No 6714
Thursday 19 October 2023
Vol cliv No 4
pp. 39–64
The Board of Scrutiny begs leave to report to the University as follows:
1. The Board of Scrutiny was established on the recommendation of the Wass Syndicate (Reporter, 5399, 1988–89, p. 617) to provide independent analysis and oversight on behalf of the Regent House by examining the Annual Report of the Council (including that of the General Board to the Council); the Abstract of the Accounts; and any Report of the Council proposing allocations from the Chest. It has the right to comment on related matters that it believes should be drawn to the attention of the University, including issues of policy. Further information can be found on the Board’s website1 and in Statutes and Ordinances.2 The Board has the right of reporting to the University and this is its 28th annual Report. Previous Board reports may be found online;3 a summary of last year’s recommendations, the Council’s responses and the Board’s comments on those is in the Annex to this Report.
2. The Board encourages members of the Regent House, as the University’s governing body, to think about and engage in governance as part of a process intended to be complementary to, not in conflict with, the Council and the General Board. Nevertheless, the intention of the Wass Syndicate was to provide an additional mechanism for holding the Council to account for the increased powers it had acquired, particularly in relation to the items that the Board is required by Statute to examine.
3. Although the Board aims to assist the Council in its work, it is important to note that the Board is a constitutionally separate body, exercising the responsibilities and powers conferred by Statute as well as engaging with the conduct of business by, e.g., commenting at Discussions, or opposing, supporting, amending, or promoting Graces. The Board may be able to comment more freely than the Council, or to give greater attention to certain areas of business, and although it has some capacity to act on its own account, it can neither supplant the responsibilities of the Regent House collectively nor perform the work of the Council. We hope to encourage discussion and collaborative thinking across the University.
4. Thirteen meetings of the whole Board were held in person or online, including ten at which senior officers attended as guests: the Vice-Chancellor, Professor Deborah Prentice; the Acting Vice-Chancellor, Dr Anthony Freeling; the Pro‑Vice‑Chancellor for Strategy and Planning, Professor David Cardwell; the Pro‑Vice‑Chancellor for Enterprise and Business Relations, Professor Andy Neely; the Chief Financial Officer, Mr Anthony Odgers; the Registrary, Ms Emma Rampton; the Academic Secretary, Dr Michael Glover; the Chair of the Audit Committee, Ms Gaenor Bagley.
5. Working groups of members met with the Pro‑Vice‑Chancellor for University Community and Engagement, Professor Kamal Munir; the Pro‑Vice‑Chancellor for Research, Professor Anne Ferguson-Smith; the Pro‑Vice‑Chancellor for Education, Professor Bhaskar Vira; the Head of Education Services, Ms Alice Benton; the Head of the Office for Student Conduct, Complaints and Appeals, Ms Sarah d’Ambrumenil; the Director of Continuing Education, Dr James Gazzard; the Head of Student Support, Ms Natalie Acton; the Head of Student Admissions and Access, Mr Mike Nicholson; the Director of Estates, Mr Graham Matthews; the Director of Property Development, Ms Katherine Rodgers; the Director of University Information Services, Professor Ian Leslie; the Director of Human Resources, Ms Andi Hudson; the University Draftsman, Ms Ceri Benton; the Chair of the Council’s Business Committee, Mr John Dix; the Director of Research Services, Dr Peter Hedges.
6. Further information and assistance were provided by the Director of Governance and Compliance, Dr Regina Sachers. The Board is grateful to all of the above for their time and thought. The Board also once again records its thanks to Ms Rachel Rowe for her administrative support.
7. The academic year began with the publication by the Council of a Notice nominating Professor Deborah Prentice as Vice-Chancellor for seven years from 1 July 2023 (Reporter, 6668, 2022–23, p. 2). The Notice set out in detail the process followed by the Council’s Advisory Committee in arriving at a nomination for submission to the University. The Board commends what appears to have been an inclusive and consultative, albeit demanding, process. Professor Prentice’s term of office was subsequently amended to a period of six years and three months (Reporter, 6677, 2022–23, p. 141) to comply with the University’s retirement age. Dr Anthony Freeling served as Acting Vice‑Chancellor until 30 June 2023. The Board met with Dr Freeling twice during his tenure and is grateful for his openness in those discussions and his wise stewardship.
8. The change of leadership is an opportunity for the University to reflect and reassess, though the interregnum since the departure of Professor Toope and the shortening of Professor Prentice’s tenure means that the new Vice-Chancellor will have little time for such reflection. The Board welcomes the recognition by both the Acting Vice-Chancellor and the Vice‑Chancellor, in their respective Addresses to the Regent House in the year (Reporter, 2022–23: 6670, p. 37; 6708, p. 850), that academic excellence underpins all that we do and is vital to the maintenance of the University’s global reputation for research, scholarship and education. The Board looks forward to seeing how this influences the Vice‑Chancellor’s objectives.
9. In his 1 October Address Dr Freeling asked: ‘are we investing enough in our people?’ (Reporter, 6670, 2022–23, p. 38). The Board welcomes the implied intention to review the balance of expenditure between people – recognised by senior officers to be the University’s most important asset – and investment in buildings and facilities; but it is not clear whether the University has made progress in answering Dr Freeling’s question, or identifying what effective investment in our people would look like. Notwithstanding short-term financial pressures, the financial strength of the University, as reflected in the balance sheet and supported by the performance of Cambridge University Press and Assessment (CUP&A), puts it in a unique position to consider the best long‑term use of its resources to enhance the academic excellence of the University; we return to this below.
10. However, such longer term thinking, evaluation of options and decision-making are dependent on the University having the necessary capacity for strategic thinking. It has been represented to the Board that the University is not best served by existing arrangements and structures. The Council may want to reflect on the operation of the Council itself and also whether the strengthened senior academic and professional leadership introduced through the reforms of 2000–02, which enlarged the team of Pro‑Vice‑Chancellors and created the Unified Administrative Service (UAS), are delivering effectively. Any shortcomings might be addressed when determining the objectives for forthcoming Pro‑Vice‑Chancellor appointments.
11. The Board has concerns about the extent of change going on in the University, partly catching up from the Covid pandemic but also the numerous transformation programmes and projects under the Recovery Programme. The Council should satisfy itself that these projects benefit from sufficient oversight, give value for money and contribute sufficiently to the goal of academic excellence.
12. The Board commends both long-term endeavours and new programmes (such as the Foundation Year and STEM SMART) to increase and support applications to Cambridge by students from diverse backgrounds. Much of this work is done by Colleges but it is very well supported by the Cambridge Admissions Office (CAO). This work has brought notable success in meeting Office for Students (OfS) targets for our undergraduate intake, though some demographic groups and UK regions remain worryingly underrepresented, and overseas applicants come disproportionately from a single country.
13. The Council’s response to last year’s recommendation to devise a strategy for postgraduate recruitment and funding stressed the importance of diverse and flexible approaches. We welcome the heightened attention to postgraduate Widening Participation, including within CAO. Work to support funding and streamline the admissions process has improved matters, but the Board remains concerned that postgraduate student numbers are not well coordinated. We would welcome an update on the Council’s thinking about the size and shape of the University, and on any reviews that are taking place in this area.
14. The Board notes that undergraduate applicants from the UK maintained sector this year will have received their entire schooling in a period of restricted government spending. It commends the varied supportive work, often supplied by Colleges, to enable students, irrespective of background, to engage fully with the Cambridge undergraduate style of education, but remains concerned that such initiatives are not consistent, leading to inequalities of provision. The University should assure itself that we are supporting newly admitted students to benefit from the full range of educational opportunities we provide, as the impacts of the Covid pandemic continue to work through the school system.
15. The Cambridge Admissions system seems vulnerable to risk, as has been seen both in the decision-making around undergraduate interview format, and the unilateral withdrawal by CUP&A from their provision of key admissions assessments. This is an issue where University administration abuts College autonomy, but the governance of admissions is a matter of significant reputational risk for the University, and should be monitored carefully. A way should be found for speedier and more transparent collaborative decision-making by the various overlapping bodies.
16. Another area where College autonomy is paramount, but structural weaknesses present significant reputational risks for the University, is the provision of undergraduate supervisions. The Board notes with concern complaints about supervision capacity and scheduling, as well as the quality of supervision and marking of student work. We also note with concern the growth in complaints by supervisors about pay and working conditions, culminating in the announcement of a supervision boycott for Michaelmas Term 2023.
17. Although the Board recognises that contractual arrangements and pay‑scales for supervision teaching are wholly within the remit of the Colleges, it also notes that some Colleges increasingly struggle to recruit new UTO‑fellows who are able to deliver high-quality undergraduate supervisions in some subjects.
18. The Board believes that the University has a role to play in making sure that the ecosystem from which Colleges recruit supervisors can provide enough teaching in the required subject areas. Although the Board has not been provided with the data we have sought, it appears that University Teaching Officers (UTOs) now teach a smaller percentage of supervisions than previously, with precarious freelance supervisors filling the gap. Departmental policies, including processes for appointment, probation and promotion, do not address this trend and in some cases exacerbate it. The Board is concerned that this trend endangers the University mission of research-led teaching, with consequent risk to the reputation of the University.
19. The Board recommends that the University establish a review, with representation from the Colleges’ Standing Committee, to produce a strategy for facilitating the Colleges’ task of arranging supervisions. The review should examine how staff on permanent and temporary contracts within the University could be incentivised to deliver more supervisions, to create a more equitable and effective distribution of teaching load within the University. The details for the contractual and remuneration arrangements for this teaching would remain solely at Colleges’ discretion. The review should also investigate the greater potential for joint appointments, especially supporting Colleges that struggle to recruit teaching fellows.
20. The Board welcomes the new Pro‑Vice‑Chancellor for Education’s focus on workload. We encourage further creative thinking about achieving a better balance of workload for both students and staff. Discussions around academic culture have the potential to yield a more cohesive and productive University, and we look forward to seeing how these develop.
21. In last year’s Report the Board called attention to ongoing reviews of technology-enhanced teaching, learning and assessment, and we welcome the Council’s response (see Annex). We would also welcome a new Digital Education Strategy to replace the Digital Strategy for Education 2016–20.4
22. The Board commends the work done at University level to support student wellbeing, particularly implementation of the recommendations of the Strategic Review of Mental Health Provision. This is an example of successful partnership between the University and the Colleges, which shows the benefit of transparent, data-led leadership that enacts structural reforms where necessary by building consensus. Likewise, changes to the Accessibility and Disability Resource Centre (ADRC) have the potential to help manage the growth in caseload, and for supporting students better, but the planned restructuring into alignment with Faculties and Departments must be resourced and planned appropriately.
23. Important issues remain in the provision of support, access and mitigations. The close working of Student Support Services with the NHS should be commended, but in the current climate when many treatments for mental illness must be privately funded, a review of the way the University contributes to such funding would be welcome. Likewise, the growth in requests or appeals to the Examination Access and Mitigation Committee (EAMC) justifies a review, which should be joined up with other consideration of changes to examinations and assessment that take into account the growth of declared mental-health conditions as well as pandemic mitigations and new challenges presented by AI.
24. Another service to see a substantial growth in its caseload has been the Office for Student Conduct, Complaints and Appeals (OSCCA). This service, which has been fully onstream since 2019, seems to have been largely successful and welcomed by students; after a period of significant processing delays, it is working to a reasonable timescale. Some concern has been raised that sanctions are not consistent or transparent, and the Board commends ongoing work to improve this.
25. The Board notes that the University’s offerings of online courses and other open opportunities for continuing education have proliferated in recent years. An overall University strategy or governance of these seems to be lacking, and providers within the University seem in some cases to be in competition with each other.
26. The Board recognises that different providers, such as the Institute of Continuing Education (ICE), Cambridge Institute for Sustainability Leadership (CISL) and Cambridge Online Education (COE – also known as University of Cambridge Online)5 have different objectives, serve overlapping communities of learners and have different price points. As each evolves within a fast‑changing educational ecosystem there is a risk of insufficient differentiation, and excessive internal competition to the detriment of all. Without sufficient oversight, different providers may come into conflict, and the reputation of the University may be at risk.
27. The Board recommends that the General Board’s Education Committee (GBEC) establish a regular review of all part‑time accredited and non‑accredited courses offered by the University or its subsidiaries, focusing especially on online courses, to ensure that there is both outward‑facing clear differentiation between providers and the elimination of the risk of counterproductive internal competition. This review should also have the aim of assuring the Regent House that new providers consistently meet the aims of the University, are of high educational quality, and are robustly governed.
28. As noted in the General Board’s Annual Report (Reporter, 6679, 2022–23, p. 197; paragraph 1.3) the University performed well in REF 2021, with Cambridge ranking first in the Times Higher Education league table ‘amongst institutions that conduct research in a diverse range of disciplines across all four main panel areas (a rise from second in 2014).’ The University submitted 2,982 academics and researchers, a 25% increase on 2014. However, submissions from the sector as a whole increased by 46%, which means that despite the improved performance in quality, the University’s overall share of QR funding has declined. There is a need for the University to reflect on whether this drop in its ‘market share’ should be a cause for concern.
29. The Board commends the efforts of the General Board to analyse and learn lessons from the University’s successful performance in REF 2021. It notes the value of central REF administration funds (which received £10m over seven years) and applauds the work of the central REF team, including the Research Information Group. The Board asks what efforts are underway to ensure that staff capacity and institutional memory gained during REF 2021 is not lost.
30. The University’s income from sponsors of research projects declined last year to £551.8m (from £588.6m in 2020–21). This figure does not include £131.4m of QR funding from Research England in 2021–22. This decline in research grant income was largely due to a reduction of income from UK Research Councils. For context, research income had grown considerably over the ten years to 2019 then stalled. This slow-down pre-dated the Covid-19 pandemic.
31. The zero growth in income from research grants and contracts against an increasing cost base (as noted in the Finance section of this Report) underlines the need for a better understanding of overhead recovery, including incentives for Departments to benefit from improved overhead recovery.
32. In recognition of the importance of sustaining research income and addressing the recent decline in funding from Research Councils, the University has implemented measures to help, notably the Large Grant Support Fund. The Board welcomes these measures.
33. It is timely for a wider strategic discussion about the nature and level of research funding that the University should aim to secure in the medium to long term. The Board notes that the University has no targets for research funding (a reflection of its devolved nature). It queries whether without some sort of measure we are genuinely in a position to know whether we are succeeding or failing. It also acknowledges that big grants are not in themselves a badge of research excellence, and commends and congratulates those who do excellent work which has little or no impact on the University’s corporate balance sheet.
34. In common with other areas of the University, the recent past has been a difficult time for the University’s Research Services, which has faced issues of staff retention and a high caseload. The Board commends the Pro‑Vice‑Chancellor for Research, who has worked with the leadership of Research Services and others to address outstanding issues, helped support staff, and improved working relations with academic staff. The Board believes that there is a role for continuing conversation about the balance of capacity between central Research Operations and capacity in Schools and Departments. The Board is agnostic on the outcome of such conversations, but urges that they should take place, noting apparent significant asymmetries between the component parts of the University.
35. The Board welcomes the ongoing attention to the risks to the University of failing to maintain and enhance the quality of our research ecosystem at the highest international levels of excellence. It notes the synergies with the recruitment and retention of people, but also the need to ensure that research-active staff are adequately remunerated and have appropriate pathways to timely promotion. The Board reminds the Council and the University that research excellence can only be achieved if workloads are manageable and staff are able to achieve an appropriate work–life balance. The Board is not wholly convinced that this is yet where it should be.
36. The Board notes the fundamental importance of individual academic freedom and the need to maintain and enhance research excellence. It also acknowledges the highly devolved nature of the research ecosystem within the University, which is an essential part of what Cambridge is, and generally serves the University well. However, the Board is also convinced that there is a growing need for wider conversations within the University about research strategy.
37. The Board recommends that the Council and the General Board should take an active role in sponsoring conversations about research strategy: asking what the University as a whole is seeking to achieve over the medium to long term and how we measure our success, and noting the obvious interconnections between research, research funding, and the overall financial health of the University.
38. The Annual Accounts and Financial Statements 2021–22 were published on the web in December 2022 and somewhat later (24 March 2023) in the traditional Reporter format (Reporter, 6694, 2022–23, p. 487). The former corporate-style document highlights the good news, impact, and achievements – leaving the financial details until later. The underlying financial operating performance is described as satisfactory while noting growing cost pressures. The helpful Segmental Analysis seeks to disaggregate the interlocking financial affairs of the four main areas comprising the ‘University Group’: core academic activities of the Academic University; the publishing and assessment activities undertaken by CUP&A; the Cambridge University Endowment Fund (CUEF); and smaller trusts and subsidiary companies not reported elsewhere.
39. Income and expenditure of the whole Group are both c. £2.3bn, the difference producing a small adjusted surplus of £25m representing the net result of a deficit in the Academic University and surpluses in CUP&A and CUEF. The University is fortunate to have a strong balance sheet and receive regular transfers of surpluses from CUP&A to support the core academic activities, primarily capital expenditure.
40. It is important to note that this income is no different from other Chest income and that allocation of it is at the discretion of the Regent House, on the recommendation of the Council. The current policy of using it for capital purposes may be good financial discipline, so as not to become over-reliant on it, but it would be legitimate to use it to stimulate growth in the academic University, for example by funding Ph.D. Studentships or new academic posts, or to leverage philanthropic funding.
41. The Statements noted above identify falls in research income and grants, and philanthropic donations, while holding out the prospect of improvements in the medium term in research income and high variability in the latter from year to year. The Statements also report the investment of £250m in a new Cambridge Multi-Asset Fund (CMAF) intended to provide greater returns than money market investments while retaining flexibility for operational use. This is laudable financial management but raises issues of transparency about the deployment of those funds and the governance arrangements for them.
42. In a similar vein, the Council’s Annual Report (Reporter, 6679, 2022–23, p. 186; see the paragraph on the ten-year cash-flow model) notes the release of £150m into the Investment Fund which, we were informed, is a rebadged Fund for capital expenditure. The Board considers that the latter allocation of Chest income ought to have been authorised properly through the Allocations Report, thus allowing the Regent House the opportunity to comment. Furthermore, moving sums of this magnitude around out of sight of the Regent House lacks transparency and presents a confusing message about the overall financial position of the Academic University.
43. The Board accordingly recommends that the Council: (a) publish a statement of the governance of the CMAF and report on its holdings and investment performance annually in the Financial Statements and Accounts; and (b) clarify the distinction between an allocation for a specific purpose and a Fund, e.g. the Investment Fund, propose Ordinances for any new Funds and – by analogy with the Strategic Planning Reserve Fund – publish an annual list of allocations from such Funds in its Annual Report.
44. The Allocations (Budget) Report for 2023–24 (Reporter, 6706, 2022–23, p. 782), published on 28 June 2023, notes a marked deterioration in the financial position of the Academic University as a result of costs exceeding increases in income. The strength of the balance sheet for the University as a whole (including CUP&A) and surpluses generated by the latter present a more positive picture. However, the forecast Chest deficit for 2022–23 has grown to £48.5m from an initial forecast of £42.7m, and this increases to a deficit (income-allocations) of £92.8m for 2023–24, the seventh deficit budget in succession. This figure is attributed to current levels of inflation and above-inflation increases granted to the UAS and to University Information Services (UIS), to satisfy increased calls on those services.
45. Income to Faculties and Departments from research grants and contracts appears to be flatlining at around £500m until 2024–25, having peaked at £518m in 2021–22 – a concerning trend at a time of high inflation. Student Fee income and investment income show good growth over the next three years.
46. The Board is concerned that the current content of the Allocations Report does not help it exercise meaningful oversight on behalf of the Regent House. The information provided is inadequate compared to previous years – a point made by a speaker in the Discussion of the Report which prompted a reply from the Council (Reporter, 6710, 2022–23, p. 882) undertaking to publish supplementary data.
47. The Report talks in broad terms about increasing income and reducing costs, with the aim of generating a cash‑flow surplus for reinvestment, but offers no plan beyond these aspirations except the constitution of a group to ensure that progress is made ‘towards the delivery of savings’; without an indication of the quantum of savings, or increased income, and the timetable for bringing the budget into surplus, this objective is meaningless. The development of Enhanced Financial Transparency (EFT) needs to be complemented by an improvement plan owned by the Planning and Resources Committee, approved by the Council, and against which progress will be monitored and reported to the Regent House.
48. The Board recommends that the Council: (a) in the course of 2023–24, agree and publish a plan for cost reductions/income growth to return the Chest budget to balance; and (b) review the format and content of the Allocations Report with a view to providing better information (as was the case until 2019) to improve transparency and enable the Regent House to understand trends in allocations, particularly between academic and non‑academic activities.
49. The Board heard a number of assertions that the estate was much bigger than was needed for the University’s core academic activities. Of the 8m sq ft of the estate, senior officers estimated that some 10%–20% could be disposed of without impacting on teaching and research. It was argued that a smaller, more efficient estate would facilitate a focus on quality, effectiveness and sustainability.
50. However, the Board is concerned that statements about inefficient current space usage appear to rely on intuition and anecdote alongside more robust – but not always granular – data. Until a mechanism is in place to gather utilisation data, decisions on estate usage, refurbishment or rationalisation will rest on insecure foundations. Plans are being assembled to collect such data and the Board encourages speedy implementation of this task in order to inform the development of the ten‑year strategy which the Estates Committee has been instructed to prepare (see the Council’s response to the Board’s fourth recommendation: Reporter, 6684, 2022–23, p. 288 at p. 290).
51. The Board noted that progress in identifying synergies across institutions remains slow, and compromises necessary to implement change seem hard to agree. Opportunities for collaboration on estate use across the collegiate University remain a largely unexplored possibility.
52. The Board recommends that the Estates Division expedite the gathering of robust space utilisation data so that informed decisions can be made on the size and shape of the estate.
53. The University’s estate is both a strategic asset and a financial drain (maintenance alone costs £100m per annum). Success or failure in its management are critical to the University’s reputation and ability to attract world‑class researchers and staff. The relatively new senior management team of the Estates Division now considers it has much greater visibility of the challenges it faces, having spent much of the last three years resolving some fundamental issues. After these three years of assessment, orientation and planning work, the Estates team’s focus should now be switching to implementation and delivery, with clear ownership of the strategy and accountability for its delivery.
54. During 2022–23 the Board raised specific concerns about the University Centre, after its refurbishment and apparent repurposing to provide teaching space and removal of catering facilities began with minimal consultation. The future of the building is now being considered as part of the Reshaping our Estate programme. However, members of the University Centre reported that they themselves had not been consulted on either the current works or future arrangements.
55. The Council published a Notice (Reporter, 6697, 2022–23, p. 627) noting the Centre’s status as a membership organisation for the Regent House and others with an undertaking to conduct consultations about the future use of the building and possibly deliver a Report to the University. Those consultations should extend to the Wolfson Foundation, which funded its construction. The Board also understands that there is incipient discussion on the future use of the Old Schools and looks forward to discussions and consultations with members of the Regent House on this – including the Combination Room – too.
56. The new structure of the Estates Division is delivering benefits. Within the Division, the Property Board in particular is perceived as effective in gaining a better understanding of the purpose and performance of the non‑operational estate, and generating options for it, including advising on the commercial terms of transactions. The work involved in managing this estate and creating value from it should not be underestimated: if the University is to benefit fully from its assets, disposals and investments must be carefully managed to create value and manage risk exposure. To do this, while respecting the need for consultation and transparency, demands substantial resource.
57. The Board noted in last year’s Report that governance for the total operational estate was unclear. The new Estates Committee is helping provide clarity, bringing matters for discussion and decision at General Board and Council. The Committee has bred a greater sense of confidence within the Division that it has the means to obtain clearer decisions and implement actions.
58. The Board noted with concern that there appeared to be slow progress on planning for sustainability and the estate. Senior officers identified four main causes of such inertia: (i) in‑principle objections to the prioritisation of sustainability, on the grounds that the University’s charitable objects commit it to direct its limited resources towards teaching and research, which in turn contribute to sustainable aims; (ii) the size of the challenge being incalculable and the difficulties of planning amid uncertainty, with the changes in technology and need incentivising delay; (iii) the unaffordability of meeting the challenge with no secure source of funds; (iv) lack of ownership of the challenges.
59. While the declared net‑zero ambitions of the University are indeed ambitious, officers interviewed by the Board noted that the way to make progress was not to look at the overall desired outcome but to adopt a step‑by‑step way of achieving the end result. This would focus on deliverable parts of the whole within a clear risk and cost/benefit envelope in order to make progress. Reporting against milestones toward reducing scope 1 and 2 emissions to zero by 2048 seemed deficient and also appeared to reinforce the view of the overall challenge being possibly unachievable and in need of review.
60. The Board recommends that the Council set out deliverable projects for the estate, in order to provide greater impetus towards the University’s declared decarbonisation and sustainability goals within an affordable and risk‑contained framework.
61. Questions of recruitment to the Estates Division again arise (see the Board’s 27th Report, paragraph 45). Senior officers in the Division reported that the task of hiring professional staff with the necessary skills is hampered by unagile recruitment procedures, as well as uncompetitive salary structures in an expensive city. Recruitment seems critical to enhancing the Division’s reputation within the University.
62. The estate continues to present enormous challenges for the University, amply recognised by those working within the Division: a backlog of maintenance, the need to reshape the estate, and decarbonisation are seen as a triple‑headed challenge. A ten‑year capital plan is to be published in 2024 but the approaches to key issues have yet to be outlined. For example, the replacement of outdated heating and electrical systems lacks coordination, with unanswered questions about the sustainability of developing technologies.
63. It is essential that the Division maintain a robust understanding of staff and student experience alongside that of the culture of the University. This was noted in the Board’s 27th Report as an important factor in the delivery of change, but it may not yet be fully grasped within the Division.
64. The unresolved dispute with the University and College Union (UCU) over pay has dominated much of the year, culminating in the calling of a marking and assessment boycott. The Board will review the boycott next year, but in the meantime hopes the Council can reflect on what may be done to prepare for future such events and minimise disruption. The Council’s Annual Report refers, on the one hand, to the constraints of national negotiations while, on the other, reserving its position to adopt a different approach for the future while opting in to working through the University and Colleges Employers Association (UCEA) for the time being. This change of tone is welcome and the Board encourages the Council to pursue its line of thinking.
65. The Vice-Chancellor of the University of Oxford, on taking up office, announced a review of staff terms and conditions and recently University College London has announced a wide‑ranging restructuring of its pay and reward strategy. Against this background the Board was encouraged to hear about efforts to improve the University’s competitiveness and exercise greater flexibility over setting salary scales and bands. The difficulty of recruiting professional services staff has been repeatedly drawn to our attention in discussion with senior officers. In addition, the difficulty of renting or buying property is a major challenge, which needs addressing through an improved benefits package.
66. The Board welcomes what appears to be an improvement of the position of the Universities Superannuation Scheme (USS) – after protracted pressure from the sector – and the prospect of improved benefits and reduced contribution rates. The Board commends the Acting Vice-Chancellor and Chief Financial Officer for their persistence in advocating the University’s position.
67. The Board also welcomes the Council’s generosity in awarding an exceptional one-off payment of £1,000 to all staff in recognition of their contribution made during the Covid Pandemic, the additional payments to staff from November 2022 to April 2023 to support staff with the rising cost of living and the staff hardship grant for those staff facing exceptional financial hardship. It notes that the combined cost of the Covid thank‑you and Cost‑of‑Living payments was c. £26.5m, which was largely met from the Investment Fund, though we were informed (see paragraph 42) that the Fund’s purpose is for capital expenditure.
68. A Discussion on a Topic of Concern – Forced Retirement – took place on 24 January 2023 (Reporter, 6685, 2022–23, p. 304), following concerns about the Employer Justified Retirement Age (EJRA). In its response in March 2023 (Reporter, 6693, 2022–23, p. 474), the Council noted its announcement in February of an academic‑led review group to review the operation of the EJRA and whether the terms of the University’s Retirement Policy remain fit for purpose. A Notice published on 26 July 2023 (Reporter, 6710, 2022–23, p. 885) announced a two-phase consultation beginning in September 2023, with the intention of a second phase ‘expected to take place in the Lent Term 2024’ before the Review Group reports its final recommendations to the central bodies and the University in the Easter Term 2024.
69. This suggests a risk of the subsequent deliberations extending into 2024–25 before the matter is settled. It would be helpful for the Regent House to be informed what the group has achieved in the five months since it was established. A related development is that because of the pressure of other work, including the EJRA, the Council put on hold the review of unestablished posts which it had previously agreed to launch in Lent 2023 in response to a recommendation of the Board’s 27th Report. The issues are interlinked and the Board understands the reason for the deferral. However, the Board questions whether the EJRA review is proceeding as expeditiously as it might, given its importance to staff across the University, particularly those approaching retirement, and the associated reputational and legal risks. The Board urges the Council to accelerate the review if possible, to ensure publication before the end of 2023–24.
70. The Annual Remuneration Report (Reporter, 6694, 2022–23, p. 570) reports total emoluments of £526,000 (compared to £475,000 in 2020–21) to the outgoing Vice-Chancellor, mainly reflecting changes to the treatment of taxable benefits and USS opted‑out contributions. The ratios of the Vice-Chancellor’s total remuneration to the median pay of staff, and academic staff, increased to 11.9 and 6.7 respectively (2021: 10.7 and 6.0), again due to the significant changes referred to above. The Board takes this opportunity to remind the Council of the commitments it gave about its approach to setting the salary of Professor Toope’s successor in its response to the Board’s Twenty-sixth Report (Reporter, 6649, 2021–22, p. 283; see the response to recommendation 8), in particular that it would not expect the VC’s salary to increase at a higher rate than median academic salaries at the University. The Board looks forward to early publication of this further information as it relates to Professor Prentice.
71. In its 27th Report the Board expressed concern about the ability of the HR Division to respond adequately to the range and volume of business – both operational and strategic – that falls within its scope. The Council did not take up the Board’s suggestion that it would be timely to review the Division’s structure, including distribution of functions and expertise between the centre and that devolved to institutions, to ensure consistent service delivery across the University.
72. We were therefore disappointed in the course of the year to hear of concerns about operational delivery in two areas: the new system for the employment and payment of casual hourly‑paid staff; and delays in the payment of Examiners for the Tripos in summer 2022. We received adequate explanations and willingness to learn lessons and do better but these lapses, and frequent references to the pressure of other work, add to our concerns about the adequacy of the resources available to meet the University’s expectations of the delivery of what should be routine services.
73. The Board recommends that the Council direct the Registrary to propose the terms of reference for a review of the HR Division, possibly as the first in a rolling programme of reviews of UAS Divisions.
74. There have been important developments in the areas of Information Services. The defragmentation of the digital estate has been largely accepted as necessary, particularly since this will assist with cybersecurity measures. The Board received several comments about the further benefits of defragmentation including matters to do with better service levels, economies of scale and sustainability.
75. The Board also received concerns about how difficult it was to achieve beneficial changes. Resistance to change within the University’s systems and processes may hamper the University’s objectives for recovery programmes and ‘transformation’ projects. However, the Board noted that the establishment of clear lines of accountability for the implementation of changes would incentivise speedier and better delivery.
76. In its 27th Report the Board referred to the setting up of a Change and Programme Management Board (CPMB) to manage significant change programmes including those in the Recovery Programme. The Council’s Annual Report subsequently reported on the creation of a Change and Project Management Office (CPMO) to support the Board. The Annual Report of the General Board added more detail on the work of the CPMB and CPMO. The Board understands that an appointment of a Head of the CPMO has been made and recruitment to a significant team is in progress. The CPMB has made a good start in sequencing the order of implementation of Transformation Programmes to match the availability of resources and support; meanwhile, a number of projects originally in the Recovery Programme – originally thirteen projects – have transitioned to business as usual. The Board will be reviewing the CPMB and related matters, including delivery of objectives and savings, in the course of 2023–24.
77. Following consideration by the CPMB, the Enhanced Financial Transparency project now has a longer time in which to be planned and delivered. This will help ensure risk capacity is not exceeded and deliverable parts of concurrent projects will be sequenced better. The HR project needed to take precedence, given the higher risk of imminent failure of the current platform, and it was anticipated that once the platform was replaced real transformation should be possible and benefits flow. The roll‑out of MyHR is ongoing, and the Board will review this next year.
78. In its 26th and 27th Reports (Reporter: 6633, 2021–22, p. 62; 6672, 2022–23, p. 57) the Board expressed concern about the resourcing of the University’s governance processes, including the publication of the weekly Reporter (and special issues) and the timeliness and adequacy of published information available to the Regent House. The Board encouraged the greater use of digital approaches to this area of work. The Council declined to instigate a review, as suggested by the Board, but encouraged the Board to engage in discussions with the University Draftsman and colleagues.
79. The Board is somewhat reassured following such discussion; in particular, the small team has been strengthened enabling them not only to manage business as usual but also think about innovations. For example, the Reporter is still predicated as a print document, with a traditional format, notwithstanding that it is only published digitally. The Board encourages UAS to explore how the advantages of digital publication could be progressed, with a view to the Reporter being updated more frequently and acting as a gateway to other sources of information. The planned resumption of the Reporter in HTML format from Michaelmas Term 2023 is a welcome first step in this direction.
80. As well as weekly issues, the special issues of the Reporter constitute an important source of current public information and the historical record for those who are interested in trends and changes over time. The utility of this information is dependent on timely and predictable publication. Publication of the Roll of the Regent House and lists of Faculty members are regulated by Statute / Ordinance because of their importance as the University’s registers of electors. However, in recent years the University seems to have developed a hybrid arrangement where other information, previously published on a regular timetable, is published online-only, published first online and subsequently in the Reporter, or not published at all. Examples include the Officers numbers, the Financial Statements, and the Financial Management information.
81. The University’s record of openness and transparency, at the heart of maintaining the engagement of the Regent House and public accountability, has fallen into disrepair. The Board recognises that redressing these shortcomings extends beyond the confines of the Governance and Compliance team because the relevant ‘data owners’ are in different parts of the Unified Administrative Service (UAS). However, improving performance is a matter for the Registrary, both as Head of the UAS and Editor of the Reporter.
82. The Board recommends that the Council publish a timetable for the regular publication of special issues and certain Reports, to include the Financial Statements, Financial Management Information, Officers numbers, the Allocations Report, and the Annual Reports of the Council and the General Board.
83. On 14 July 2020 the Council called a Discussion on a Topic of Concern (Reporter, 6587, 2019–20, p. 563) in relation to decision-making during the Covid pandemic. A year later in its response to the Discussion remarks (Reporter, 6627, 2020–21, p. 768) the Council committed to publishing a Report on the management of future crises. Notwithstanding the Council’s intention to publish it by the end of the current academic year (2022–23), such a Report is still to appear, three years after the onset of the restrictions required by the pandemic.
84. The Board recognises the impossibility of legislating for every conceivable emergency or crisis that may arise; yet the absence of a framework or ‘road map’ of actions and principles to be adopted, which balances the need for prompt decisive action with the University’s self-governing processes, exposes the University to repetition of the unsatisfactory experience and shortcomings of 2020. The Board urges the Council to publish such a Report before the end of Lent Term 2024.
85. Discussions6 form an important formal part of the University’s self-government, allowing members of the Regent House to make remarks on proposals before the University, which are published; such remarks are required to be considered by the body responsible, and the Council is required to publish a response, which may modify the proposals, before the submission of a Grace. Discussions need not be limited to the discussion of Reports, and indeed have previously been used for the purposes of consultation with the Regent House.
86. Since 2020 most Discussions have taken place online, though provisions remain to request a Discussion be held in person. More recently a practice has developed of the Council calling ‘Town Hall’ meetings. Unlike Discussions these are not regulated by Special Ordinance, the contributions are not published, and responses are not required. The informality of such alternative fora has some attractions, but their lack of regulation is concerning. Accordingly the Board invites the Council to publish a statement outlining criteria which distinguish between a Discussion and a Town Hall meeting, and to consider Ordinances to regulate the latter. When Town Hall meetings are convened, as with the recent Grace on fossil fuels, we hope these can be a spur to action rather than a substitute for it.
1.The Board recommends that the University establish a review, with representation from the Colleges’ Standing Committee, to produce a strategy for facilitating the Colleges’ task of arranging supervisions. The review should examine how staff on permanent and temporary contracts within the University could be incentivised to deliver more supervisions, to create a more equitable and effective distribution of teaching load within the University. The details for the contractual and remuneration arrangements for this teaching would remain solely at Colleges’ discretion. The review should also investigate the greater potential for joint appointments, especially supporting Colleges that struggle to recruit teaching fellows.
2.The Board recommends that the General Board’s Education Committee (GBEC) establish a regular review of all part-time accredited and non-accredited courses offered by the University or its subsidiaries, focusing especially on online courses, to ensure that there is both outward‑facing clear differentiation between providers and the elimination of the risk of counterproductive internal competition. This review should also have the aim of assuring the Regent House that new providers consistently meet the aims of the University, are of high educational quality, and are robustly governed.
3.The Board recommends that the Council and the General Board should take an active role in sponsoring conversations about research strategy: asking what the University as a whole is seeking to achieve over the medium to long term and how we measure our success, and noting the obvious interconnections between research, research funding, and the overall financial health of the University.
4.The Board recommends that the Council: (a) publish a statement of the governance of the CMAF and report on its holdings and investment performance annually in the Financial Statements and Accounts; and (b) clarify the distinction between an allocation for a specific purpose and a Fund, e.g. the Investment Fund, propose Ordinances for any new Funds and – by analogy with the Strategic Planning Reserve Fund – publish an annual list of allocations from such Funds in its Annual Report.
5.The Board recommends that the Council: (a) in the course of 2023–24, agree and publish a plan for cost reductions/income growth to return the Chest budget to balance; and (b) review the format and content of the Allocations Report with a view to providing better information (as was the case until 2019) to improve transparency and enable the Regent House to understand trends in allocations, particularly between academic and non‑academic activities.
6.The Board recommends that the Estates Division expedite the gathering of robust space utilisation data so that informed decisions can be made on the size and shape of the estate.
7.The Board recommends that the Council set out deliverable projects for the estate, in order to provide greater impetus towards the University’s declared decarbonisation and sustainability goals within an affordable and risk-contained framework.
8.The Board recommends that the Council direct the Registrary to propose the terms of reference for a review of the HR Division, possibly as the first in a rolling programme of reviews of UAS Divisions.
9.The Board recommends that the Council publish a timetable for the regular publication of special issues and certain Reports, to include the Financial Statements, Financial Management Information, Officers numbers, the Allocations Report, and the Annual Reports of the Council and the General Board.
Seb Falk, Chair
Graham Allen, Secretary
David Butterfield
Gilly Carr
Rob Doubleday
Nazia Habib
Andrew Hammond
Rob Hopwood
Mark Purcell
Orsola Rath Spivack
Charles Read
2Statute A VII (Statutes and Ordinances, p. 10), and the Ordinance on the Board of Scrutiny (Statutes and Ordinances, p. 119).
3https://www.governance.cam.ac.uk/governance/key-bodies/Pages/scrutiny-annual-reports.aspx.
4https://www.educationalpolicy.admin.cam.ac.uk/files/digitalstrategy_final.pdf.
5Cambridge Advance Online, established as part of the Covid Recovery Programme, is now a ‘flagship initiative’ of COE, within CUPA (https://coe.cambridge.org/our-courses).
6See Sections 2(b) and 3 of Special Ordinance A (ii) (Statutes and Ordinances, p. 67) and the Ordinance on Discussions (Statutes and Ordinances, p. 111).
The Board is grateful to the Council for its very detailed response to last year’s Report, though it notes the substantial delay in the publication of the response. We append below a list of our Recommendations, together with some summary quotation of the Council’s response, and a brief comment on each.
1. The Board recommends that the Council undertake a review of the administration of the University’s self‑governing machinery, particularly the timeliness and adequacy of information provided to the Regent House and the scope for increased use of digital means to improve the provision and accessibility of up‑to‑date information.
Response: ‘The Council agrees with the Board that the University’s governance processes should be appropriately supported. However, it is not clear how the Board’s proposed review would resolve some of the matters to which the Board points in its Report. [...] Since the beginning of the current academic year the [Reporter] team has been back to full capacity, which should provide greater resilience and ability to support the publication of the Reporter.’
Commentary: The Board is grateful for the engagement of the University Draftsman and her Team (see paragraphs 78–79 above). Nonetheless, the timeliness and accessibility of information to the Regent House remains an issue worthy of further consideration.
2. The Board recommends that the EFT programme be implemented carefully but rapidly to enable the Council to establish and then publish just how serious the problem is, along with a plan to resolve it and, through collaboration with the Chief Financial Officer, to set specific quantified targets for revenue generation.
Response: ‘While EFT will shed a more detailed light on financial outcomes across the spectrum of University activities, the University is not dependent on EFT to understand the high-level shape of the academic University’s position and to start taking appropriate actions. [...] The University has weathered the financial impacts of the pandemic better than expected and has benefited from modest one-off income and suppressed discretionary spend. Therefore, over the past three years, the core academic University cash flow has in fact achieved a small surplus as a direct result of good financial discipline and indirect windfall income / reduced activities. However, it is still not achieving a sustainable overall core academic University cash flow surplus. [...] There is no reason not to start the shift in financial behaviours and targeted academic investment today. While prioritised and financially sustainable investment in academic priorities will be best supported by the replacement finance system, embedding EFT and supported by EFT policies in due course, in the short term it is important to recognise that there are still the funds and the means to invest in genuine academic priorities in line with the Acting Vice-Chancellor’s commitment to academic excellence.’
Commentary: The Board welcomes the recognition that improving the University’s overall financial position can progress independently of EFT. We comment further about actions in our 28th Report.
3. The Board recommends that the Council sets out how it will ensure proper accountability of UIS to the Regent House, while also encouraging and incentivising defragmentation of systems and processes across all institutions so that UIS is able to fulfil its growing role.
Response: ‘The Council believes that a combination of accountability and open communication is needed to build this engagement with the Regent House and the wider collegiate University community. The Council delegates oversight of the University Information Services (UIS) to the Information Services Committee (ISC), which the ISC in turn carries out both directly and through its sub-committees [...] Going forward, the Committee will publish important strategic documents, including the case for defragmentation, to all Raven users on ISC webpages. It will also publish its annual report to Raven users and provide a link in the Reporter.’
Commentary: The Board welcomes this, and will keep the issue under review.
4. The Board recommends that a structure assigning responsibilities between the Property Board and the Estates Committee is supported, and that both bodies should produce annual reports, with the Estates Committee beginning by updating the six-year-old Estates Strategy in light of the effects of the pandemic on working practices, changes to the plans for certain key sites, and the creation of the Property Board.
Response: ‘The Council approved terms of reference for the Estates Committee at its meeting on 28 November 2022 [published in a Notice dated 8 June 2023, Reporter, 6704, pp. 728–30]. These set out clearly the Estates Committee’s responsibilities for the governance of the operational estate, as a counterpart to the arrangements for governance of the non‑operational estate by the Property Board [...] The Property Board produces an annual report for the Finance Committee; the Council agrees with the Board of Scrutiny’s recommendation that a counterpart report should be produced by the Estates Committee. During 2023, the Estates Division will facilitate a process to define a ten‑year strategic estates plan.’
Commentary: The establishment of an Estates Committee is a welcome step forward. The Board will continue to monitor the development of a strategic estates plan, which will require leadership as well as facilitation.
5. The Board recommends that the Council devise a deliverable strategy for increasing the funding available for Ph.D. studies, to include investing in the Trusts and ensuring maximum participation in doctoral training partnerships.
Response: ‘The Student Support Initiative (SSI) has, as one of its key priorities, fundraising to increase the number of postgraduate students taking up a place at Cambridge, and to create a more diverse cohort of the most talented students. The SSI has brought significant funds (£198m) in for postgraduate students [...] Work is continuing on widening participation at postgraduate level [...] Discussions are ongoing with the Gates Cambridge Trust and the Cambridge Trust about how funds for scholarships and studentships might most efficiently and effectively be managed and distributed across the collegiate University. [...] A new team, the Postgraduate Research Office, has been established in Education Services to focus on matters relating to postgraduate research students.’
Commentary: The Board welcomes these developments, discussions and the ongoing attention to widening participation and the effective distribution of funding. However, much is aspirational and further work is necessary to augment the available funds.
6. The Board recommends that the scope and design of ongoing reviews of technology-enhanced teaching, learning and assessment are sufficiently broad and rigorous, and that further work continues to be undertaken following the end of the Technology-Enhanced Learning review to inform future strategy.
Response: ‘Beginning in October 2021, a comprehensive review of existing central and local services for the support of technology‑enhanced teaching, learning and assessment has been carried out by a small dedicated cross‑functional team based in Education Services. [...] the review has identified several key problems to be addressed and has provided decision-makers with a detailed understanding of the challenges and priorities for the provision of high-quality technology-enabled teaching, learning and assessment. One of its key outputs is a proposal for the nascent Technology‑enabled Learning Service to be relaunched as the Blended Learning Service [...] Future strategy for technology-enhanced teaching, learning and assessment will also include a review of the potential for expanded use of platforms for online education and assessment, including those being used by providers under the Board for Executive and Professional Education, Cambridge Advance Online, and the Institute of Continuing Education.’
Commentary: This is welcome; the Board looks forward to seeing how far the proposals are enacted across the University. We would also welcome a new Digital Education Strategy to replace the 2016–20 Digital Strategy for Education. The Board takes up the question of the diversity of online platforms in this year’s Report (paragraphs 25–27).
7. The Board recommends that the Council and the General Board urgently work to resolve concerns over inequitable treatment of non-Chest-funded staff and lack of parity between the two promotion pathways.
Response: ‘Funding for the new Academic Career Pathway (Teaching & Scholarship) scheme will be aligned to the normal budget process for Chest and Non-Chest funding. The costs of promotion under the scheme will therefore be treated in the same way as other costs of employing staff and, as such, be budgeted for in the normal way. In the longer term, under EFT, all costs of employing staff will be absorbed within the institutions that employ them [...] In this way, staff should be treated equitably irrespective of the source of funds or promotion pathway.’
Commentary: This is a welcome step forward in improving the treatment of non‑Chest‑funded staff.
8. The Board recommends that the Council announce a timetable for the completion of the reviews on casual workers and use of fixed-term contracts, and on the use of established and unestablished posts including establishment of fixed‑term Professorships supported by external funding, resulting in publication of suitable policy proposals in Reports.
Response: ‘Phase 1 of the review of casual workers who are teaching on a regular and ongoing basis began in two institutions over the summer vacation. Phase 2 started in October 2022 with a further thirteen institutions (the highest users of casual workers). Phase 3 will begin in the remaining 75 institutions in January 2023. Taking into consideration the current workload in institutions and allowing sufficient time to address any complexities that may arise, the project is expected to be completed by 31 December 2023. [...] Progress with the review of the University’s guidance on the use of fixed-term contracts has unfortunately been delayed [...] work will commence in Lent Term 2023. The HR Committee will receive a progress update at the end of Easter Term 2023. A review of the use of established and unestablished posts will commence in Lent Term 2023. The aim is for the HR Committee to consider a proposal in Michaelmas Term 2023.’
Commentary: The Board is glad to hear that reviews of the use of casual workers are underway, but would like more detail on what the results of these reviews have been. Some Departments and Faculties have been trialling the use of Guaranteed Minimum Hours Contracts for casual workers, but the selective use of these for some casual workers but not others has resulted in accusations (which may be accurate or inaccurate) of favouritism and discrimination in some Departments and Faculties. The wider review of the use of established and unestablished posts has been deferred by the HR Committee (see this year’s Report, paragraph 69).
9. The Board recommends that a Report on the management of future crises is published as a matter of priority.
Response: ‘The Council agrees with the Board that it ought to have in place a scheme to avoid the governance-related issues encountered during the early stages of the Covid‑19 pandemic. [...] It will present a Report setting out its proposals for making temporary changes to matters governed by Special Ordinance, Ordinance and Order by the end of this academic year.’
Commentary: The Board is glad that the Council believes it ought to have in place a scheme to avoid the governance‑related issues encountered during the early stages of the Covid‑19 pandemic. Nevertheless, over two years have passed and still no Report has been published on this topic. The Board recommends that the Council prioritise the publication and implementation of its proposals on this issue (see paragraphs 83–84 of this year’s Report).