No 6759
Wednesday 13 November 2024
Vol clv No 8
pp. 110–127
29 November, Friday. End of third quarter of Michaelmas Term.
30 November, Saturday. Congregation of the Regent House at 10 a.m.
6 December, Friday. Full Term ends.
10 December, Tuesday. Discussion by videoconference at 2 p.m. (see below).
|
Discussions (Tuesdays at 2 p.m.) |
Congregations (at 10 a.m. unless otherwise stated) |
|
10 December |
30 November |
The Vice‑Chancellor invites members of the Regent House, University and College employees, registered students and others qualified under the regulations for Discussions (Statutes and Ordinances, p. 111) to attend a Discussion by videoconference on Tuesday, 10 December 2024 at 2 p.m. The following item will be discussed:
1. Report of the Council on the office of Chief Financial Officer, dated 13 November 2024 (p. 117).
Those wishing to join the Discussion by videoconference should email UniversityDraftsman@admin.cam.ac.uk from their University email account, providing their CRSid (if a member of the collegiate University), by 10 a.m. on the date of the Discussion to receive joining instructions. Alternatively contributors may email their remarks to contact@proctors.cam.ac.uk, copying ReporterEditor@admin.cam.ac.uk, by no later than 10 a.m. on the day of the Discussion for reading out by the Proctors,1 or may ask someone else who is attending to read the remarks on their behalf.
In accordance with the regulations for Discussions, the Chair of the Board of Scrutiny or any ten members of the Regent House2 may request that the Council arrange for one or more of the items listed for discussion to be discussed in person (usually in the Senate-House). Requests should be made to the Registrary, on paper or by email to UniversityDraftsman@admin.cam.ac.uk from addresses within the cam.ac.uk domain, by no later than 9 a.m. on the day of the Discussion. Any changes to the Discussion schedule will be confirmed in the Reporter at the earliest opportunity.
General information on Discussions is provided on the University Governance site at https://www.governance.cam.ac.uk/governance/decision-making/discussions/.
1Any comments sent by email should please begin with the name and title of the contributor as they wish it to be read out and include at the start a note of any College and/or Departmental affiliations held.
2https://www.scrutiny.cam.ac.uk/ and https://www.admin.cam.ac.uk/reporter/regent_house_roll/.
The Vice-Chancellor gives notice that she has accepted with gratitude a benefaction of £4,122,000 from the Board of Cambridge in America following a donation from Peter and Christina Dawson to endow a Dawson Professorship of Young People’s Mental Health. The General Board is proposing the establishment of the Professorship in perpetuity and an endowment fund to support the Professorship (see p. 115 and Graces 2 and 3, p. 119).
The Vice-Chancellor begs leave to refer to her Notice of 11 October 2024 (Reporter, 6755, 2024–25, p. 45), concerning the text of a Statute to amend the Statutes of Magdalene College. She hereby gives notice that in the opinion of the Council the proposed Statute makes no alteration of any Statute which affects the University, and does not require the consent of the University; that the interests of the University are not prejudiced by it, and that the Council has resolved to take no action upon it, provided that the Council will wish to reconsider the proposed Statute if it has not been submitted to the Privy Council by 7 November 2025.
The Registrary has received notice from the Clerk of the Privy Council that His Majesty the King, at a Council held on 6 November 2024, was pleased to approve amendments to Statutes A I, B I and D II, which were submitted in accordance with Grace 2 of 14 February 2024.1
These changes enable membership of the University to be removed for the non-payment of fees as set out in Ordinance, remove a provision stating that resignation of University membership entails cancellation of any degree, and confirm the circumstances in which loss of membership of the University will entail loss of membership of the Senate.
The Council has received and considered a Grace initiated under Special Ordinance A (ii) 5 by 165 members of the Regent House (Reporter, 6751, 2023–24, p. 860). That Grace seeks support for divestment from companies involved in the defence industry by the beginning of Michaelmas Term 2025. The Grace also asks the Council to publish a Report to consider the costs and effects of that divestment and to provide a timetable for achieving that outcome. There is some cross-over between the Grace and matters relating to the University’s investments raised by students taking part in a protest encampment on King’s Parade over the summer. Discussions between student representatives and senior officers concluded in August 2024 with a set of agreed actions.1
The Council has decided to authorise submission of the Grace (Grace 1, p. 119). In reaching that decision, the Council notes that it has sole responsibility for decisions about investments, and therefore the Grace would not be binding on the Council if approved by the Regent House.2 Nevertheless, the Council believes it is appropriate to examine these matters now, given that there is likely to be significant support in the Cambridge community for a considered appraisal of the University’s investments and noting that many universities and other public sector bodies are examining similar issues.
The Council has agreed to set up a working group to consider the matters raised by the students and has expanded its remit to cover the additional points raised by members of the Regent House in the Grace. The terms of reference for the working group, set out in the Annex below, acknowledge the legal and regulatory framework within which the Council, as the University’s trustee body, operates. Whilst the Council shares the desire of the signatories to undertake the work without delay, it notes the complex issues raised by the Grace. The Council will ask the group to aim to complete its work by the end of the academic year.
2See Statute F I 1(a) and Special Ordinance F (i) 1(a), as revised by Grace 2 of 8 March 2023 and approved by His Majesty in Council (Reporter, 6732, 2023–24, p. 405).
The Council is aware that many members of the University are deeply concerned about the tragic events unfolding in many parts of the world. In the past few months, a group of students expressed their concerns in the form of an encampment on King’s Parade. In addition, at the end of July 2024, members of the Regent House submitted a Grace on divestment of the defence industry for consideration by the Council.1
Following a constructive dialogue between members of the University’s senior leadership team and delegates on behalf of the students protesting on King’s Parade, a number of actions were agreed.2 These included that relevant University bodies would review the approach to responsible investment and the guidelines that inform its research funded by companies belonging to the defence industry. It was further agreed that a working group would be established to make recommendations to the relevant University committees that oversee policies in relation to investments and research.
The Working Group will determine a suitable definition of companies to be classified as belonging to the defence industry.
The Working Group will consider two areas of enquiry, investments and research, in relation to the defence industry and make recommendations to the relevant University committees including the Council.
The Working Group will evaluate the two areas of enquiry in the wider context of the following:
•the University’s role as a civic institution in the UK (including in relation to national security);
•the University’s commitment to academic freedom and freedom of speech; and
•the University’s obligations under charity law and other relevant legislation such as export control.
The Working Group will consider the following questions in relation to the University’s investments in the Cambridge University Endowment Fund (CUEF):
•whether the Statement of Investment Responsibility3 (i.e. the University’s policy as an investor in the CUEF) is in line with its institutional values in relation to the defence industry;
•whether it considers that the CUEF’s classification of companies belonging to the defence industry is satisfactory for the University as an investor in the CUEF;
•whether it is satisfied with the level of disclosure to the University as investor in the CUEF of any direct or indirect exposure to the defence industry in the CUEF investment portfolios; and
•what (if any) any issues arise from potential divestment from the defence industry.
In assessing these questions, the Working Group will take into account:
•that the CUEF investment model is to invest via third-party fund managers;
•that distributions from the CUEF play an indispensable role in the University’s finances;
•that the CUEF invests donations made to the University, its Colleges and associated charitable trusts. It is overseen by the Cambridge University Endowment Trustee Body (CUETB); and
•the Responsible Investment Principles of the CUETB.
The Working Group will consider:
•whether the University’s guidelines/principles that inform its research funded by companies belonging to the defence industry are in line with its institutional values.
In assessing this question, the Working Group will take into account:
•that the University encourages collaborations and believes that openness is integral to its success as a world‑leading research-intensive University.
The Working Group is expected to base its assessments and recommendations on evidence. The Working Group has access to legal advice via Legal Services, who can also help facilitate external legal advice. The Working Group is encouraged to seek expert advice on any matter within its remit as it sees fit.
A number of higher education institutions and other public sector bodies are currently engaged in similar processes and discussions. The Working Group is encouraged to talk to comparable institutions about their deliberations and approaches.
The Working Group will comprise the following members:
•Chair
•Two student members of the Task Force (appointed by the Task Force)
•A student member of the Council appointed by the Council
•Two members appointed by the Council
•Two members appointed by the General Board
•One member appointed by University of Cambridge Investment Management (UCIM)
The Council acknowledges that the issues to be explored by the Working Group are complex and that members of the Working Group will hold a variety of views. It expects that the members of the Working Group will treat each other with respect and conduct their business in a spirit of collaboration and transparency.
The Council has received the remarks made at the Discussion on 8 October 2024 on the above Topic of concern concerning the future of the Employer Justified Retirement Age, or EJRA (Reporter, 2024–25: 6752, p. 3; 6755, p. 48). It has consulted with the General Board in preparing this reply.
The Topic of concern, raised by 16 members of the Regent House, states that ‘the recent ballot1 removed academic‑related staff from the category of those subject to the EJRA and raised the age to 69. This means that now only a tiny proportion of the University’s employees are affected and calls into question the justification it needs to be lawful’. Those members have requested a Report of the Council and the General Board on the future of the EJRA ‘now that it applies to a shrinking proportion of the University’s employees’. Several speakers reiterate and expand on these points, with Mr Haynes suggesting that ‘we have not clearly heard any robust case for the full meaning of the ‘J’ in EJRA’, Professor Kramer contending that ‘the University has not discharged its legal burden of proof for its retention of a mandatory retirement age’, and Professor Rau expressing his concern that ‘the Regent House has effectively voted to implement a policy that may well be unlawful’. Others take a different stance. Dr Skittrall counsels those sharing the signatories’ views to accept the outcome of the ballot and Professor Penty, Chair of the Retirement Policy and EJRA Review Group, suggests that, after lengthy consultation and debate of these issues, it is time to move on.
Regarding the numbers affected by the changes, the Council notes that just under 400 established academic-related staff were taken out of scope of the EJRA on 1 September 2024, with just under 1,800 established academic staff remaining in scope. Therefore, whilst there has been a reduction in the numbers affected, it is not a significant decrease given the overall number of academic officers remaining in scope.
However, the number of employees who are subject to an EJRA as a fraction of the total number of employees is unlikely to be a material factor in determining whether an EJRA is objectively justifiable. What is paramount is whether the employer can objectively justify applying the EJRA to a staff category. An employer does this by demonstrating that the EJRA is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim when applied to that staff group, considering the potentially discriminatory impact on those affected. The Review Group considered that this legal test was met for established academic staff, but not for established academic-related staff, hence the recommendation to remove the latter from the scope of the EJRA. The Review Group arrived at this conclusion, having explored the issues from a range of perspectives, over the course of approximately a year.2 Its work resulted in an detailed report, containing its approach, recommendations and rationale.3
Professors Baert, Evans and Kramer note the possibility of claims of age discrimination from former Cambridge staff coming before the Employment Tribunal. If there are such cases, the Council notes that it will be for the Employment Tribunal, and not the Council or indeed individual members of the Regent House, to determine whether the EJRA now in place is objectively justifiable.
Professors Baert and Baron-Cohen refer to the vacancy creation rates published in the Review Group’s report, question the methodology used to determine them, and draw comparisons with the equivalent rates at Oxford, noting the adverse outcome of Employment Tribunal cases for Oxford based on those figures. Mr Haynes claims that the EJRA at Cambridge is essentially identical in all relevant respects to that at Oxford. The Council refers to its previous comments on similar arguments but notes that vacancy creation arising out of the EJRA at the University of Cambridge is significantly higher than at Oxford.4
The Council agrees with Professor Baert that there are other ways of enhancing intergenerational fairness beyond the EJRA, and that fundraising is one way of providing the University with additional resources to support its mission, albeit an unpredictable one. However, pursuing other means does not diminish the role of the EJRA in balancing the interests of younger and older cohorts.
Professor Evans draws attention to a statement in the Council’s response to fly-sheets that the EJRA is an important measure for opening up opportunities for early career and fixed-term researchers ‘at an institution where the number of available established posts is otherwise restricted by the availability of funding and broadly static student numbers’.5 The Council stands by this statement; it does not claim that the number of University teaching offices is fixed or static, as Professor Evans implies.
The Regent House endorsed the recommendations of the Council and General Board in a ballot held in June 2024. On a very high turnout, the results of that ballot demonstrated widespread support for an EJRA (74% of the votes at first count), whether in its current form at the time of the ballot or as revised under the proposals.6
Mr Haynes suggests that voters did not have sufficient opportunity to review the case made by those in favour of abolition of the EJRA, including in a paper on the arXiv economics server authored by Linton et al.7 The Council notes that many of the points raised in the Discussion on 8 October, including references to the findings of that paper, were addressed by the Council ahead of voting opening, and were mentioned in fly-sheets provided to voters.8
Professor Baert states that the proportion of academic-related staff and non-established academics within the membership of the Regent House has increased, and the group adversely affected by the vote (academic officers) form a minority in the Regent House. The Council notes that all academic officers are included in the membership, whereas most other University staff must hold positions at Grade 9 and above to be included. Although no analysis is available of the breakdown of the membership of the Regent House at the time of the ballot, it is likely that academic officers continued to make up a significant proportion of the electorate in this ballot.9
The Council notes Professor Baert’s comments on the way in which the Grace was presented but observes that it is usual practice for a Grace to be presented as a ‘package’ for approval. It has concerns about Professor Baert’s statement that ‘academic-related and non-established academic staff were in a position to vote in a way that discriminated against established academics whilst lifting the EJRA for themselves’. Firstly, unestablished staff, whether they are academics or not, are not subject to the EJRA; this was the position prior to the ballot and has not changed since. Secondly, if the Regent House has agreed on who to include in its membership, it cannot then question the validity of a decision on the basis of the motivations of its members. The composition of the Regent House does not change depending on the matter for approval.
The Council understands that members of the Regent House will continue to hold different views on the merits of the EJRA. However, based on the remarks made, it sees no compelling arguments for reopening this matter, following such a decisive vote in favour of an EJRA. The Council will therefore not be publishing a further Report on the EJRA at this time.
Finally, Professor Penty notes the ongoing work arising from the review, to simplify the extensions process and to improve post-retirement engagement for those who want it. The Council acknowledges that this was an area of frustration with the University’s retirement arrangements and looks forward to the conclusion of this important project.
2This included consideration of the 2018 analysis carried out by Dr Dan Lunn, to which Professors Baron-Cohen and Rau refer in their remarks.
3See the Review Group’s report [University account required], published as part of the Joint Report presenting the Group’s proposals for approval (Reporter, 6741, 2023–24, p. 578). The analysis of data procured from the Higher Education Statistics Agency is set out in a separate report; see ‘Reviewing the Employer Justified Retirement Age (EJRA) at Cambridge’ at https://universityofcambridgecloud.sharepoint.com/sites/StaffHub/SitePages/Employer-Justified-Retirement-Age.aspx (University account required). Due to the conditions of the University’s agreement with Jisc, the HESA data report is accessible to members of University staff and members of the Regent House only.
4See in particular the section responding to comments on intergenerational fairness in the Council’s Notice dated 10 June 2024 (Reporter, 6745, 2023–24, p. 661).
6See footnote 1.
8Reporter, 2023–24: 6744, p. 637; 6745, p. 661; 6750, p. 829.
9See for example the analysis published in 2021 (Reporter, 6612, 2020–21, p. 452). This includes a breakdown of the 2020 Regent House membership and of University employees overall and compares that with modelling of membership under proposals for changes. A grade-based model with a threshold at Grade 9 and transitional arrangements was adopted, which is modelled as GG9 in the 2021 analysis. This shows academic staff continuing to be the largest University staff group within the membership. This analysis predates the introduction of an academic (teaching and scholarship) career path.
Agreement has been reached on the salary arrangements for Consultant clinical academic staff with effect from 1 April 2024. There is a 6% increase at all pay points.
The values of National Clinical Excellence Awards (CEAs) and Local CEAs under the previous scheme, discretionary points and distinction awards remain unchanged.
In accordance with the principle that the remuneration of clinical academic staff in Cambridge should be broadly comparable with that of equivalent staff in other UK medical schools, the General Board has agreed to approve revised stipends and scales of stipends for clinical appointments in Cambridge.
The figures currently shown in Schedule II to the Ordinance for Stipends (Statutes and Ordinances, p. 687) are replaced with effect from 1 April 2024 and are as follows:
With effect from 1 April 2024: £105,504, £111,713, £114,893, £126,017, £139,882.