the appropriate Chest allocations for next year. This Report seeks approval for provisional Chest allocations for the financial year commencing on 1 August 2020, so that work may continue over the Long Vacation to assess the financial implications of the COVID‑19 pandemic and agree the parameters of the University’s recovery plan. These Chest allocations will be superseded by the recommendations of a substantive Allocations Report to be informed by that work and published as early as possible in Michaelmas Term 2020.

The University’s response to COVID‑19

3. The University’s strategic, operational and financial response to the COVID‑19 crisis is overseen by the Council, which has taken immediate actions including the introduction of a recruitment pause and a freeze on capital expenditure on new building projects, other than those funded externally and bond-funded projects that can deliver a commercial return. The Council made further decisions on 15 June 2020 to limit the use of its reward and progression schemes in 2020–21, to implement a voluntary pay reduction scheme for staff earning over £100k, and not to continue the Contract Extension Scheme beyond 31 July 2020.2 It also asked the HR Committee to consider how the University might continue to exercise restraint on recruitment.3

4. The Council is supported in its work by a Recovery Task Force, which is assessing the potential impact on the University under four scenarios intended to frame and inform the Council’s decision‑making.4 The financial implications under any scenario are significantly detrimental, causing the collegiate University a reduction in cash‑flow of several hundreds of millions of pounds. This assumes a drop in the expected number of international students; lower income from research (because of physical restrictions to the University’s research capacity), from the University endowment, and from Cambridge University Press and Cambridge Assessment; and additional expenditure on pension contributions and on current capital projects disrupted by the COVID‑19 crisis.

5. Further analysis of options to save costs and develop new income streams will be presented to the Council at its meeting on 20 July 2020. Some of these options are likely to be implemented under all circumstances; some will be implemented only to the extent of financial necessity, because of their impact on the University’s ability to deliver its core mission.

Provisional allocations for 2020–21

6. In recognition of these exceptional circumstances, the Council has agreed that publication of a final Allocations Report for 2020–21, reflecting the fullest possible assessment of the financial position of the Academic University and recommending Chest allocations in light of the work undertaken by the Recovery Task Force, will be postponed until the beginning of Michaelmas Term 2020. That Report is also expected to demonstrate initial progress towards a comprehensive Budget process for the Academic University, based on total income and expenditure and tied into a ten‑year financial model, as agreed by the Finance Committee at its meeting on 4 March 2020.

7. The new University financial year begins on 1 August 2020, and Schools and institutions require interim Chest allocations in order for them to continue their normal operations for at least the first quarter of 2020–21. The Council has accordingly accepted a recommendation from the Finance Committee that provisional Chest allocations for 2020–21 are unaltered from those previously approved for 2019–20. These are set out in Table 1 below.5

8. For the avoidance of confusion, the Chest allocations recommended by this Report are wholly provisional and are intended to enable the effective operation of the University during this unusual period of transition. They will be superseded by the Chest allocations recommended in the final Allocations Report for 2020–21, which will be published early in Michaelmas Term 2020.

9.The Council recommends:

I.That provisional allocations from the Chest for the year 2020–21 be as follows:

(a)to the Council for all purposes other than the University Education Fund: £129.5m.

(b)to the General Board for the University Education Fund: £378.7m.

II.That any supplementary grants from the OfS and UKRI (through Research England), which may be received for special purposes during 2020–21, be allocated by the Council, wholly or in part, either to the General Board for the University Education Fund or to any other purpose consistent with any specification made by the OfS or UKRI, and that the amounts contained in Recommendation I above be adjusted accordingly.

 

23 June 2020

Stephen Toope,Vice-Chancellor

Nicolas Gay

Mark Lewisohn

Madeleine Atkins

David Greenaway

Edward Parker Humphreys

Gaenor Bagley

Jennifer Hirst

Richard Penty

Alessandro Ceccarelli

Nicholas Holmes

Andrew Sanchez

R. Charles

Fiona Karet

Mark Wormald

Sharon Flood

Christopher Kelly

Jocelyn Wyburd

Anthony Freeling

Philip Knox

Note of Partial Dissent

At its meeting on 3 June 2020 the Finance Committee, of which I am a member, was asked to support a two‑stage approach to setting the 2020–21 Budget Allocations, in which the first stage consisted of a pre‑COVID‑19 base budget with a Chest deficit of £43m, and a COVID‑19 contingency budget of £5m. The second stage leading to a final budget was to include further details of the extraordinary support expenditure related to COVID‑19. The Finance Committee advised against publishing an Allocations Report reflecting only the first stage of the process.

The reason why I did not support the first stage of the process at Finance Committee nor at the Council meeting in June was that the pre‑COVID budget did not reflect the financial envelope requested by the Finance Committee in July 2019 that, as a minimum, the Chest out turn should be no worse than -£17m. The plot at this point becomes slightly complicated since, after an oral report on 6 March 2020, the Finance Committee agreed to modify the financial envelope to require that the cash flow deficit for 2020–21 ‘be no worse than the 10 year model’s Year 2 operational cash flow deficit figure’ (at that stage -£12m, but updated to -£17m in April). This change was a mistake, since at the 3 June 2020 meeting the Finance Committee was asked to establish an appropriate revised target envelope, given the cash flow deficit target was no longer realistic (with hindsight setting an envelope by reference to a particular deficit in the 10 year model was nonsense once there was predicted to be a major reduction in revenues). Three changes in the envelope in as many months is not good planning (with hindsight it would have been better to have kept with the -£17m figure from July 2019). Unfortunately this lack of clarity seems symptomatic, and I argued at the Council meeting of 15 June 2020 that there has not been a clear, transparent planning and resource allocations process for the last two/three years, which is a necessity if the University is to manage itself out of the current situation with an agreed and transparent gathered field approach to the consideration of short and long term financial commitments.

If the planning timetable pre‑2015 had been followed, there would have been a draft budget by mid‑March, i.e. before the COVID‑19 crisis escalated. There should have been a realisation by that stage that the Chest deficit was on course to be of the order of £40m, i.e. over £20m too much. For context, the three largest Chest deficits I have been able to track down (RPI adjusted to July 2019) were £25.9m in 2018–19, £22.7m in 2017–18, and £19.1m in 2002–03. But in 2002–03 the Non-Chest deficit was £0m, whereas in the two aforementioned years it was £14.4m and £17.0m respectively. The three largest combined Chest and Non‑Chest deficits were in the last three years: £39.9m, £40.3m and £39.7m respectively. No Non-Chest figures have been provided to the Finance Committee or the Council for the coming year, and nor was a statement of the receipts of the Chest and payments from the Chest during the preceding financial year and a revised estimate of the corresponding figures for the current financial year (both of which are required by Ordinance).

In pre‑COVID terms, the University is spending too freely, and it is not making quick enough progress to reduce the overspend. I believe this is why the Finance Committee ‘advised against publishing an Allocations Report reflecting only the first stage of the process’. The University is selling the family silver to support structural deficits, and for every £25m spent, there will be £1m less income from the endowment fund for recurrent expenditure in subsequent years.

By necessity I support the provisional allocations from the Chest and the delay in publication of a final Allocations Report for 2020–21. However, the COVID‑19 crisis should not obscure the fact that progress to reduce the Chest (and Non‑Chest) deficit is, if not in reverse, proceeding at a snail’s pace. Further, it is important that the financial sacrifices requested of staff outlined in paragraph 3 (which of necessity I support), should only be used to alleviate the COVID‑19 induced deficit, not the underlying structural deficit. I and others suggested at the Council meeting in June that if the COVID‑19 deficit is less than the financial savings from salaries and stipends then the difference should be reimbursed to staff.

23 June 2020       Stephen J. Cowley

TABLE 1

Interim Chest Allocations for 2020–21

2019–20 Allocations
per 2019 Budget Report

Cost Neutral Transfers

Note

Interim Allocations
2020–21

£m

£m

£m

School of Arts and Humanities

24.4

0.5

24.9

School of the Humanities and Social Sciences

38.2

0.8

39.0

School of the Physical Sciences

42.3

0.6

42.9

School of Technology

33.1

0.5

33.6

School of the Biological Sciences

37.1

0.4

37.5

School of Clinical Medicine

22.7

0.3

23.0

Total Schools

197.8

3.1

i

200.9

Academic institutions and services1

54.1

3.3

ii

57.4

Staff and student services2

1.5

0.0

1.5

Unified Administrative Service (UAS)

44.2

0.5

iii

44.7

University-wide initiatives3

4.9

(4.9)

iv

0.0

Administered Funds

Teaching and research funds4

126.7

0.3

v

127.0

Contingency funds

5.9

0.3

vi

6.2

HR-related funds5

2.9

0.0

2.9

Operational funds

4.7

0.0

4.7

Estates-related funds6

58.0

0.0

58.0

General funds

7.5

(2.6)

vii

4.9

TOTAL EXPENDITURE

508.2

0.0

508.2

Notes

i£3.3m transfer from Contingency in respect of increased USS employer contributions, offset by £0.2m transfer of departmental libraries from the Schools of the Physical and Biological Sciences to the University Library.

ii£2.6m transfer to the UIS of an Administered Fund formerly managed by the Information Services Committee (ISC); £0.6m transfer from Contingency in respect of increased USS employer contributions; and £0.2m transfer of departmental libraries into the University Library.

iii£0.7m transfer from Contingency in respect of increased USS employer contributions, offset by a £0.3m transfer from the Academic Division to Administered Funds to consolidate funding for examinations and assessments.

iv£4.9m allocated for University-wide initiatives, currently managed within the Contingency fund.

v£0.3m transfer from the UAS (Academic Division) to Administered Funds to consolidate funding for examinations and assessments.

vi£4.9m transfer to Contingency from University-wide initiatives, offset by a £4.6m transfer to Schools and institutions in respect of increased USS employer contributions.

vii£2.6m transfer of the ISC Administered Fund to the UIS.

1Academic institutions and services: University Library (UL), University Information Services (UIS), Institute for Continuing Education (ICE), Fitzwilliam Museum, Kettle’s Yard, Cambridge University Development and Alumni Relations (CUDAR), Cambridge in America (CAm).

2Staff and Student Services:  Careers Service.

3University-wide initiatives:  Principally initiatives relating to the University’s People Strategy.

4Teaching and research funds:  Includes fee transfers to Colleges of ~£75m.

5HR-related funds:  Principally funding for in-year costs of reward schemes.

6 Estates-related funds:  Includes allocations for business rates, maintenance and utilities.

 

Footnotes

Report of the Council on the period of appointment for members of the Audit Committee

The Council begs leave to report to the University as follows:

1. This Report proposes an amendment to the period of appointment of members of the Audit Committee.

2. There is a vacancy for an external member of the Audit Committee from 31 July 2020 (Reporter, 6560, 2019–20, p. 6). The standard period of appointment for a member of the Audit Committee in class (c) (external members appointed by the Council) is four years from 1 January. In the event of a casual vacancy before the end of that period (when, for example, a serving member steps down before the end of their term), the period of appointment of the new member is the remainder of the period served by the previous member. The reason for these arrangements, which are common to many University committees, is to maintain staggering in the appointments of members, so that only some of the members are expected to leave – and new members join – at predictable intervals.

3. The Council, on the recommendation of the Audit Committee, has agreed to propose an amendment to the period of appointment for members of the Audit Committee. This would enable the next external Audit Committee member to be appointed for the remainder of the term of the departing member (from 1 August 2020 until 31 December 2020) plus the standard four‑year term. The Council has previously noted the difficulties of recruiting external members for such short periods and of restarting a recruitment process so early in the term of a new member. It is proposed that this change be extended to cover the appointment of members in classes (a) and (b) as well as the external members in class (c), in order to maintain parity of treatment.

4.The Council recommends that Section 2 of Special Ordinance A (iv) (Statutes and Ordinances, p. 68) be amended to read as follows:

2. Members in classes (a), (b), and (c) shall be appointed in the Michaelmas Term to serve for four years from 1 January next following their appointment or for the same period plus the remainder of the term of the departing member if that remainder is less than one year. In the event that Council membership ceases, Audit Committee membership will expire simultaneously. No member may serve for more than two consecutive periods of appointment or eight consecutive years, whichever is the longer. Co‑opted members shall serve for such period as the Committee shall determine at the time of their co‑optation.

23 June 2020

Stephen Toope,Vice-Chancellor

Nicolas Gay

Edward Parker Humphreys

Madeleine Atkins

David Greenaway

Richard Penty

Gaenor Bagley

Jennifer Hirst

Andrew Sanchez

Alessandro Ceccarelli

Nicholas Holmes

Jason Scott-Warren

R. Charles

Fiona Karet

Mark Wormald

Stephen J. Cowley

Christopher Kelly

Jocelyn Wyburd

Sharon Flood

Philip Knox

Anthony Freeling

Mark Lewisohn

Report of the Council on the investment of bond proceeds held for income-generating projects

The Council begs leave to report to the University as follows:

1. In May 2018, the Council agreed to exercise the authority granted by the Regent House by Grace 2 of 10 May 2018 and proceed with a bond issue of up to £600m. It also agreed that it wished to be bound by a Special Ordinance that would restrict the use of those proceeds to income‑generating projects, as envisaged by its October 2018 Report (Reporter, 2018–19, 6522, p. 63). Special Ordinance A (viii)1 sets out the criteria that are to be met in order for a project to qualify as income-generating. These criteria include the project forming part of the University’s non‑operational estate and providing returns that are expected to meet an appropriate threshold of commerciality.

2. The April 2018 Report anticipated that ‘a significant proportion (currently forecast at £300m–£400m) would be invested in North West Cambridge Phase 2 if approved (in early 2019)’. It also noted a number of other projects to which the funds could be applied, including the redevelopment of the Royal Cambridge Hotel, commercial development of the old Cambridge Assessment buildings and the Old Press Mill Lane site, the commercial research development strategy at West and North West Cambridge, and projects targeting environmental benefits. Since the publication of that Report, progress has been made on all of these projects. However, the plans for most of the projects are not yet sufficiently mature to require significant funding (whether from bond proceeds or otherwise). Decisions have been taken to slow the progress of North West Cambridge Phase 2 plans in order to wait for feedback from market testing and to suspend work on the development of the Old Press Mill Lane site, largely in response to market conditions. The COVID‑19 outbreak has resulted in further delays in the development of these projects. In addition, for a number of the larger projects, there is a possibility (not originally envisaged) of co‑financing with partners to reduce risk and bring in external expertise. As a result, only a small proportion of the £600m has been applied to income-generating projects to date and it is likely to be some years before the full proceeds are invested in projects, if ever.

3. This Report proposes that the scope of projects that are eligible for bond funding is broadened under a strictly defined framework that ensures investments remain fully aligned to the fundamental objectives of the original borrowings. It also recommends that the Finance Committee of the Council be given authority to determine the interim investment strategy for the 2018 bond proceeds, pending their application to income-generating projects.

4. The Finance Committee has identified potential projects that have the capacity to generate returns that are expected to meet appropriate thresholds of commerciality (being the same or greater returns as projects in the external market that are comparable in their risk and return profile), but which would not meet all of the eligibility criteria set out in the Special Ordinance. For example, investments in Cambridge Enterprise seed funds are not expected to be ‘income-generating with a high degree of confidence in associated cashflows’ but are expected to deliver high investment returns (through capital growth) commensurate with the associated risk of the investment. Conversely, loans to parties connected to the University (e.g. to Colleges) may deliver lower returns that are commensurate with the low risk of that investment.

5. It is the Council’s view that certain requirements should be considered across the portfolio of all projects funded through bond proceeds, rather than on an individual project basis. These requirements are:

(a)to meet the interest and repayment liabilities of the Bond under reasonable downside scenarios; and

(b)to deliver a cash return over and above that required to service interest and capital repayment requirements of the Bond under a reasonable base case scenario, and consistent with the overall investment risk of the portfolio.

This approach would allow the University to benefit through limited investments in high- or low-risk opportunities that both directly support the University’s mission and are expected to meet the threshold of commerciality.

6. Pending investment in income-generating projects, the Finance Committee has determined the initial strategy for the interim investment of bond proceeds. This has been influenced by the Council’s request for a low-risk appetite when holding funds for projects that are likely to require funding in the next 5–7 years (and a desire to minimise counterparty risk). A conscious outcome of this approach is a modest ‘cost of carry’, whereby the returns achieved to date on financial assets are below the external coupon (interest) payable to bondholders and the liability growth resulting from index-linking. On receipt of the bond proceeds in 2018, the Finance Committee agreed that up to £150m would be invested in ‘higher-risk’ assets,2 with the remaining £450m held in highly liquid, low-risk but low-interest-bearing cash / money market investments. The delay that is now anticipated in investment of the full bond proceeds in projects (described in paragraph 2) means that the mix of investments in financial assets should be kept under review. This will enable the balance to be optimised between a desire to achieve higher returns through investment in more volatile assets (where those assets can be held over the medium term) against the requirement to hold funds necessary for nearer-term investment in projects in lower-risk investments. It is proposed that the strategy for investment of bond proceeds in financial assets should be determined and closely monitored by the Finance Committee.

7. If the recommendations of this Report are approved, the following changes will be made to the way in which the bond proceeds are used:

(a)the Finance Committee of the Council will be given authority to determine the investment strategy for the 2018 bond proceeds in financial assets, pending their application to income-generating projects. The Committee would keep the Council and the wider University informed through existing reporting structures, including the Financial Statements; and

(b)the eligibility criteria for the investment of bond proceeds will be amended to provide for:

(i)investment in non-strategic financial assets, pending their application to income-generating projects;

(ii)investment in projects that are expected to generate income through realised capital gains rather than or in addition to income from interest or dividends (such as Cambridge Enterprise seed funds);

(iii)investment in parties connected to the University (such as the Colleges) or departments of the University engaged in trading activities (such as Cambridge Assessment and Cambridge University Press);

(iv)the requirement that there should be a high degree of confidence in the cash inflows to be modified such that the level of confidence is appropriate to the risk of the investment; and

(v)investments in projects that meet the conditions of commerciality and form part of an overall portfolio of investments (projects and non-strategic financial investments) that is reasonably expected to:

deliver a cash return over and above that required to service interest and capital repayment requirements of the bond under a reasonable base case scenario; and

meet the interest and repayment liabilities of the bond under reasonable downside scenarios.

8.The Council recommends:

I.That Special Ordinance A (viii) (Statutes and Ordinances, p. 71) be revised to read as follows:

SPECIAL ORDINANCE A (viii)
Application of bond proceeds arising from the authority granted by Grace 2 of 10 May 2018

1. By Grace 2 of 10 May 2018, the Regent House gave the Council authority to arrange external finance for income-generating projects up to a total amount of £600m. Pursuant to such authority, two bonds (the Bond) were issued in June 2018 by the University in the total sum of £600m (the Bond proceeds). One of these bonds has a fixed-rate coupon and the other a coupon that is linked to the Consumer Price Index.

2. Income-generating projects shall comprise strategic investment opportunities which are expected to generate a positive return on investment in the form of interest, dividends or capital gains (Projects).

3. Projects will be eligible to receive funds arising from the Bond proceeds if, in the opinion of the Council on the advice of its Finance Committee, they:

(a)form part of the non-operational estate or involve departments within the University engaged in trading activities or parties connected to the University;

(b)are income-generating including through interest, dividends or realised capital gains with a confidence in the associated cash inflows to a level that is appropriate to the risk of the investment;

(c)are expected to meet appropriate thresholds of commerciality, delivering either:

(i)the same or greater returns (after transaction costs) as projects in the external market that are comparable in their risk and return profile, with a minimum return of 2.35% (being the coupon on the fixed-rate bond issued in 2018); or

(ii)a limited reduction to such returns that is expressly identified and justified on strategic grounds and approved as such by the Council;

(d)have a well-defined and stress-tested business case;

(e)have clarity of responsibilities, appropriate resourcing, and well-defined governance, monitoring, and reporting arrangements; and

(f)are consistent with the reasonable expectation that the income generated by the portfolio of all Projects (actual or prospective), taken with the return on investment of Bond proceeds pending their investment in Projects, will:

(i)meet the interest and repayment liabilities of the Bond under reasonable downside scenarios; and

(ii)deliver a cash return (a) over and above that required to meet the interest and capital repayment requirements of the Bond under a reasonable base case scenario, and (b) consistent with the overall investment risk of the portfolio (taking into account any limited reduction in a Project’s return consistent with paragraph (c)(ii) of this section).

4. In advance of investment in Projects in accordance with this Special Ordinance, Bond proceeds will be invested in a range of financial assets which, in the opinion of Finance Committee, offer in aggregate an appropriate balance of risk and return which is consistent with realisation of those investments in accordance with the anticipated timeframes for investment in potential Projects.

5. Projects and financial assets in which the Bond proceeds are invested will be monitored under the existing processes for the review and oversight of capital and other projects, with regular reports on the use of the Bond proceeds provided to the Finance Committee.

23 June 2020

Stephen Toope,Vice-Chancellor

Nicolas Gay

Mark Lewisohn

Gaenor Bagley

David Greenaway

Edward Parker Humphreys

Alessandro Ceccarelli

Jennifer Hirst

Richard Penty

R. Charles

Nicholas Holmes

Andrew Sanchez

Stephen J. Cowley

Fiona Karet

Jason Scott-Warren

Sharon Flood

Christopher Kelly

Mark Wormald

Anthony Freeling

Philip Knox

Jocelyn Wyburd

Footnotes

  • 1Approved by Grace 1 of 5 December 2018.

  • 2The Finance Committee agreed that up to £20m could be placed with Cambridge Innovation Capital (CIC) and the balance invested in the Cambridge University Endowment Fund (CUEF).

Report of the Council on changes to Special Ordinance concerning Congregations

The Council begs leave to report to the University as follows:

1. In light of the decisions taken in response to the coronavirus (COVID‑19) outbreak (Reporter, 6585, 2019–20, p. 454), the Council is proposing some changes to Special Ordinance to confirm that Congregations can be held in the event that physical meetings are not possible.

2. Special Ordinance A (vii) 3 enables members of a University body to participate in a meeting by any means of communication which permits all members simultaneously to hear one another, unless expressly excluded. Special Ordinance A (i) 2 states that Congregations of the Regent House, for the transaction of University business, and meetings of the Regent House, for the discussion of Reports and other matters, shall be held in the Senate‑House or elsewhere within the Precincts of the University. Regulation 18 of the Ordinance on Graces and Congregations (Statutes and Ordinances, p. 105) further states that certain officers must be present in order to constitute a Congregation. Regulation 24 of the same Ordinance already allows members to give written notice of their intention to oppose a Grace in advance of the Senior Proctor reading out that Grace for approval at a Congregation.

3. A Congregation took place on 27 March 2020 at which the relevant officers were present via videoconference in (separate) locations within the Precincts of the University and therefore the requirements for a Congregation were met. However, for the sake of certainty, and to ensure that a Congregation can take place even if the relevant officers are in locations outside the University Precincts, a change to Special Ordinance A (i) 2 is being put forward. A similar amendment is also being proposed to Special Ordinance C (iii) 1 concerning the admission of the Proctors. The Council wishes to confirm that these provisions would only be used in circumstances when a physical meeting is not possible.

4.The Council recommends:

I.That Special Ordinance A (i) 2 (Statutes and Ordinances, p. 65) be amended to read as follows:

2. Congregations of the Regent House, for the transaction of University business, and meetings of the Regent House, for the discussion of Reports and other matters, shall be held in the Senate‑House or elsewhere within the Precincts of the University, or exceptionally by any means of communication which permits all those participating simultaneously to hear one another, on such dates and at such times as may be appointed by the Chancellor, Vice-Chancellor or the Council. The manner of holding a Congregation and of transacting business at a Congregation shall be prescribed by Ordinance from time to time.

II.That Special Ordinance C (iii) 1 (Statutes and Ordinances, p. 75) be amended to read as follows:

1. (a) The election of the Proctors shall be held on the first weekday of the Michaelmas Term each year at 10 o’clock in the morning, the Proctors for the previous year vacating their offices immediately beforehand. At the election the two Esquire Bedells shall stand in scrutiny and shall take their own votes and those of other voters by the words placet or non placet. If each of the persons nominated is approved by a majority of those voting, the Esquire Bedells shall declare her or him to be elected. When the Proctors have been elected, the election of the deputy Proctors shall be held without delay.

(b) Exceptionally, the election of the Proctors and their deputies and the necessary public declarations may take place by any means of communication which permits all those participating simultaneously to hear one another, and the Registrary may in advance of the election confirm by Notice the arrangements for voting in those circumstances.

(c) If after the election a Proctor desires to nominate an additional person for election as deputy Proctor, he or she shall request the Council to submit a Grace to the Regent House for the approval of the person nominated.

23 June 2020

Stephen Toope,Vice-Chancellor

Nicolas Gay

Edward Parker Humphreys

Madeleine Atkins

David Greenaway

Richard Penty

Gaenor Bagley

Jennifer Hirst

Andrew Sanchez

Alessandro Ceccarelli

Nicholas Holmes

Jason Scott-Warren

R. Charles

Fiona Karet

Mark Wormald

Stephen J. Cowley

Christopher Kelly

Jocelyn Wyburd

Sharon Flood

Philip Knox

Anthony Freeling

Mark Lewisohn

Report of the General Board on Senior Academic Promotions

The General Board begs leave to report to the University as follows:

1. The senior academic promotions exercise in respect of promotions to take effect from 1 October 2020 has been completed. The General Board, at its meeting on 3 June 2020, considered recommendations from the Vice-Chancellor’s Senior Academic Promotions Committee in respect of promotion to personal Professorships, Readerships and Senior Lectureships. With the recommendations the Board received an extensive report, which provided the Board with an account of the procedure followed for the evaluation and comparison of the evidence for all applicants. The Board was able to see how recommendations had been arrived at so that, without repeating the entire exercise, it could either approve the recommendations or, if it so wished, consider the basis on which any of the recommendations had been made.

2. The contents of the report were as follows:

minutes of the Vice-Chancellor’s Committee and School Committees;

summary lists of Faculty Committee and School Committee evaluations and bandings, indicating adjustments and any special or non-standard aspects of applications;

summary tables giving names of applicants in priority order by School Committee for each of the senior academic offices;

funding and statistical information;

equal opportunity report on all applications received;

feedback statements.

3. The Board now recommends the establishment of 42 Professorships from 1 October 2020, as set out in Recommendation I. The establishment of these Professorships is proposed on condition that in each case where the person currently holds a permanently established office, that office should be placed in abeyance during the tenure of the Professorship.

4. The Board also proposes the establishment of 57 Readerships from 1 October 2020, as set out in Recommendation II. The establishment of these Readerships is proposed on condition that in each case where the person currently holds a permanently established office, that office should be placed in abeyance during the tenure of the Readership.

5. In order to avoid delay in publishing the Report, the Board has put forward its recommendations before the titles of the Professorships and Readerships have been agreed. The Board will announce these titles at a later date, after consultation with the individuals concerned.

6. The Board has also agreed, in accordance with Special Ordinance C (ix) 1 and the special regulation for University Senior Lectureships (Statutes and Ordinances, p. 772) to appoint the 19 individuals listed in the Schedule to this Report to University Senior Lectureships.

7. The estimated total additional cost to central funds in the first year of the proposals for promotion to personal Professorships and Readerships and of the appointments to University Senior Lectureships of the persons named in this Report will be approximately £756,057.
 

8.The General Board recommends:

I.That, with effect from 1 October 2020, Professorships be established for each of the following named persons for one tenure, placed in the Schedule to Special Ordinance C (vii) 1, and assigned to the Faculty, Department, or Institution named in each case, as follows:

School of Arts and Humanities

Dr Simon Gathercole, F, assigned to the Faculty of Divinity

Dr Richard Dance, CTH, assigned to the Faculty of English

Dr Priyamvada Gopal, CHU, assigned to the Faculty of English

Dr Jan‑Melissa Schramm, TH, assigned to the Faculty of English

Dr Rodrigo Cacho, CL, assigned to the Faculty of Modern and Medieval Languages and Linguistics

Dr Nigel Collier, MUR, assigned to the Faculty of Modern and Medieval Languages and Linguistics

Dr Henriette Hendriks, LC, assigned to the Faculty of Modern and Medieval Languages and Linguistics

Dr Brechtje Post, JE, assigned to the Faculty of Modern and Medieval Languages and Linguistics

Mr Richard Causton, K, assigned to the Faculty of Music

Dr Clare Chambers, JE, assigned to the Faculty of Philosophy

School of the Biological Sciences

Dr Thomas Micklem, PEM, assigned to the Department of Genetics

Dr Kristian Franze, JN, assigned to the Department of Physiology, Development and Neuroscience

Dr Julia Davies, DAR, assigned to the Department of Plant Sciences

Dr Ian Henderson, CAI, assigned to the Department of Plant Sciences

Dr Andrew Welchman assigned to the Department of Psychology

School of Clinical Medicine

Dr Marc Tischkowitz assigned to the Department of Medical Genetics

Dr James Brenton assigned to the Department of Oncology

Dr Charlotte Coles assigned to the Department of Oncology

Dr Douglas Winton assigned to the Department of Oncology

Dr Ferdia Gallagher, CAI, assigned to the Department of Radiology

School of the Humanities and Social Sciences

Dr Ricardo Sabates Aysa, HH, assigned to the Faculty of Education

Dr Brendan Burchell, M, assigned to the Department of Sociology

Dr Elisabete Silva assigned to the Department of Land Economy

School of the Physical Sciences

Dr John Maclennan, EM, assigned to the Department of Earth Sciences

Dr Stephen Eglen, M, assigned to the Department of Applied Mathematics and Theoretical Physics

Dr Oscar Randal-Williams assigned to the Department of Pure Mathematics and Mathematical Statistics

Dr Peter Varju assigned to the Department of Pure Mathematics and Mathematical Statistics

Dr Silvia Vignolini assigned to the Department of Chemistry

Dr Sarah Bohndiek, CC, assigned to the Department of Physics

Dr Claudio Castelnovo, T, assigned to the Department of Physics

Dr Alexander Mitov, EM, assigned to the Department of Physics

Dr Nikolaos Nikiforakis, SE, assigned to the Department of Physics

School of Technology

Dr Timothy Griffin, K, assigned to the Department of Computer Science and Technology

Dr Richard Mortier, CHR, assigned to the Department of Computer Science and Technology

Dr Andrew Rice, Q, assigned to the Department of Computer Science and Technology

Dr Michael De Volder, JN, assigned to the Department of Engineering

Dr Colm Durkan, G, assigned to the Department of Engineering

Dr Graham Pullan, TH, assigned to the Department of Engineering

Dr Keith Seffen, CC, assigned to the Department of Engineering

Dr Richard Eric Turner, CHR, assigned to the Department of Engineering

Dr Glenn Vinnicombe, CAI, assigned to the Department of Engineering

Dr Roisin Owens, N, assigned to the Department of Chemical Engineering and Biotechnology

II.That, with effect from 1 October 2020, Readerships be established, as follows, and that the General Board be authorised to appoint to each Readership the person for whom its establishment is proposed:

School of Arts and Humanities

Dr Yuet Chau, JN, assigned to the Faculty of Asian and Middle Eastern Studies

Dr Christopher Whitton, EM, assigned to the Faculty of Classics

Dr Sarah Dillon assigned to the Faculty of English

Dr Subha Mukherji, F, assigned to the Faculty of English

Dr Emma Gilby, SID, assigned to the Faculty of Modern and Medieval Languages and Linguistics

Dr David Trippett, CHR, assigned to the Faculty of Music

Dr Benjamin Walton, JE, assigned to the Faculty of Music

School of the Biological Sciences

Dr Martin Welch assigned to the Department of Biochemistry

Dr Heike Laman, CL, assigned to the Department of Pathology

Dr Matthew Murray assigned to the Department of Pathology

Dr Graham Ladds, JN, assigned to the Department of Pharmacology

Dr Sander van der Linden, CHU, assigned to the Department of Psychology

Dr Jason Head assigned to the Department of Zoology

School of Clinical Medicine

Dr Christopher Rodgers, PET, assigned to the Department of Clinical Neurosciences

Dr Cedric Ghevaert assigned to the Department of Haematology

Dr James Nathan assigned to the Department of Medicine

Dr Michael Weekes assigned to the Department of Medicine

Dr Karen Ersche, CLH, assigned to the Department of Psychiatry

Dr James Woodcock assigned to the Department of Public Health and Primary Care

Mr Vincent Gnanapragasam assigned to the Department of Surgery

School of the Humanities and Social Sciences

Dr Naci Aytek Erdil, K, assigned to the Faculty of Economics

Dr Sara Baker, DAR, assigned to the Faculty of Education

Dr Zoe Jaques, HO, assigned to the Faculty of Education

Dr Andrew Arsan, JN, assigned to the Faculty of History

Dr Helen McCarthy, JN, assigned to the Faculty of History

Dr Mette Eilstrup-Sangiovanni, SID, assigned to the Department of Politics and International Studies

Dr Dennis Grube, G, assigned to the Department of Politics and International Studies

Dr Alicia Hinarejos Parga, DOW, assigned to the Faculty of Law

Dr Kathleen Liddell, DOW, assigned to the Faculty of Law

Dr Barak Ariel assigned to the Institute of Criminology

Dr Xiaohui Bao, N, assigned to the Department of Land Economy

Dr Shailaja Fennell, JE, assigned to the Department of Land Economy

Dr Shaun Larcom, SE, assigned to the Department of Land Economy

Dr Emma Lees, F, assigned to the Department of Land Economy

School of the Physical Sciences

Dr Alexander Copley, R, assigned to the Department of Earth Sciences

Dr Alexander Piotrowski, MUR, assigned to the Department of Earth Sciences

Dr Michael Herzog assigned to the Department of Geography

Dr Charlotte Lemanski assigned to the Department of Geography

Dr Richard Charles Powell, F, assigned to the Department of Geography

Dr Alice Reid, CHU, assigned to the Department of Geography

Dr Maciej Dunajski, CL, assigned to the Department of Applied Mathematics and Theoretical Physics

Dr Christopher Edward Thomas, CHR, assigned to the Department of Applied Mathematics and Theoretical Physics

Dr Roland Bauerschmidt assigned to the Department of Pure Mathematics and Mathematical Statistics

Dr Hugo Bronstein, PEM, assigned to the Department of Chemistry

Dr Steven Lee assigned to the Department of Chemistry

Dr Nicholas Jones, PEM, assigned to the Department of Materials Science and Metallurgy

Dr Benjamin Beri assigned to the Department of Physics

Dr Andrew Jardine, F, assigned to the Department of Physics

Dr Christina Potter, N, assigned to the Department of Physics

School of Technology

Dr David Stillwell assigned to the Judge Business School

Dr Thomas Sauerwald, EM, assigned to the Department of Computer Science and Technology

Dr Robert Watson assigned to the Department of Computer Science and Technology

Dr Nathaniel Crilly assigned to the Department of Engineering

Dr Stuart Haigh, T, assigned to the Department of Engineering

Dr Evgeni Shwageraus, HH, assigned to the Department of Engineering

Dr Ramji Venkataramanan, TH, assigned to the Department of Engineering

Dr Gabriele Kaminski Schierle, R, assigned to the Department of Chemical Engineering and Biotechnology

23 June 2020

Stephen Toope,Vice-Chancellor

Nicholas Holmes

Graham Virgo

Philip Allmendinger

Patrick Maxwell

Mark Wormald

Kristine Black-Hawkins

Nigel Peake

Christopher Young

Ann Copestake

Anna Philpott

John Dennis

Richard Rex

SCHEDULE

The General Board has agreed to appoint the following to University Senior Lectureships, with effect from 1 October 2020 to the retiring age.

School of Arts and Humanities

Dr Rebecca Laemmle, PEM

Faculty of Classics

Dr Nicholas Zair, PET

Faculty of Classics

Dr Ankur Barua

Faculty of Divinity

Reverend Dr Andrew Davison, CC

Faculty of Divinity

School of the Biological Sciences

Dr Pier D’Avino

Department of Pathology

Dr Samuel Brockington

Department of Plant Sciences

Dr Olivier Restif, R

Department of Veterinary Medicine

School of the Humanities and Social Sciences

Dr Karen Forbes, HO

Faculty of Education

Mr William Nicholl

Faculty of Education

Dr Enrico Crema

Department of Archaeology

Dr Dacia Viejo Rose, SE

Department of Archaeology

Dr Perveez Mody, K

Department of Social Anthropology

Dr Jeffrey Skopek, HH

Faculty of Law

Dr Stelios Tofaris, G

Faculty of Law

Dr Mary Brazelton

Department of History and Philosophy of Science

Dr Marta Halina, SE

Department of History and Philosophy of Science

Dr Thies Lindenthal, MUR

Department of Land Economy

School of Technology

Dr Kan Chu

Judge Business School

Dr Graham Christie, PET

Department of Chemical Engineering and Biotechnology

 

STATISTICAL SUMMARY

Attached as Annex A to this Report is a statistical summary of the number of successful and unsuccessful applications for promotions by Professorships, Readerships and Senior Lectureships.

Senior Academic Promotions, 2020 – Annex A:
Statistical summary of outcomes

Professorships

School Committee

Successful

Unsuccessful

Total

Arts and Humanities

10

(5M    5W)

6

(4M    2W)

16

(9M    7W)

Biological Sciences

5

(4M    1W)

5

(3M    2W)

10

(7M    3W)

Clinical Medicine

5

(4M    1W)

1

(1M    0W)

6

(5M    1W)

Humanities and Social Sciences

3

(2M    1W)

5

(4M    1W)

8

(6M    2W)

Physical Sciences

9

(7M    2W)

3

(2M    1W)

12

(9M    3W)

Technology

10

(9M    1W)

3

(2M    1W)

13

(11M    2W)

Total

42

(31M  11W)

23

(16M    7W)

65

(47M  18W)

Readerships

School Committee

Successful

Unsuccessful

Total

Arts and Humanities

7

(4M    3W)

7

(6M    1W)

14

(10M    4W)

Biological Sciences

6

(5M    1W)

3

(2M    1W)

9

(7M     2W)

Clinical Medicine

7

(6M    1W)

1

(1M    0W)

8

(7M    1W)

Humanities and Social Sciences

17

(6M  11W)

7

(3M    4W)

24

(9M  15W)

Physical Sciences

12

(11M    1W)

3

(3M    0W)

15

(14M   1W)

Technology

8

(7M    1W)

3

(2M    1W)

11

(9M    2W)

Total

57

(39M  18W)

24

(17M    7W)

81

(56M  25W)

University Senior Lectureships

School Committee

Successful

Unsuccessful

Total

Arts and Humanities

4

(3M    1W)

2

(1M    1W)

6

(4M    2W)

Biological Sciences

3

(3M    0W)

2

(1M    1W)

5

(4M    1W)

Clinical Medicine

0

(0M    0W)

0

(0M    0W)

0

(0M    0W)

Humanities and Social Sciences

10

(5M    5W)

2

(2M    0W)

12

(7M    5W)

Physical Sciences

0

(0M    0W)

0

(0M    0W)

0

(0M    0W)

Technology

2

(1M    1W)

0

(0M    0W)

2

(1M    1W)

Total

19

(12M    7W)

6

(4M    2W)

25

(16M    9W)

Report of the General Board on the establishment of certain Professorships

The General Board begs leave to report to the University as follows:

1. The General Board recommends the establishment of a Royal Academy of Engineering Research Professorship of Materials Physics and a Professorship of Applied Mathematics. The funding arrangements for these professorships, as set out in paragraphs 2 and 3 below, were approved by the Chair of the Resource Management Committee on behalf of the Committee on 27 March 2020.

2. The Faculty Board of Physics and Chemistry and the Council of the School of the Physical Sciences propose the establishment of a Royal Academy of Engineering Research Professorship of Materials Physics, assigned to the Department of Physics. The holder of the Royal Academy of Engineering Research Professorship of Materials Physics will be Dr Jacqui Cole. The full salary costs of the Professorship will be met from the funding for an existing Royal Academy of Engineering Research Chair Fellowship held by Dr Cole, which runs to 30 September 2023. The term of the Professorship will be coterminous with the external funding; it will initially be established from 1 June 20201 until 30 September 2023, with the possibility of extension from 1 October 2023 should further funding be agreed.

3. The Faculty Board of Mathematics and the Council of the School of the Physical Sciences propose the establishment of a Professorship of Applied Mathematics for a single tenure from 1 October 2021 in the Department of Applied Mathematics and Theoretical Physics. The salary costs of the Professorship will be shared equally between the Department and the School from existing resources. The holder of the Professorship will be Professor David Abrahams, the current N. M. Rothschild & Sons Professor of Mathematical Sciences and Director of the Isaac Newton Institute for Mathematical Sciences. When Professor Abrahams was appointed in October 2016, the contractual terms of his employment included the establishment of an ad hominem Professorship when his five‑year tenure as Rothschild Professor and Director of the Isaac Newton Institute concluded on 30 September 2021.

4.The General Board recommends:

I.That a Royal Academy of Engineering Research Professorship of Materials Physics be established in the University for Dr Jacqui Cole from 1 June 2020 until 30 September 2023 or for the duration of the external funding if extended beyond that date, placed in the Schedule to Special Ordinance C (vii) 1, and assigned to the Department of Physics.

II.That a Professorship of Applied Mathematics be established in the University for Professor David Abrahams from 1 October 2021 for a single tenure, placed in the Schedule to Special Ordinance C (vii) 1, and assigned to the Department of Applied Mathematics and Theoretical Physics.

23 June 2020

Stephen Toope,Vice-Chancellor

Nicholas Holmes

Graham Virgo

Philip Allmendinger

Patrick Maxwell

Mark Wormald

Kristine Black-Hawkins

Nigel Peake

Christopher Young

Ann Copestake

Anna Philpott

John Dennis

Richard Rex

Footnote

  • 1If the proposal is approved, the establishment of the Professorship will be backdated to 1 June 2020.

Report of the General Board on the authority to award doctoral degrees

The General Board begs leave to report to the University as follows:

1. This Report proposes changes to the authority to approve doctoral degrees.1

2. In Michaelmas Term 2018 the General Board, through its Education Committee, initiated a review of governance arrangements for postgraduate and graduate students. Following the review, proposals for changes to current governance arrangements were approved by the Regent House by ballot, to take effect from 1 October 2020 (Reporter, 6570, 2019–20, p. 155).

3. The Board of Graduate Studies will be dissolved on 30 September 2020 and its work will transfer to a new Postgraduate Committee, a sub‑committee of the General Board’s Education Committee. The Postgraduate Committee, under the direction of the Education Committee, is to undertake a review of its work to identify the most appropriate governance and operational arrangements for postgraduate student matters.

4. In October 2019 the Education Committee established an Enquiry Group to start the review of the work of the Postgraduate Committee. The Enquiry Group considered, inter alia, the transfer of the authority to award doctoral degrees from the Board of Graduate Studies (Postgraduate Committee) to Degree Committees.

5. The Enquiry Group consulted Degree Committees about the proposed transfer of the authority to award, or not award, doctoral degrees. All but one of the Degree Committees were in favour of assuming the authority to award doctoral degrees. A number of Degree Committees (9 out of 14 Degree Committees who responded to this question) indicated a preference for decisions not to award a degree or to award a lower degree (e.g. Master of Science or Master of Letters) to be ratified by a central University committee.

6. The Enquiry Group recommended to the Education Committee a transfer of the authority to award doctoral degrees from the Board of Graduate Studies (Postgraduate Committee) to Degree Committees, to take effect on 1 October 2020. The Education Committee approved this recommendation on 18 March 2020.2

7. The General Board endorses the transfer of degree-awarding authority to Degree Committees, subject to ratification by the General Board of decisions not to award a degree or to award a lower degree. In practice, this ratification would be delegated to the Board’s Education Committee. The General Board supports this change on the following grounds:

(a)it will speed up the degree-awarding process, a key benefit for students;

(b)it removes an unnecessary stage of oversight. The Board of Graduate Studies does not currently review recommendations from Degree Committees for the award of a degree.

8. If this change is approved, the General Board shall make the changes to General Board Regulations set out in Annex A. Management of thesis submissions, confirmation of necessary corrections to theses and confirmation of the award of degrees will continue to be carried out within the Student Registry.

9.The General Board recommends:

I.That, with effect from 1 October 2020, the authority to award doctoral degrees passes to Degree Committees.

23 June 2020

Stephen Toope,Vice-Chancellor

John Dennis

Anna Philpott

Philip Allmendinger

Nicholas Holmes

Richard Rex

Kristine Black-Hawkins

Ali Hyde

Graham Virgo

Alessandro Ceccarelli

Patrick Maxwell

Mark Wormald

Ann Copestake

Nigel Peake

Christopher Young

Footnotes

  • 1Doctor of Philosophy, Doctor of Philosophy (Special Regulations), Doctor of Medicine, Doctor of Medicine (Special Regulations), Doctor of Business, Doctor of Education, Doctor of Engineering, Doctor of Veterinary Medicine.

  • 2See the Notice on p. 477 for details of other Enquiry Group recommendations that the Education Committee has approved.

ANNEX A

Proposed changes to General Board Regulations with effect from 1 October 2020.

(1) By amending the Regulations for the Doctor of Business (Statutes and Ordinances, p. 458) as follows:

(a)by amending Regulation 12 to read as follows:

12. If, after considering the reports of the Examiners on the examinations specified in Regulation 6, the Degree Committee is satisfied that the student’s work is of the requisite standard for the degree, its decision shall be communicated to the Student Registry, together with the reports of the Examiners. The Student Registry shall publish a notice of the candidate’s approval for the award of the degree unless the candidate has requested the removal of her or his name from the published list in accordance with a procedure approved from time to time by the General Board.

(b)by amending Regulation 13 to read as follows:

13. If, after considering the reports of the Examiners, the Degree Committee considers that a student’s thesis is not of the requisite standard for the Bus.D. Degree, the Degree Committee may permit the student to submit a revised thesis. The decision of the Degree Committee shall be communicated to the Student Registry, together with the reports of the Examiners. A student shall not be allowed to submit a revised thesis on more than one occasion.

(c)by amending Regulation 14 to read as follows:

14. If, after considering the reports of the Examiners, the Degree Committee considers that a student’s work is not of the standard requisite for the Bus.D. Degree, but that it is of the standard requisite for the M.Sc. Degree, its recommendation to that effect shall be communicated to the General Board, together with the reports of the Examiners. If after receiving such communication the Board decides that the candidate could properly be approved for the award of the lower degree, the Registrary shall ask the candidate whether he or she is willing to be approved for the award of the M.Sc. Degree. The deadline for receipt of the candidate’s agreement shall be the last day of the term following the term or vacation in which the decision on her or his candidature was made. If the Registrary receives the candidate’s agreement by the deadline or the General Board at its discretion decides to accept it after the deadline, the General Board shall approve the candidate for the award of that degree. The Registrary shall publish a notice of such approval unless the candidate has requested the removal of her or his name from the published list in accordance with a procedure approved from time to time by the General Board.

(d)by amending Regulation 15 to read as follows:

15. The Degree Committee shall be the deciding authority on all decisions that candidates be approved for the award of the Bus.D. or that they be allowed to submit revised theses. The General Board shall be the deciding authority on all recommendations communicated to it by Degree Committees that candidates not be approved for the award of the Bus.D. or be approved for the award of M.Sc. Degree. The Board shall not approve a candidate for the award of a degree unless the Degree Committee has recommended the award of that degree; before refusing an award so recommended, the Board shall give a representative appointed by the Degree Committee an opportunity of explaining the Committee’s reasons for its recommendation.

(2) By amending the Regulations for the Doctor of Education (Statutes and Ordinances, p. 471) as follows:

(a)by amending Regulation 13 to read as follows:

13. If, after considering the reports of the Examiners, the Degree Committee is satisfied that the candidate’s work is of the requisite standard for the degree, its decision shall be communicated to the Student Registry, together with the reports of the Examiners. The Student Registry shall publish a notice of the candidate’s approval for the award of the degree unless the candidate has requested the removal of her or his name from the published list in accordance with a procedure approved from time to time by the General Board.

(b)by amending Regulation 14 to read as follows:

14. If, after considering the reports of the Examiners, the Degree Committee considers that the candidate’s thesis is not of the requisite standard for the degree, the Degree Committee may permit the candidate to submit a revised thesis. The decision of the Degree Committee shall be communicated to the Student Registry, together with the reports of the Examiners. A student shall not be allowed to submit a revised thesis on more than one occasion.

(c)by amending Regulation 15 to read as follows:

15. If, after considering the reports of the Examiners, the Degree Committee considers that the candidate’s work is not of the standard requisite for the Ed.D. Degree, but that it is of the standard requisite for the M.Litt. Degree, its recommendation shall be communicated to the General Board, together with the reports of the Examiners. If after receiving such communication the Board decide that the candidate could properly be approved for the award of the lower degree, the Registrary shall ask the candidate whether he or she is willing to be approved for the award of the M.Litt. Degree. The deadline for receipt of the candidate’s agreement shall be the last day of the term following the term or vacation in which the decision on her or his candidature was made. If the Registrary receives the candidate’s agreement by the deadline or the General Board at its discretion decides to accept it after the deadline, the General Board shall approve the candidate for the award of that degree. The Registrary shall publish a notice of such approval unless the candidate has requested the removal of her or his name from the published list in accordance with a procedure approved from time to time by the General Board.

(d)By amending Regulation 16 to read as follows:

16. The Degree Committee shall be the deciding authority on all decisions that candidates be approved for the award of the Ed.D. or that they be allowed to submit revised theses. The General Board shall be the deciding authority on all recommendations communicated to it by Degree Committees that candidates not be approved for the award of the Ed.D. or be approved for the award of M.Litt. Degree. The General Board shall not approve a candidate for the award of an M.Litt Degree unless the Degree Committee has recommended the award of that degree; before refusing an award so recommended the Board shall give a representative appointed by the Degree Committee an opportunity of explaining the Committee’s reasons for its recommendation.

(3) By amending the Regulations for the Doctor of Engineering (Statutes and Ordinances, p. 474) as follows:

(a)by amending Regulation 13 to read as follows:

13. If, after considering the reports of the Examiners on the examinations specified in Regulation 7, the Degree Committee is satisfied that the student’s work is of the requisite standard for the degree, its decision shall be communicated to the Student Registry, together with the reports of the Examiners. The Student Registry shall publish a notice of the candidate’s approval for the award of the degree unless the candidate has requested the removal of her or his name from the published list in accordance with a procedure approved from time to time by the General Board.

(b)by amending Regulation 14 to read as follows:

14. If, after considering the reports of the Examiners, the Degree Committee consider that a student’s thesis is not of the requisite standard for the degree, the Degree Committee may permit the student to submit a revised thesis. The decision of the Degree Committee shall be communicated to the Student Registry, together with the reports of the Examiners. A student shall not be allowed to submit a revised thesis on more than one occasion.

(c)by amending Regulation 15 to read as follows:

15. If, after considering the reports of the Examiners, the Degree Committee considers that a student’s work is not of the standard requisite for the Eng.D. Degree, but that it is of the standard requisite for the M.Sc. Degree, its recommendation shall be communicated to the General Board, together with the reports of the Examiners. If after receiving such communication the Board decides that the candidate could properly be approved for the award of the lower degree, the Registrary shall ask the candidate whether he or she is willing to be approved for the award of the M.Sc. Degree. The deadline for receipt of the candidate’s agreement shall be the last day of the term following the term or vacation in which the decision on her or his candidature was made. If the Registrary receives the candidate’s agreement by the deadline or the General Board at its discretion decides to accept it after the deadline, the General Board shall approve the candidate for the award of that degree. The Registrary shall publish a notice of such approval unless the candidate has requested the removal of her or his name from the published list in accordance with a procedure approved from time to time by the General Board.

(d)by amending Regulation 16 to read as follows:

16. The Degree Committee shall be the deciding authority on all decisions that candidates be approved for the award of the Eng.D. or that they be allowed to submit revised theses. The General Board shall be the deciding authority on all recommendations communicated to it by Degree Committees that candidates not be approved for the award of the Eng.D. or be approved for the award of M.Sc. Degree. The Board shall not approve a candidate for the award of an M.Sc. Degree unless the Degree Committee has recommended the award of that degree; before refusing an award so recommended they shall give a representative appointed by the Degree Committee an opportunity of explaining the Committee’s reasons for its recommendation.

(e)by amending Regulation 17 to read as follows:

17. If after considering the reports of the Examiners the Degree Committee resolves that a candidate’s work is not of the requisite standard for any degree, and if the Committee does not recommend that the candidate be allowed to submit a revised thesis, its recommendation shall be communicated to the General Board, together with the reports of the Examiners. If after receiving such communication the Board decides that the candidate could not properly be approved for the award of degree, the Registrary shall communicate this decision to the candidate.

(4) By amending the Regulations for the Doctor of Medicine (Statutes and Ordinances, p. 491) as follows:

(a)by amending Regulation 14 to read as follows:

14. The Degree Committee shall be the deciding authority on all recommendations for the award of the degree. If, after considering the reports of the Examiners on a candidate’s thesis and performance in the oral examination, the Degree Committee is satisfied that the candidate’s work is of the requisite standard for the degree, showing evidence of significant original contribution to the advancement of the science, art, or history of medicine, its decision shall be communicated to the Student Registry, together with the reports of the Examiners. The Student Registry shall publish a notice of the candidate’s approval for the award of the degree unless the candidate has requested the removal of her or his name from the published list in accordance with a procedure approved from time to time by the General Board.

(b)by amending Regulation 15 to read as follows:

15. If, after considering the reports of the Examiners of a thesis, the Degree Committee is of the opinion that a candidate’s thesis is not of the requisite standard for the degree, the Degree Committee may permit the student to submit a revised thesis. The decision of the Degree Committee shall be communicated to the Student Registry, together with the reports of the Examiners. A student shall not be allowed to submit a revised thesis on more than one occasion.

(c)by amending Regulation 16 to read as follows:

16. If after considering the reports of the Examiners the Degree Committee resolves that a candidate’s work is not of the requisite standard for the degree, and if the Committee does not recommend that the candidate be allowed to submit a revised thesis, its recommendation shall be communicated to the General Board, together with the reports of the Examiners. If after receiving such communication the Board decides that the candidate could not properly be approved for the award of the degree, the Registrary shall communicate this decision to the candidate.

(5) By amending the Regulations for the Doctor of Medicine (Special Regulations) (Statutes and Ordinances, p. 495) as follows:

(a)by amending Regulation 15 to read as follows:

15. The Degree Committee shall be the deciding authority on all recommendations for the award of the degree. If, after considering the reports of the Examiners on a candidate’s thesis and performance in the oral examination, the Degree Committee is satisfied that the candidate’s thesis and performance are of the requisite standard for the degree, its decision shall be communicated to the Student Registry, together with the reports of the Examiners. The Student Registry shall publish a notice of the candidate’s approval for the award of the degree unless the candidate has requested the removal or her or his name from the published list in accordance with a procedure approved from time to time by the General Board.

(b)by amending Regulation 16 to read as follows:

16. If, after considering the reports of the Examiners of a thesis, the Degree Committee is of the opinion that a candidate’s thesis is not of the requisite standard for the degree, the Degree Committee may permit the student to submit a revised thesis. The decision of the Degree Committee shall be communicated to the Student Registry, together with the reports of the Examiners. A student shall not be allowed to submit a revised thesis on more than one occasion.

(c)by amending Regulation 17 to read as follows:

17. If, after considering the reports of the Examiners, the Degree Committee is of the opinion that a candidate’s work is not of the requisite standard for the degree (and if the Committee does not recommend that the candidate be allowed to submit a revised thesis), its recommendation shall be communicated to the General Board, together with the reports of the Examiners. If after receiving such communication the Board decides that the candidate could not properly be approved for the award of degree, the Registrary shall communicate this decision to the candidate.

(6) By amending the Regulations for the Doctor of Philosophy, Master of Science, Master of Letters, and Master of Philosophy by thesis (Statutes and Ordinances, p. 507) as follows:

(a)by amending Regulation 16 to read as follows:

16. The Degree Committee shall be the deciding authority on all decisions that candidates be approved for the final award of the Ph.D., M.Sc., M.Litt. and the M.Phil. Degree by thesis or that they be allowed to submit revised theses. The Degree Committee shall be the deciding authority not to award the M.Phil. Degree by thesis. The General Board shall be the deciding authority not to award the Ph.D., M.Sc. or M.Litt. Degrees and, in the case of candidates for the Ph.D., to award a lower degree.

(b)by amending Regulation 17 to read as follows:

17. If, after considering the reports of the Examiners on a student’s thesis and performance in the oral or other examination, the Degree Committee is satisfied that the student’s work is of the requisite standard for the Ph.D. Degree for which he or she is a candidate, its decision shall be communicated to the Student Registry, together with the reports of the Examiners. The Student Registry shall publish a notice of the candidate’s approval for the award of the degree unless the candidate has requested the removal or her or his name from the published list in accordance with a procedure approved from time to time by the General Board.

(c)by amending Regulation 19 to read as follows:

19. If, after considering the reports of the Examiners, the Degree Committee considers that a student’s thesis is not of the requisite standard for the degree for which he or she is a candidate, the Degree Committee may permit the student to submit a revised thesis. The decision of the Degree Committee shall be communicated to the Student Registry, together with the reports of the Examiners. A student shall not be allowed to submit a revised thesis on more than one occasion.

(d)by amending Regulation 20 to read as follows:

20. If, after considering the reports of the Examiners, the Degree Committee considers that a student’s work is not of the standard requisite for the Ph.D. Degree, but that it is of the standard requisite for the M.Sc. or M.Litt. Degree, its recommendation shall be communicated to the General Board, together with the reports of the Examiners. If after receiving such communication the Board decides that the candidate could properly be approved for the award of the lower degree, the Registrary shall ask the candidate whether he or she is willing to be approved for the award of the M.Sc. or M.Litt. Degree. The deadline for receipt of the candidate’s agreement shall be the last day of the term following the term or vacation in which the decision on her or his candidature was made. If the Registrary receives the candidate’s agreement by the deadline or the General Board at its discretion decides to accept it after the deadline, the General Board shall approve the candidate for the award of that degree. The Registrary shall publish a notice of such approval unless the candidate has requested the removal of her or his name from the published list in accordance with a procedure approved from time to time by the General Board.

(e)by amending Regulation 21 to read as follows:

21. If after considering the reports of the Examiners for the M.Phil. Degree by thesis the Degree Committee resolves that a candidate’s work is not of the requisite standard for any degree, and if the Committee does not recommend that the candidate be allowed to submit a revised thesis, the Degree Committee shall communicate its decision to the student. If, after considering the reports of the Examiners for the Ph.D., M.Sc., or M.Litt., the Degree Committee resolves that a candidate’s work is not of the requisite standard for any degree, and if the Committee does not recommend that the candidate be allowed to submit a revised thesis, its recommendation shall be communicated to the General Board, together with the reports of the Examiners. If after receiving such communication the Board decides that the candidate could not properly be approved for the award of degree, the Registrary shall communicate this decision to the candidate.

(7) By amending the Regulations for the Doctor of Veterinary Medicine (Old Regulations) (Statutes and Ordinances, p. 582) as follows:

(a)by amending Regulation 12 to read as follows:

12. The Degree Committee shall be the deciding authority on all decisions that candidates be approved for the award of the Vet.M.D. or that they be allowed to submit revised theses. If, after considering the reports of the Examiners on a candidate’s thesis and performance in the oral examination, the Degree Committee is satisfied that the candidate’s work is of the requisite standard for the degree, its decision shall be communicated to the Student Registry, together with the reports of the Examiners. The Student Registry shall publish a notice of the candidate’s approval for the award of the degree unless the candidate has requested the removal or her or his name from the published list in accordance with a procedure approved from time to time by the General Board.

(b)by amending Regulation 13 to read as follows:

13. If, after considering the reports of the Examiners, the Degree Committee is of the opinion that a candidate’s thesis is not of the requisite standard for the degree, the Degree Committee may permit the student to submit a revised thesis. The decision of the Degree Committee shall be communicated to the Student Registry, together with the reports of the Examiners. A student shall not be allowed to submit a revised thesis on more than one occasion.

(c)by amending Regulation 14 to read as follows:

14. If, after considering the reports of the Examiners, the Degree Committee is of the opinion that a candidate’s work is not of the requisite standard for the degree, and if the Committee does not recommend that the candidate be allowed to submit a revised thesis, its recommendation shall be communicated to the General Board, together with the reports of the Examiners. If after receiving such communication the Board decides that the candidate could not properly be approved for the award of the degree, the Registrary shall communicate this decision to the candidate.

(8) By amending the Regulations for the Doctor of Veterinary Medicine (Revised Regulations) (Statutes and Ordinances, p. 584) as follows:

(a)by amending Regulation 11 to read as follows:

11. The Degree Committee shall be the deciding authority on all decisions that candidates be approved for the award of the Vet.M.D. If, after considering the reports of the Examiners on a candidate’s thesis and performance in the oral examination, the Degree Committee is satisfied that the candidate’s work is of the requisite standard for the degree, the Committee’s decision shall be communicated to the Student Registry, together with the reports of the Examiners. The Student Registry shall publish a notice of the candidate’s approval for the award of the degree unless the candidate has requested the removal or her or his name from the published list in accordance with a procedure approved from time to time by the General Board.

(b)by amending Regulation 12 to read as follows:

12. If, after considering the reports of the Examiners, the Degree Committee is of the opinion that a candidate’s thesis is not of the requisite standard for the degree, the Degree Committee may permit the student to submit a revised thesis. The decision of the Degree Committee shall be communicated to the Student Registry, together with the reports of the Examiners. A student shall not be allowed to submit a revised thesis on more than one occasion.

(c)By inserting new Regulation 13 as follows and renumbering all subsequent regulations:

13. If, after considering the reports of the Examiners, the Degree Committee is of the opinion that a candidate’s thesis is not of the requisite standard for the degree, but that it is of the standard requisite for the M.Sc. Degree, its recommendation shall be communicated to the General Board, together with the reports of the Examiners. If after receiving such communication the Board decides that the candidate could properly be approved for the award of the lower degree, the Registrary shall ask the candidate whether he or she is willing to be approved for the award of the M.Sc. Degree. The deadline for receipt of the candidate’s agreement shall be the last day of the term following the term or vacation in which the decision on her or his candidature was made. If the Registrary receives the candidate’s agreement by the deadline or the General Board at its discretion decides to accept it after the deadline, the General Board shall approve the candidate for the award of that degree. The Registrary shall publish a notice of such approval unless the candidate has requested the removal of her or his name from the published list in accordance with a procedure approved from time to time by the General Board.