No 6726
Wednesday 24 January 2024
Vol cliv No 16
pp. 234–243
24 January, Wednesday. End of first quarter of Lent Term.
26 January, Friday. Congregation of the Regent House at 2 p.m. (degrees in absence only).
28 January, Sunday. Preacher before the University at 11.30 a.m., The Revd Canon Michael Parker, KHC, CF, Chaplain‑General to HM Land Forces.
13 February, Tuesday. Lent Term divides. Discussion by videoconference at 2 p.m.
|
Discussions (Tuesdays at 2 p.m.) |
Congregations (at 10 a.m. unless otherwise stated) |
|
13 February 5 March 19 March |
26 January, 2 p.m. (degrees in absence only) 24 February 23 March 6 April |
Following consultation with the General Board, the Council has agreed to appoint Dr Diarmuid O’Brien, EM, Chief Executive of Cambridge Enterprise, to the office of Pro-Vice-Chancellor (Innovation) for three years with effect from 15 April 2024.
The Council made the appointment on the recommendation of its Nominating Committee for the appointment and reappointment of Pro-Vice-Chancellors (comprising the Vice-Chancellor as Chair; Ms Gaenor Bagley and Baroness Morgan of Huyton (members of the Council); and Professor Tim Harper and Professor Nigel Peake (members of the General Board)). Professor Jason Scott-Warren is also a member of the Nominating Committee, but was on sabbatical leave and so did not participate in the search process.
The Vice-Chancellor gives notice that an election is to be held to appoint one member of the University Council in class (c) (other members of the Regent House) under Statute A IV 2, following the death of Dr Ann Kaminski (Reporter, 6718, 2023–24, p. 117). The person elected will serve with immediate effect until 31 December 2024, the remainder of Dr Kaminski’s period of appointment.
The Council is the principal executive and policy-making body of the University. It has general responsibility for the administration of the University, for defining its mission, for the planning of its work, and for the management of its resources. The Council deals with relations between the University and the Colleges, and conducts negotiations with outside bodies on many matters (other than those relating directly to the educational and research programmes of the University, which are dealt with on its behalf by the General Board of the Faculties). It is responsible for the appointment or nomination of certain members of internal and external bodies, and for many student matters (excluding undergraduate admissions, which is a College concern). Further information about the Council is available to members of the University on the Council website (https://www.governance.cam.ac.uk/committees/council/). Questions about its work can be addressed to the Registrary by emailing registrary@admin.cam.ac.uk.
The University is committed to equality, which includes supporting and encouraging all under-represented groups, promoting an inclusive culture, and valuing diversity. Nominations from groups that are under-represented on the Council are welcomed.
The Council of the University of Cambridge is one of the few principal bodies in the higher education sector with a majority of members elected from internal constituencies; most equivalent bodies are made up predominantly of external members. The Council draws its strength from the expertise, engagement, and scrutiny of its members – those elected in its classes of senior members of the collegiate University as well as its external and student members. It is key to the continuing success of the University that elections to the Council attract strong candidates who are willing to share their knowledge and commit their time for the benefit of the University as a whole.
The University is both an exempt charity,1 and a corporation established by common law. Council members are therefore both charity trustees of the University and, effectively, its corporate directors. They have associated legal responsibilities and duties, including the promotion of the interests of the University and acting with integrity, care, and prudence. Under regulatory guidance, Council members must be ‘fit and proper persons’.2 It is important for candidates to recognise and accept the obligations that Council membership would confer upon them.
The Handbook for Members of the Council sets out the Council’s primary responsibilities and provides advice and guidance to members of Council on their legal and other responsibilities. Members of the Council are expected to attend all meetings of the Council. Members will not normally be able to take more than one term of leave during their period on the Council and may instead carry forward their leave entitlement. Potential nominees might wish to familiarise themselves with the key aspects of the University’s Statutes and Ordinances (https://www.admin.cam.ac.uk/univ/so/), and the most recent Budget Reports, Annual Reports and Financial Statements.3 A recording of an information session held in October 2022 with the Acting Vice‑Chancellor and other members of the Council on the role of the Council is available at https://www.governance.cam.ac.uk/committees/council/Pages/how-to-stand-for-election-to-Council.aspx.
Further useful information is provided by the Office for Students (https://www.officeforstudents.org.uk/advice-and-guidance/regulation/) and the Charity Commission (https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/the-essential-trustee-what-you-need-to-know-cc3). This information includes details of the extent of a charity trustee’s personal liability. Instances of personal liability are rare and unlikely to occur, providing trustees act honestly, prudently, in good faith, in the best interests of the University, and in compliance with legislation and the University’s governing documents.
In order to be eligible, candidates for election are asked to send their nominations to the Vice-Chancellor, to be received not later than 12 noon on Friday, 9 February 2024. The Vice-Chancellor asks candidates to address their nominations to the Registrary by email including electronic signatures to registrary@admin.cam.ac.uk. The nomination (which can be made on a form available on the governance site)4 should include (a) a statement signed by two members of the Regent House, nominating the candidate for election and specifying the class in which the candidate is nominated, and (b) a statement signed by the candidate confirming consent to be nominated. The candidate is also required to provide a personal statement by the same date (see below).
In accordance with the regulations governing the election (Statutes and Ordinances, 2023, p. 118), those standing for election should send to the Registrary, by 12 noon on Friday, 9 February 2024, a statement in support of their nomination, which will be provided to voters. Each statement should be no more than 500 words in length and should cover the following points:
•the candidate’s present position in the University;
•previous posts held, whether in Cambridge or in other universities or outside the university system, with dates;
•the candidate’s reasons for standing for election, and the experience and skills they would bring to the role;
•a note of the candidate’s particular interests within the field of University business.
The complete list of nominations will be published in the Reporter on Wednesday, 14 February 2024.
If the election is contested, it will be conducted by ballot under the Single Transferable Vote regulations. Online voting will open at 10 a.m. on Wednesday, 21 February and close at 5 p.m. on Monday, 4 March 2024. Hardcopy voting papers and supporting materials will be distributed not later than Wednesday, 21 February to those who opted in November 2023 to vote on paper; the last date for the return of voting papers is 5 p.m. on Monday, 4 March 2024.
1The University has charitable status but is exempt from the statutory requirement which otherwise obliges a charity to register with the Charity Commission. The Office for Students is the principal regulator of the University as regards its compliance with its legal obligations in exercising control and management of its administration as a charity.
2For a full definition of ‘fit and proper persons’, see: https://www.officeforstudents.org.uk/advice-and-guidance/regulation/registration-with-the-ofs-a-guide/public-interest-governance-principles/.
3See respectively:
https://www.governance.cam.ac.uk/committees/finance-committee/Pages/budget.aspx,
https://www.governance.cam.ac.uk/committees/council/Pages/council-annual-reports.aspx
and https://www.governance.cam.ac.uk/committees/finance-committee/Pages/fmi.aspx.
4A nomination form is available at: https://www.governance.cam.ac.uk/committees/council/Documentspublic/CouncilNominationFormLT2024.pdf.
The Council has received the Board of Scrutiny’s Twenty-eighth Report and the remarks made at the Discussion on 31 October 2023 (Reporter, 2023–24: 6714, p. 52; 6717, p. 104). It has provided its response below to the Board’s recommendations and the remarks made at the Discussion.
The Council commends the Board for its constructive, helpful Report. There are many points it raises which give food for thought beyond its main recommendations.
The Council takes this opportunity to amplify Dr Falk’s comments, as outgoing Chair of the Board, about the many ways in which members of the Cambridge community can make their views heard, using the means granted to members of the Regent House and beyond. It also echoes Dr Falk’s view about the opportunities that serving on the Board can bring.
The Board’s current Chair, Dr Doubleday, highlights the need for collective long-term thinking on a range of topics that are of importance to the future health and wellbeing of the University. He also draws attention to the way in which this is intertwined with the strength of the University as a self-governing institution. The Council agrees that these two themes are connected; it believes there is a strong, ongoing commitment among the members of both the Council and the General Board to consult on issues that matter to the community. This includes not just consultations on issues that directly affect University employees, such as new or updated HR policies, but also ones that give a steer on the direction that decision-making should take, such as the ongoing consultations prompted by the transformation programmes. It is one of the points that distinguishes this University from many of its peers.
As the Board’s former Chairs Dr Falk and Professor Mortier note, the Council had expected to publish its response to this Report earlier in the academic year. However, after agreeing to do so, the Council decided to trial a new meeting schedule,1 which meant this was no longer possible. The Council is in discussion with the Board to see whether it can receive the Board’s Report a few weeks earlier and therefore publish its response in the Michaelmas Term in future years. Regardless of the outcome of these discussions, any such change will not come into effect until the academic year 2025–26. The Council thus expects to publish its response to the Board’s next Report in Lent Term 2025 in accordance with existing practice.
A review of undergraduate teaching has been launched by the General Board and the Colleges’ Committee (Reporter, 6722, 2023–24, p. 197). The review has been commissioned at the Council’s request to address the institutional culture of overwork which is claimed to be contributing to poor mental health and wellbeing amongst the student population. It will also seek to address the related issue of the sustainability of the supervision system (in particular, the available resources for supervision, both personnel and financial, and the risks of low availability of supervisors affecting the quality of the education).
In making its recommendations, the group tasked with the review will also take account of staff workload, and any recommendations will be assessed to ensure that they do not increase staff load in the longer term, and ideally will reduce it.
This review sits alongside related work by the Colleges through the Office of Intercollegiate Services in response to demands from the Justice for Supervisors campaign. Work is being coordinated to ensure that efforts are not duplicated, and actions are complementary.
Part-time accredited programmes, including accredited online courses, are included as part of the Education Committee’s Education and Monitoring and Review process (EMR).2 This quality assurance process aims to monitor and review the University’s courses. It replaces the previous six-yearly Learning and Teaching Review (LTR) process, and the Annual Programme Review (APR) process. It applies to any Department, Faculty or institution offering award-bearing courses, including all Triposes, all Master’s programmes and doctoral courses, all courses listed as ‘non-member awards’ in Statutes and Ordinances, and the Language Centre CULP awards.
The purpose of EMR is to provide evidence-based, regular review of courses for quality monitoring and enhancement. A pilot took place in 2022, and is now being rolled out across the University.
Non-accredited professional and executive education and other non-accredited programmes are not currently formally regulated, although providers of such programmes have until recently been approved by the Board of Executive and Professional Education (BEPE). The General Board agreed to dissolve BEPE in Michaelmas Term 2023, as it was not able to fulfil its function owing to a lack of resource and official authority. The process of endorsement of providers was not sufficiently robust. The executive, professional and digital landscape has evolved significantly since BEPE was established in 2011, and facility to support strategic decision-making by the General Board is now required. Subject to identification of resource to support this work, terms of reference for a strategic review of non-traditional forms of education, including EPE and online courses, will be developed for 2024–25. Until this review is completed, new providers wishing to offer non-accredited programmes will be subject to light-touch consideration by the General Board’s Education Committee.
The Council welcomes the Board’s recommendation that the Council and the General Board should take an active role in sponsoring conversations about research strategy.
Academic freedom and the enabling of researchers to drive their research agendas within and between the six Schools via their academic visions, departmental strategic plans, interdisciplinary strategic research initiatives and research centres at multiple scales around key research priorities is core to the University’s mission and a key part of its historic success.
While it is essential that the University maintains this ethos, the Council agrees that more and wider conversations regarding research strategy have been beneficial in working towards the future success of Cambridge as a world-leader in research. The Council provided input into an Enabling Framework for Research, a proposed set of strategic principles, priorities and actions designed to facilitate the development and implementation of research strategy across the University. After wider consultation, the final report on the Framework is due for completion at the end of the academic year.
One of the aims of the Framework will be to facilitate the identification and support of key strategic priorities. This will build on recent experience of developing strategic priorities in the areas of Artificial Intelligence and Climate and Environmental Sustainability. In response to shared School strategic priorities in artificial intelligence, and after approval by the Research Policy Committee, the Planning and Resources Committee and the General Board, the University has launched a new institutional collective, AI @ Cam.3 Now in its second year, this initiative has harnessed the University’s capabilities in training, policy, research and societal engagement to foster an inclusive strategic programme in this area.
The Research Policy Committee has identified climate and environmental sustainability research as a priority area for the development of a strategic approach and has recently established a working group to consult with the wider University community on the articulation and implementation of a strategy in this area. This activity will draw on and be aligned with the recommendations of the Topping Study.4 The Council and the General Board will be consulted throughout this process. This model of strategy development, via researcher-driven, consultative processes and inclusive engagement with the University’s governance structures, may offer a model for developing strategies for other research priority areas.
Strategic alignment with major infrastructure developments also underpins advances in research and innovation. This includes for example the completion in 2024 of the Ray Dolby Centre and the new National Facility for Physics at West Cambridge, as well as the new Heart and Lung Research Institute which opened last summer adjacent to the Royal Papworth Hospital on the Cambridge Biomedical Campus. Renewing and revitalising the University’s estate is essential for maintaining and enhancing both competitive and collaborative research output. The University is also working to ensure alignment between strategic approaches to international collaboration and research. In particular, the University continues to build on existing international strategic partnerships such as the Cambridge Centre for Advanced Research and Education in Singapore (CARES) that celebrated its tenth anniversary this year by increasing the breadth of research programmes to deliver new cross-disciplinary initiatives linked to lifelong health and education. Similarly, research strategy is dependent on a successful strategy to support and attract staff and students. While the University remains attractive to early career researchers, especially through the UK Future Leaders Fellowship and ERC funding programmes, the work of the recently established Research Culture Steering Committee and projects such as Eddington will be vital to ensuring that we remain able to attract the best to work at Cambridge. New initiatives such as the Mastercard Foundation Scholars Program will similarly help to attract talented students from across the globe to the University.
The Council also notes the Board’s focus on the importance of research funding to the financial health of the University. Brexit and the uncertainty around association with the Horizon Europe framework had negatively influenced research grant income. It is anticipated that association commencing in January 2024 will go some way towards reversing that trend. Furthermore, evidence indicates that the large grants contributions fund implemented in October 2021 is incentivising Cambridge researchers across all disciplines to successfully respond to large strategic collaborative grant calls.
The Council welcomes the Board’s comments regarding the work that has been undertaken to address capacity issues in the central Research Operations Office and will continue to encourage discussions regarding capacity centrally and in Schools and Departments.
The Cambridge Multi-Asset Fund (CMAF) is a managed investment account with Legal & General Investment Management, established for the University to provide an investment vehicle for funds likely to be needed for operational purposes in a 3–5 year period, i.e. money not needed in cash in the short term nor intended for long-term investment in the University’s Endowment Fund (CUEF). As a matter of governance CMAF falls within the responsibilities of the Council under Statute A IV 1(a), acting through the Finance Committee, in the exercise of general supervision over the finances of the University including all its investments. As such, the details of the CMAF holdings, including asset allocations and fund performance, are regularly reviewed by the Finance Committee. Reporting on CMAF in the Financial Statements is as required by applicable reporting standards. In addition the Council will in future publish information annually on the performance of CMAF in the Reporter as part of the Financial Management Information (FMI).
CUEF and CMAF are dedicated investment vehicles. Internal ‘Funds’ (such as the Strategic Planning Reserve Fund) are internal allocations of available University resources ring-fenced from time to time for specific purposes. As allocations of internal resources, these are overseen by the Planning and Resources Committee. The Regent House has sight of the use of these internal ‘Funds’ through the information published in the University’s annual Budget/Allocations Report and FMI pack.5
The Council acknowledges the need for renewed urgency and traction in delivering its income growth and cost efficiency objectives in relation to the estate, procurement and professional services systems and processes. As Chest income and expenditure has evolved over time to a position where this represents the minority of the Academic University’s finances, the issue of deficits needs to be addressed at the total Academic University level and not just at the somewhat arbitrary ‘Chest’ split. A better understanding of the Academic University’s finances will come from the allocation of all income and costs through the programme of Enhanced Financial Transparency (EFT) and it is in the delivery of EFT that resources are being concentrated.
Professor Anderson and Dr Szuba call for greater scrutiny of the funding allocated to the UAS and the UIS and Professor Mortier asks about progress on identifying the savings and efficiencies expected to be delivered by the transformation programmes. The Council and the General Board will discuss options to bring the overall Academic University finances back into balance at an away day in March 2024.
The Council will review the content of the Budget/Allocations Report and other information provided to the Regent House, in particular using the data set as it develops from the EFT programme. The Council notes that additional information was subsequently provided to the Regent House to match the level provided in the 2019 Report, and it will ensure that this level of information continues to be reported.
The Council welcomes the Board’s recommendation to expedite the gathering of robust space utilisation data to inform decisions on the size and shape of the estate.
Space utilisation surveys started in the Michaelmas Term 2023 as a part of the evidence-gathering for the Reshaping our Estate programme. The programme aims to establish facts and present opportunities to make the estate more efficient, effective, sustainable, and fit-for-purpose. To measure space utilisation, a survey team is recording usage of an identified space on multiple occasions throughout each day over a full week. Once all surveys are complete, the team will have surveyed approximately one-third of the estate (approximately 200,000 sq m) on city centre sites and in West Cambridge.
Analysis of the data will be completed during the Lent Term 2024 and for each surveyed space the results will include average use, peak use, frequency of use, and total occupancy when in use. The outcomes will be reported to the Estates Committee in support of the Committee’s consideration of opportunities for providing higher quality and better used spaces within the Reshaping our Estate programme. The Estates Committee will subsequently make recommendations to the General Board and the Council. The Council will seek the approval of the Regent House where those recommendations touch on matters requiring that approval.
The recommendation from the Board of Scrutiny refers to the University’s sustainability goals. This response relates only to the University’s environmental sustainability commitments pertaining to the operational estate. However, the University is in the process of developing an institutional strategy on climate and environmental sustainability that will communicate commitments and priorities in relation to sustainability beyond the operational estate (see: Reporter, 6722, 2023–24, p. 195). The Council hopes that the creation of an additional Pro-Vice-Chancellorship, to be funded on a cost-neutral basis, will provide impetus for progress on the University’s wider sustainability goals.
The University’s carbon reduction target requires energy-related emissions from the operational estate to be reduced by 75% by 2030–31 (against 2015–16 levels) and to absolute zero by 2048. Achieving both the mid-term and longer-term targets requires the University to significantly reduce its use of gas, as emissions from gas now make up the majority of the estate’s energy-related emissions.
With a focus on the mid-term target, the Estates Division has a number of carbon reduction projects in delivery; see Table 1 at https://www.admin.cam.ac.uk/cam-only/reporter/2023-24/weekly/6726/Estates-carbon-reduction-projects.pdf for examples. The projects on Table 1 include a combination of:
•opportunities that are being taken to decarbonise a building or site as part of/alongside other work the University is already doing (Whittle Laboratory, Cavendish II and Mill Lane site);
•opportunities to secure government funding for projects that are eligible for the Public Sector Decarbonisation Scheme (PSDS) (Keynes House and Donald McIntyre Building);
•site-wide heat networks (Sidgwick and West Cambridge sites), which the Division knows from previous work are the most technically and economically viable solution for decarbonising the University’s key sites.
These considerations collectively help to reduce overall costs to the University and the risk of ‘regret spend’.
In parallel, the Estates Division is developing a longer-term programme of heat decarbonisation (degasification) projects. This includes establishing cost- and carbon-reduction estimates for the potential projects, which will inform prioritisation of projects within the programme. Crucially, the scheduling and prioritisation of projects will also take account of the University’s programme of major refurbishments, and specific proposals emerging from the Reshaping our Estate programme; wherever possible, decarbonisation will be delivered through or as part of projects (or, in the case of the programme, disposals) that the University is planning to carry out anyway, as this will be key to reducing cost, disruption and risk.
The Council will receive an updated heat decarbonisation programme in Lent Term 2024, with the expectation of publishing details in the Reporter once finalised. It should be noted that the programme will not be static – it will continue to change and develop to reflect changes to the Reshaping our Estate programme and the major refurbishment programme.
Besides carbon reduction, the University has also set out a number of other environmental sustainability commitments for its estate in its Biodiversity Action Plan and Transport Strategy. Programmes of work are under way to deliver against these; progress is reported annually in the University’s Environmental Sustainability Report.
A review of HR was carried out in Michaelmas Term 2020 by an external consultant, whose report was shared with the HR Committee. It recommended strengthening capacity. In response, the Division has established an organisational development team and an investigations team, and is in the process of establishing a case management team. In addition, the HR Division recently commissioned targeted reviews of the Equality, Diversity and Inclusion and the Learning and Development teams to address concerns regarding capacity in those areas.
It should also be noted that Reimagining Professional Services (RPS) is looking precisely at the issue the Board is concerned about: the distribution of functions and expertise between the centre and that devolved to institutions, to ensure consistent service delivery across the University. RPS will be looking at this not just within HR but across all professional services functions, focusing on how the functions interact with Schools, Faculties and Departments, and the equivalent in Non-School Institutions. As a result, the services provided across the University should become more connected, effective and efficient. To layer a series of UAS reviews on top of the work already under way would cut across RPS and the other change programmes which are already established; it would distract colleagues from successfully delivering those change programmes, the scale of which should not be underestimated; and could lead to confusion.
On a related note, one of the two examples given as reasons for instigating a review of the HR Division (delays in the payment of Examiners in summer 2022) did not in fact fall within the remit of the HR Division. The Council commends the Division for the significant body of work it has successfully completed in 2022–23 not mentioned in the Report, for example, the delivery of the Hybrid Working Policy, a revised Dignity at Work Policy and an International Working Policy, and numerous other activities in response to the challenges in recruitment and retention post-pandemic.
The Council agrees with the Board that, now that the team responsible for publication of the Reporter is back to a full complement of staff, it would be helpful to have more certainty about the timing of publication for certain regular Reports and for the special issues of the Reporter. It therefore proposes that each year the Annual Reports of the Council and the General Board be published in November/December, the list of Fellows in December, the Financial Statements in January/February, the Financial Management Information in February/March, the Budget/Allocations Report in June/July, and the membership of University bodies (what was the Officers number Part II special issue) also in June/July. The Officers number Part I special issue includes a list of officers by institution. Regent House membership for University staff is no longer predicated, for the majority, on holding an office, so the main purpose of publishing that list has been removed, and therefore it will no longer be published. The list of Professors, Clinical Professors, Professors (Grade 11), and Readers, who are eligible for appointment to the Council in class (b), and the remaining parts of the Officers number Part I special issue will continue to be published in the special issue providing the membership of University bodies in June/July.
The Council notes Dr Astle’s comments regarding pay, recruitment and retention and is pleased to report that the job fair, referred to by Dr Astle, received significant positive feedback from participants, many of whom had not been aware of the range of jobs available at the University. Regarding pay, the University has recently embarked on a comprehensive review of pay and its grading structures where it will explore specific areas of tension. Although a complex area, this is rightly recognised as urgent given the inability to agree national settlements with the trade unions on pay in recent years, coupled with the current spike in inflation. A Special Joint Negotiating Board of the University and Staff Joint Board is being established, which will ensure the views of the recognised trade unions are fully considered.
The Council refers Dr Astle to its previous response to his comments on the marking and assessment boycott (Reporter, 2022–23: 6710, p. 881; 6711, p. 3).
Both the Board and Professor Evans comment on the timetable for completion of the review of the University’s Retirement Policy. The Council has since published a Notice providing an indicative timetable for this review (Reporter, 6721, 2023–24, p. 167).
The Board and Professor Mortier query why the Council has not yet published its proposals on the management of future crises. The Council regrets the delay, but recognises that other matters, including the marking and assessment boycott, have taken up much of the capacity that would otherwise have been directed towards this and other projects. It expects to publish a Report by the end of this academic year.
The Board notes early exploration of possible changes to the format of the Reporter, which were discussed with members of the Board over the summer. Mr Fong raises concerns about those changes, specifically their impact on the contents of the Reporter remaining ‘stable, fixed, and therefore authoritative’. The Council believes that it and the Regent House rely mainly on the integrity of the staff members producing the Reporter and their adherence to the Reporter’s corrections policy for the certainty that Mr Fong values, rather than on the format of its issues. It nevertheless agrees that the Reporter format should continue to support this transparency. Whatever changes are proposed, the Council can confirm that there are no plans to change the publication schedule of the Reporter. As now, items published between issues would be republished in the next weekly issue during term.
Professor Evans asks about the Change and Programme Management Board’s annual report for 2022–23. In response to a previous request from the Board to make annual reports easier to find, the Council agreed that links to annual reports would be published together in the Reporter at the end of March and July each year. A link to the Change and Programme Management Board’s annual report will be published in the Reporter in March 2024.
In response to the Board’s suggestion, the Council will publish a statement about town hall meetings, to explain when they are used and how they differ from Discussions.
2https://www.educationalpolicy.admin.cam.ac.uk/ensuring-quality/quality-processes/emr.
5Links to the published Allocations Reports and FMI reports are provided at https://www.governance.cam.ac.uk/committees/finance-committee/Pages/budget.aspx and https://www.governance.cam.ac.uk/committees/finance-committee/Pages/fmi.aspx respectively.