Notices

Calendar

13 February, Thursday. Lent Term divides.

23 February, Sunday. Preacher before the University at 11.30 a.m., The Revd Canon Professor James Walters, of Selwyn College, Professor in Practice and Director of the LSE Faith Centre and of the LSE Religion and Global Society Research Unit (Hulsean Preacher).

25 February, Tuesday. Discussion by videoconference at 2 p.m.

Discussions (Tuesdays at 2 p.m.)	Congregations (at 10 a.m. unless otherwise stated)
25 February 18 March	1 March 29 March 5 April 11 April, 2 p.m. (degrees in absence only)

Title of Senior Pro-Vice-Chancellor

Following the approval of Grace 1 of 11 December 2024,1 the Vice-Chancellor has conferred upon Professor Kamal Munir, HO, the Pro-Vice-Chancellor for University Community and Engagement, and Professor Bhaskar Vira, F, the Pro‑Vice‑Chancellor for Education and Environmental Sustainability, the title of Senior Pro-Vice-Chancellor from 1 January 2025. Professors Munir and Vira will share the additional responsibility until the expiry of their appointments as Pro-Vice-Chancellor.

Twenty-ninth Report of the Board of Scrutiny: Notice in response

27 January 2025

The Council has received the Board of Scrutiny’s Twenty-ninth Report and the remarks made at the Discussion on 5 November 2024 (Reporter, 2024–25: 6756, p. 65; 6759, p. 121). It has provided its response below to the Board’s recommendations and the remarks made at the Discussion.

The Council notes the Board’s recognition of the progress made in several key areas, referring specifically to finance and operations, the people strategy, the teaching review and environmental sustainability. The Board also highlights areas in which it considers that ‘more needs to be done’. The Council agrees with Mr Hopwood and Dr Doubleday, the Board’s current and previous Chairs, that there remain challenges facing the University. It acknowledges that some, like Mr Allen, will be frustrated with the pace of change in improving the information available on the University’s finances. However, the Council also observes that projects of the scale of the Finance Transformation Programme, at least in the short term, add to the administrative load and need co-ordination if staff are not to feel overwhelmed, as both Mr Allen and the Board point out. The Council recognises that the approaches adopted to tackle the University’s challenges need to remain under review, with adjustments where appropriate. However, if the University is to be able to adapt its ways of working effectively, as much as possible within existing resources, there has to be a limit on the number of initiatives it can undertake if it is not to run the risk of biting off more than it can chew (to use a phrase the Board employs elsewhere in its Report). Sometimes the better course is to do fewer things, so that you can do those things well.

Recommendations in the Board’s Report

1. The Board recommends that the Review of Teaching ensures that the new education strategy outlines concrete actions and structural reforms where necessary rather than simply warm words. Furthermore, the Review of Teaching should consider methods of increasing the supply of supervisions rather than, as at present, seeing this in terms of limiting the demand for supervisors by increasing the average number of students in each supervision. The latter should be avoided as much as possible given that the University’s reputation for education is based on the strength of its small-group supervision system, which should be protected and defended as much as possible.

The Council shares the Board’s appreciation of the Task and Finish Group’s progress towards an education strategy. The Group is working to ensure that its final recommendations are grounded in action, not only in the short term but also as they develop over a longer period. The strategy will aim to align with, and expand on, the University’s core educational values and identify how these will be realised across the collegiate University. It will be accompanied by an action plan that will provide the concrete actions and structural reforms that the Board wishes to see.

Regarding the comment about increasing the supply of supervisions, the Group is not considering any reduction in small-group supervision contact time for students, nor is it considering increasing the amount of supervision contact time for students, given the well-established concerns about workload. It will continue to review methods to support supervisors so that the supply of supervisions is more efficient and effective, while still retaining the high quality associated with this teaching model. The Board’s concerns about protecting the strength of the supervision system are noted. The Group wholeheartedly agrees that this is important, but argues that increasing group size does not automatically result in a drop in quality. Collaboration should be a key part of supervision experiences alongside individual development. Working together offers students opportunities for peer-to-peer learning and exposure to a variety of perspectives that deepen their individual understanding. Modern scholarship requires strong collaborative and leadership skills, which should be developed in part through supervisions. At present, the majority of supervisions on a third of all Triposes are held with a single student, causing those students to miss out on these collaborative opportunities. Both individual and small-group models offer benefits to student learning which should be considered and maximised, while retaining the exceptionally high standard of the University’s personalised educational model.

2. The Board recommends better assessments of policy changes from educational services on (a) staff time across the University and (b) equality, diversity and inclusion impact assessments. This is needed given the level of transformation in education services in the University, as there is a risk that these reforms occur in a piecemeal or siloed way without full assessment or mitigation of the consequences on other stakeholders in the University.

Efforts are being made to align and, where possible, consolidate the change projects which are underway under the lead of Education Services. For example, there are some common themes emerging from both the Teaching Review and the Review of Disability Support, and recommendations will be considered together where appropriate to ensure a joined-up implementation plan. Development of emerging recommendations from the Teaching Review include an assessment of cost (staff time and other resources) against impact.

Education Services has initiated a project on Equality Impact Assessments (EIAs). The aim is to ensure all decisions, processes, and policies managed within Education Services are equitable and consider the diverse needs of the University’s students, staff and other stakeholder populations, including those from minority, under-represented, or vulnerable groups (focused on, but not limited to, protected characteristics).

The project objectives are:

•Embed EIAs into business-as-usual practice across Education Services.

•Create EIA proforma appropriate for use within Education Services.

•Create repository of EIA data for analysis and creation of best practices and ongoing business improvement (including themes risks, and opportunities).

•Ensure compliance with University-level requirements.1

3. The Board recommends that the University and the Colleges work to improve co-ordination of admissions processes and widening-participation schemes. The Board is particularly concerned about the lack of co‑ordination between Colleges on admissions policies. The Board recommends that the University should do everything in its power to encourage agreement on admissions governance reform and then to swiftly implement it. In the medium term, the Board recommends that the University should promote the use of Bridging Courses and Preparation Weeks and encourage greater co-ordination between Colleges and Faculties/Departments over their delivery to maximise economies of scale.

All Colleges follow the University admissions policy, as published on the University’s website. Strategic and operational oversight of the admissions process and the associated recruitment and outreach activity are both under active review in 2024–25, with the intention that a new set of governance arrangements for undergraduate admissions that has both College and University involvement is operating from the 2025–26 academic year. The focus of the review of outreach will be to identify the best means to support the efficient and effective use of the collegiate University’s resources to ensure that the aims of the Access and Participation Plan are met, in particular the renewed focus on regional under‑representation at Cambridge and the need to address low participation from specific ethnicities.

Recent discussions at the Admissions Forum have identified a range of factors in the undergraduate admissions process that can complicate the process for applicants and their advisers, including the approach to interviews, the grades and subjects required for meeting an offer condition, and approaches to testing applicants at interview. Aspects of the process may discourage some applicants, particularly those who have limited access to support and guidance, from seeing Cambridge as a UCAS choice, particularly when compared to the perceived consistency of approach in these areas that Oxford provides. The complexity also adds cost to the running of the admissions process.

The expansion of College and Department bridging courses and Departmental induction programmes in recent years is to be welcomed, but there is a need to ensure effective co-ordination to make best use of the resources available. The Senior Tutors’ Education Committee will be considering the development of College-led programmes, and the Access and Participation Plan Scrutiny Group will be looking to promulgate best practice through the APP ‘What Works?’ document.

4. The Board recommends the University should collect more and better EDI data relating to recruitment, including socio-economic background, to guide further development of strategy and policy in this area.

The new HR system (myHR) will significantly enhance the way in which the University collects, manages and reports information across various areas, including EDI data. The myHR implementation team plans to consider questions based on the UK Social Mobility Index as part of phase 2 of the implementation of myHR.

In the meantime, the EDI team has been using various culture surveys to gain insights into the University community’s socio-economic composition. For example, one indicator involves understanding whether an individual’s parents or guardians completed a university degree. Findings from a survey earlier this year revealed that 49% of staff (3,000 respondents in total) reported their parents or guardians had not attended university.

5. The Board recommends that the University accepts the recommendations made to the RPC [Research Policy Committee] for a bold climate and environmental research strategy, and that appropriate resources are committed to support the strategy and associated fundraising effort.

The Council joins the Board in welcoming the work of the Climate and Environmental Sustainability Research Working Group and its vision for a bold climate and environmental research strategy.

A consultation on the Working Group’s report took place during June 2024 and the RPC considered the results at its meeting on 17 October 2024. The RPC formally endorsed the report at that meeting and will now consult with School Research Committees to establish their views on how a strategy should be developed and to identify key research priorities. The University’s Research Strategy Office will support this process, which will feed into the Pro-Vice‑Chancellor for Education and Environmental Sustainability’s wider efforts to develop an academic vision for sustainability that incorporates research and education.

The RPC recognises that, given current financial challenges, there is no scope for significant direct investment in the delivery of a bold research strategy in this area. As such, following the planned consultation with Schools, the RPC will aim to identify what can be delivered with existing resource or through reprioritisation, alongside a longer-term strategy for philanthropic fundraising to support the strategy.

6. The Board recommends that long-term leadership is needed on operational environmental sustainability. The Board calls on the Council to clarify to relevant committees the Council’s expectations on each for delivering against its commitments on environmental sustainability, including its carbon reduction target, so that progress is not slowed whilst the assessment of operational environmental sustainability and development of a new strategy is undertaken.

7. The Board recommends that the Council publishes a comprehensive update to the Regent House by July 2025 on progress towards the University’s environmental sustainability commitments, covering both academic and operational activities. The Board also recommends that key committees such as the Estates Committee, Environmental Sustainability Strategy Committee, and Research Policy Committee are required to report to the Council on the progress they are making in supporting delivery towards the University’s commitments.

The Council considers recommendations 6 and 7 to be closely linked and therefore it has provided one response to both.

The Council agrees with the Board that long-term leadership on operational environmental sustainability is required. The Council’s previous proposal to appoint a sixth Pro-Vice-Chancellor with responsibility for sustainability, for a maximum of six years, was not approved by members of the Regent House. The Council has subsequently agreed on an alternative route for strengthening the University’s approach to operational environmental sustainability, including leadership and governance in this area.

Currently, a review of the University’s approach to operational environmental sustainability is underway. The review includes a gap analysis of the University’s approach, comparing it to institutions that are seen to be leading on environmental sustainability. The findings and recommendations will inform the development of a new operational environmental sustainability strategy in 2025, which will be led by an individual who has expertise in delivering stretching environmental sustainability objectives in complex organisations. This individual (yet to be appointed) will report to the Vice-Chancellor.

The Council has expressed an ambition for the new strategy to be sector-leading. It will be accompanied by a plan for delivery with appropriate key performance indicators against which progress can be measured; a clarified and strengthened governance structure to oversee progress; and a clear articulation of who, operationally, is responsible for delivering which aspects of the plan.

The Council intends to publish an update on this work by July 2025, by which time the review will be complete and the individual leading on development of the strategy should have been appointed.

Meanwhile, efforts to improve the University’s operational environmental sustainability performance will continue. The Environmental Sustainability Strategy Committee will continue to provide strategic oversight. The Estates Committee is responsible for all matters relating to the environmental sustainability performance of the operational estate, and the Research Policy Committee (RPC) has a role to play in guiding the University in meeting the requirements of the Concordat for the Environmental Sustainability of Research and Innovation Practice.2 The Council agrees with the Board that the University could do more to make use of its research strengths to support operational progress on its environmental sustainability commitments. The work the RPC is already undertaking to develop a research strategy (see above) is likely to highlight where there are opportunities for the University to apply learning and good practice, or be the subject of or participant in new research.

In light of the findings and recommendations of the ongoing review, the Council will consider how the roles and remits of these and other committees may need to evolve, as well as appropriate channels for committees to report to the Council on the progress they are making in supporting delivery towards the University’s environmental commitments.

8. The Board recommends, as a matter of urgency, that the University should better understand where there has been increased expenditure in the last decade, and why and having done so, closely consider a more strategic approach to implementing the interim 5% cut than ‘salami slicing’.

The Finance Division has reviewed the published Financial Management Information to provide summary information on changes in University expenditure, as illustrated in the charts below (see p. 248 and p. 249).3 The 2023–24 FMI is a draft and has not yet been published.

In summary:

•School expenditure has grown for both Staff and Other Operating Expenditure, with compound annual growth rates of 4.7% (Staff) and 5.3% (OOE) over the last 10 years.

•The School of Clinical Medicine has made a major contribution to the School group, with compound annual growth rates of 5.7% (Staff) and 6.2% (OOE). The Clinical School accounted for 35% of total (Staff and OOE) School expenditure in 2023–24, an increase of 3% since 2013–14. This reflects, inter alia, the transfer into the University of several Medical Research Council Units and a step change in the size of the clinical student cohort during this period.

•Expenditure outside the Schools has grown at 7.7% (Staff) and 11.5% (OOE).

•Estates has made a substantial contribution to the Non-School group, with annual growth rates of 8.7% (Staff) and 15% (OOE).

•UIS has also made a significant contribution to the Non-School group, with annual growth rates of 8.0% (Staff) and 20% (OOE).

•If these two cost centres are stripped out of the Non-School group, the adjusted annual growth rates are 7.5% (Staff) and 5.4% (OOE).

As a measure of the growth in University activity during the (eight-year) period from 2014–15 to 2022–23, revenues and costs as indicated in the published FMI were:

•Revenue growth: compound annual growth rate of 4.8%, after adjusting for: donation and endowment income; special transfers from Cambridge University Press and Assessment; and Research and Development Expenditure Credit (RDEC).4

•Staff costs,5 Other Operating Expenditure6 and depreciation: compound annual growth rate of 5.7%, or 2.2% after adjusting for inflation as measured by the Consumer Price Index.

The Board of Scrutiny recognises that the required reductions in expenditure in 2024–25 and 2025–26 are an interim measure. A more strategic approach to achieving material reductions in expenditure, focused on specific areas of University activity with the greatest potential for improvement, is necessarily a longer-term endeavour.

The Council remains satisfied that it is appropriate – as an interim measure – for all parts of the University to contribute as proposed in the next two financial years. Heads of School and Non-School institutions were consulted prior to publication of the 2024–25 Budget and Allocations Report and agreed that reductions in overall operating expenditure of 5% over two years could be achieved without reducing the academic potential of the University.

Expenditure by type: Staff costs and Other Operating Expenditure (OOE) (draft 2023/24 figures)

Expenditure by type: Staff costs and Other Operating Expenditure (OOE) by School/Non-School (draft 2023/24 figures)

9. The Board recommends that structures and reporting lines in financial and administrative leadership be reviewed, with consideration particularly given to the costs and benefits of establishing a post of Chief Operating Officer.

The Council agrees with the Board that the University’s operations are too siloed, there is often duplication and a lack of trust, and there needs to be greater co-ordination across the disparate parts of the University.

The Council has already taken steps to address these concerns, including:

•changing the portfolio of one of the Pro-Vice-Chancellors so that it covers the University’s resources and operations. This is the first time a Pro-Vice-Chancellor’s portfolio has had oversight of the entirety of the University’s operations, encompassing all professional services, including those in UAS and UIS as well as administrative functions based in the Schools and in Non-School institutions;

•recruiting the University’s first Chief Information Officer (who will also be the Director of Information Services and therefore the Head of UIS), part of whose brief will be to ‘defragment’ IT infrastructure and create a ‘one IT’ culture across the University;

•plans to place the Finance Division under the direction of the Chief Financial Officer (CFO), as part of the consolidation of the offices of CFO and Director of Finance, following the approval of Grace 1 of 15 January 2025;7

•recognising the need for greater co-ordination, the Planning and Resources Committee will be considering a proposal from the Change and Programme Management Board to put in place a fixed-term position of Director of the Transformation Programmes. The Director will be expected to provide leadership across all the transformation programmes, in particular to ensure that the Programmes are deliverable and delivered within reasonable timeframes and budgets, and to draw together currently largely disparate operational functions;

•through the work of the transformation programme Reimagining Professional Services, which as the Board acknowledges aims to create one professional services community across the University, directly addressing the issues of siloing and duplication across professional services as a whole, enhanced by the more function-specific activity of the other transformation programmes (covering Finance, HR, Research Services and Estates).

The Council is fully behind the need to modernise the University’s operations. The Council considers that the above steps will, if successfully delivered, address the issues raised by the Board.

10. The Board recommends that all proposals put to the Regent House (or other bodies) should be fully costed, with clarity as to where resources will come from, together with the value of benefits (and the implications of not accepting the proposal), the long-term aim being to embed a culture of financial control across the University.

The Council believes that, where the Regent House – or indeed, any University body – is being asked to approve a proposal, there should be sufficient information available to understand the impact of approving that proposal, including financial and resourcing implications, and the consequences of not doing so. It agrees with the Board’s implicit point that the Council should always consider whether it has provided enough information about the benefits, risks and costs when presenting a proposal for approval. However, the Council does not share the Board’s view that all proposals should be fully costed. It considers that such evaluations should be proportionate, as a more prudent way of making use of the University’s finite resources. Taking one of the examples cited by the Board, the Working Group had already (as the Board notes) provided its analysis of the costs of abolition of the Employer Justified Retirement Age alongside those of its recommendations.8 The Council received assurances that the University would be able to manage the financial implications of the abolition of the EJRA and therefore was willing to authorise submission of the amendment in the ballot.

Responses to other points raised in the Board’s Report and at the Discussion *

The Council refers Mr Haynes and Professor Evans to the Council’s Notice responding to the Discussion remarks on the Topic of concern, the future of the EJRA (Reporter, 6759, 2024–25, p. 113), and Professor Evans to paragraph 35 of the Council’s Standing Orders,9 which sets out what the Council agreed in July 2024 concerning the confidentiality of business. The Council notes that since the Discussion, Dr Astle has received the Vice-Chancellor’s response to his representation made under Statute A IX 1(a) concerning unestablished academic posts.