No 6778
Wednesday 26 March 2025
Vol clv No 27
pp. 454–468
A Discussion was convened by videoconference. Deputy Vice-Chancellor Professor Nicola Padfield, F, was presiding, with the Registrary’s deputy, the Senior Pro‑Proctor, the Junior Pro‑Proctor and nineteen other persons present.
Remarks were made as follows:
(Reporter, 6772, 2024–25, p. 284).
Please see p. 467 for Professor G. R. Evans’ remarks on the fourth item under Discussion, which also relate to this item.
(Reporter, 6773, 2024–25, p. 298).
Professor G. R. Evans (Emeritus Professor of Medieval Theology and Intellectual History), read by the Junior Pro‑Proctor:
Deputy Vice-Chancellor, it seems worth drawing attention to a statement in this year’s Reports and Financial Statements in the context of continuing concern about the future of the Employer Justified Retirement Age. Among the risks identified is the:
inability to attract and retain the best academics and adequately resource professional staff through a failure to compete with escalating levels of international reward levels, growth in the University’s complexity and scale, and high costs of living and housing in the Cambridge area.
The reasons for those stated risks suggested are confined to pay, and ‘the provision of transport, nursery schooling and housing, with the Eddington development designed to ease pressures’, ‘pension schemes’ including the USS. The forced retirement of academic University Officers by reason of age surely deserves a mention with respect to the asserted benefit of having ‘attracted’ them and ‘retained them’, until they reach the age of 69 and become disposable.
(Reporter, 6774, 2024–25, p. 396).
Professor J. S. Simons (Department of Psychology and Emmanuel College), read by the Junior Pro‑Proctor:
Deputy Vice-Chancellor, I am Head of the School of Biological Sciences and a member of the General Board. Since taking on these roles (in an acting capacity from October 2024, and following formal appointment in February 2025), real progress has been made by the Department of Veterinary Medicine, the School of Biological Sciences and the University working together in addressing accreditation requirements and developing a new clinical delivery model. The School of Biological Sciences has established a governance structure to support the Department in the work needed to develop a sustainable business model for the delivery of preclinical and clinical teaching and to regain full Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons accreditation of the course. This governance structure includes working groups focusing on Accreditation Standards and Clinical Services Delivery, and a strategic Oversight Board that I chair, which reports to the Council of the School of Biological Sciences and to the General Board. The groups include targeted external expertise and we have dedicated a senior Academic Project Lead post and Project Management support that is embedded in the Department of Veterinary Medicine.
These supportive but robust governance arrangements will provide the framework to enable the Department of Veterinary Medicine to deliver on its aims to provide a world-leading and financially sustainable educational offering. At its March meeting, the General Board received evidence on progress achieved so far from a number of sources, including the Oversight Board and external experts. The General Board agreed that appropriate resources, plans and processes are in place for the Department to address the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons’ requirements in the timeframe available, and confirmed that the Department should go ahead with student recruitment for 2026 entry. The General Board recognised the need for strategic choices to be made in relation to both curriculum reform and the commercial viability of the Veterinary School Hospital, and requested that the School of Biological Sciences lead in this process in collaboration with the Department and other stakeholders. There is clearly much work still to be done, but I am confident that working together we can achieve the best strategic outcome for the Department of Veterinary Medicine and the University.
Professor G. R. Evans (Emeritus Professor of Medieval Theology and Intellectual History), read by the Senior Pro‑Proctor:
Deputy Vice-Chancellor, the General Board’s former powers to make Ordinances without seeking the consent of the Regent House are now reduced to powers to make Regulations under Statute A V 1(d), though the courtesy of a Notice is expected. The Regent House can still step in, as it has done by calling this Discussion on a Topic of concern.
On 4 March this year – as Varsity reported – ‘nearly 200 students, staff, and trade union members gathered’ outside the Senate House to protest against ‘a potential pause to the Cambridge Veterinary Medicine course’.1 The Reporter of 5 March published the call for a Topic of concern Discussion on ‘Support for the Veterinary Course’, solely raising constitutional ‘questions of general principle regarding reasonable processes within the University’. The quality of the course is not in the frame.
The ‘processes’ questioned are those of the General Board and the reasonableness of its conduct in asking the Department to ‘provide clarity on the future of the Vet School’. Was its request for the Department ‘to develop an alternative option for clinical course delivery within four weeks’ reasonable when the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons’ return visit was not due for six months? And was it ‘reasonable’ – or indeed within its powers – for it ‘to propose closing the clinical facilities which provided teaching’ although its teaching had been commended by the RCVS?
At its meeting on 5 March 2025, the General Board ‘decided to continue admitting vet students for the 2026–27 academic year’. So the General Board has now dropped the proposal for this review, allowing the School of Biological Sciences to work with the Department to take forward any future changes.
The General Board’s most recent published Minutes (for 9 October 2024) record that its ‘Review Group’ on the Vet School had received an Interim Report on Cambridge’s provision but give no further details. This Interim Report remains ‘confidential’. In the light of the call for this Discussion, which is on the general conduct of the General Board, perhaps that should now be released for publication?
1See https://www.varsity.co.uk/news/29272 (4 March 2025) and https://www.varsity.co.uk/news/29298 (7 March 2025).
Dr J. P. Skittrall (Trinity College), read by the Junior Pro‑Proctor:
Deputy Vice-Chancellor, the report into the Veterinary School by the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons was highly concerning: the breadth of issues raised was concerning, but more importantly, the number of issues is so great that the Veterinary School almost certainly will not be able to resolve all of them within the available time. In effect, therefore, the RCVS has given itself discretion to determine whether the University has made an adequate attempt at beginning to address the issues raised. The RCVS has pronounced a suspended death sentence on the veterinary course. Such a pronouncement is clearly not made lightly, because of the risk that, by undermining confidence in the course, it will precipitate the very outcome it aims to deflect. The RCVS is telling the University it had better start jumping.
A wise response at this stage would be some direct engagement along the lines of ‘how high?’
The University’s public response to date has instead been verbose. It did not identify and commit to addressing the key issues.
The General Board is reported subsequently to have attempted to ask the Department of Veterinary Medicine for external assurance of ongoing accreditation, displaying a lack of understanding of the role of the accrediting regulator. This leaves a lacuna where there should be confidence that the situation is in hand.
Overall, the publicly visible aspect of the response so far has been garbled. I am sure I have glossed over some hard work applying nuance that will have occurred behind the scenes. However, aside from the RCVS and the University bodies, there are two key groups who will be making decisions based only upon what is visible in public: current and prospective staff, and prospective students. If either of these groups loses confidence (or perhaps does not regain confidence), then it does not matter what is done behind the scenes: the University’s veterinary course will collapse for lack of staff, students, or both.
Further action at this stage needs:
(1) to be with direct engagement and input from the RCVS, as the regulator and accrediting body;
(2) to focus first, with RCVS agreement, on the key factors that will assure the University is producing safe, competent vets whilst other factors are addressed – so that snagging issues do not distract from existential ones;
(3) to have clear public messaging about what is being done, to maintain the confidence of staff and students (current and prospective) and allow time to accomplish desired improvements.
It is likely that there will not be an easy option here, and that all options will involve substantial cost. It would be very wise – especially where potential cost is financial – to share an options analysis with the Regent House, and to engage the Board of Scrutiny for input.
I am sure that there are individuals who have already put substantial time and effort into this matter – thank you. I apologise to students who find themselves affected by this.
Professor B. Vira (Pro-Vice-Chancellor for Education and Environmental Sustainability, Department of Geography and Fitzwilliam College), read by the Senior Pro‑Proctor:
Deputy Vice-Chancellor, I am the Pro-Vice-Chancellor for Education and Environmental Sustainability and I am a member of the General Board, but I am making these remarks in a personal capacity.
The Topic of concern poses two questions, which I have tried to address based on my understanding of the matters discussed and agreed by the General Board.
Was it reasonable for the General Board to ask the Department to develop an alternative option for clinical course delivery within four weeks when its own Review Group has, so far, taken over 20 months to report?
These are two independent processes, although their timelines converged in November 2024. In light of the more immediate concerns raised by the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons (RCVS) accreditation review, the General Board temporarily paused its internal review to allow the Department of Veterinary Medicine to address these serious issues, which clearly threatened the future of the Vet.M.B. course at Cambridge. It sought assurance that the Department was actively considering all RCVS recommendations, including exploring alternative models for delivering the Vet.M.B. course. Given the conditional accreditation status and the approaching deadline for decisions on student recruitment for 2026, requesting a clear commitment to the development of an alternative option within four weeks was reasonable, since assurances needed to be provided to prospective applicants, and to the General Board, in context of its role in relation to academic standards.
Why did the General Board ask for an external assurance of accreditation from the Department, when that is in essence an impossible condition to meet six months before the RCVS return visit?
The General Board requested external assurance of accreditation to inform its decision on whether student recruitment for 2026 should proceed. The experience of the previous accreditation visit by the RCVS suggested that relying on an internal assessment alone might not be sufficient. This request prompted input from multiple external sources, supporting the subsequent positive recruitment decision. The Oversight Board, which includes external members, and chaired by the Head of the School of the Biological Sciences, affirmed that the Department had the necessary resources, plans, and processes in place to meet the RCVS’ requirements within the available timeframe, provided leadership capacity remained focused on this work. The former Head of the University of Bristol’s Veterinary School, who has been contracted to provide external advice and expertise also submitted a report and the Pro-Vice-Chancellor for Education provided a brief note based on discussions with senior colleagues associated with the reform of Veterinary Education at the University of Bristol.
External assurance was also provided by the positive accreditation visit from the European Association of Establishments for Veterinary Education (EAEVE) at the end of February 2025, which commended many aspects of the course. The feedback from the assessment panel clearly provided external assurance about the Department’s provision, and their ability to present this to the accrediting body.
Meanwhile, the Department continues to work towards regaining full accreditation while developing contingency plans for all potential outcomes of the RCVS visit in Michaelmas Term, including curriculum reform and a more sustainable delivery model.
Professor J. L. N. Wood (Department of Veterinary Medicine and Wolfson College), read by the Junior Pro‑Proctor:
Deputy Vice-Chancellor, I make these remarks as a Professor in the Department of Veterinary Medicine and the previous Head of Department. As noted in the request for discussion, the General Board set up a Veterinary School Review Group in May 2023:
•to provide an objective perspective on the delivery of the Clinical Services Business;
•to provide a view on management and organisation of clinical services and the wider Department that exist in the support of teaching for the Veterinary Sciences Tripos, final Bachelor degree of Veterinary Medicine, and research;
•to research clinical educational needs and benchmark alternatives to our current delivery model.
The main concerns to be addressed were in the context of delivering teaching and sustaining clinical teaching teams in a financially sustainable manner (see Minute B2, General Board meeting of 3 May 2023).1 The paper, from May 2023, proposed the establishment of a Review Group to ‘support the Veterinary School and School of the Biological Sciences to review and analyse the challenging issues raised in an open and structured way, and to make recommendations as appropriate’. That Review Group has produced a confidential interim report, but has yet to publish a final report.
In the meantime, the veterinary programme in the University received a negative accreditation review from The Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons (RCVS). The RCVS has indicated that there would be further review in September 2025 to determine whether the Cambridge course would be accredited for the September 2026 intake.
In November 2024, the General Board wrote to the Head of Department of Veterinary Medicine, giving the Department around four weeks to outline a commitment to take forward work to develop an alternative option for clinical course delivery in partnership with one or more other clinical providers, or to indicate that this effort would not be pursued. In the former case, the proposed partners would need to be identified with their willingness to partner documented. Despite the Veterinary School providing a full outline as requested, subsequently, the General Board wrote to the Department and asked for external assurance by early March 2025 that there was no likelihood of a terminal accreditation decision following the RCVS visit in September 2025, and that all RCVS recommendations could be appropriately addressed. The General Board suggested that it was minded to suspend the veterinary course, closing it to new entrants in 2026, if such assurance from the Department was not forthcoming.
As well as the future of the Vet.M.B. course, aspects of the above process are matters of concern.
•Was it reasonable for the General Board to:
•ask the Department to develop an alternative option for clinical course delivery within four weeks when its own Review Group had, thus far, taken over 20 months to report?
•indicate that the Department should ‘commit… to take forward work to develop an alternative option for clinical course delivery in partnership with one or more other clinical providers’ – and so effectively indicate its intention to seek the closure of the veterinary teaching hospital without any form of consultation?
•Why did the General Board ask for an external assurance of accreditation from the Department, when that is in essence an impossible condition to meet six months before the RCVS return visit?
We understand that the General Board decided to keep the course open to new entrants at its meeting on 5 March. Further details are not yet published. It is of note that, while many of the recommendations of the RCVS from its 2024 report fall to the Department of Veterinary Medicine (and other Departments in the School of Biological Sciences which deliver the Veterinary Sciences Tripos), the RCVS also recommended that ‘The Department must provide clarity on the future of the vet school regarding a definitive timeline for the completion of the General Board review’. This clarification obviously cannot come from the Department itself and it seems reasonable that clear statements on ‘the future of the vet school’ from the General Board would (and will) form an important element of the response to the RCVS accreditation visit in September 2025.
The Cambridge veterinary programme has an international reputation and was rated the top UK veterinary school for teaching provision in the 2024 Guardian ranking. Its One Health research forms a critical element in the University’s Infectious Diseases Research programme, and as a centre for comparative pathogen and biology research, not least in relation to future pandemic prevention. Indeed other centres of excellence for pandemic research, for example Oxford and Imperial, are trying to forge partnerships with other veterinary schools to bridge this gap in their One Health research.
Great strides have been made already since 2024 to address accreditation issues. It is of particular note that informal feedback from the European veterinary accreditation body, The European Association for Establishments of Veterinary Education (EAEVE) which visited Cambridge formally in February 2025, only identified one area of potential non-compliance where a major recommendation is likely to be made (numbers of postmortems in three animal species).
It is hoped that, with the necessary ongoing support in particular from the School of Biological Sciences, and with the delivery of changes that have been identified, the veterinary programme at the University will regain its full accreditation RCVS later this year. This will be made more likely if the Department has the clearly expressed support of the General Board and the University for the future delivery of the course.
Ms C. Walls (Newnham College), read by the Senior Pro‑Proctor:
Deputy Vice-Chancellor, I do not have a title to bestow upon myself like many who have made remarks in this forum before me. I am, however, a proud Alumna of the University and an even prouder parent of an undergraduate who is studying under the Medical and Veterinary Science Tripos.
The Vet School as you know has been subjected to an accreditation review by the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons (RVCS) and has been granted a conditional accreditation status. The RVCS declared that without radical improvements, the Vet School would receive a terminal accreditation, meaning that no new students could be recruited for this course.
I feel it is important that the University supports the Vet School in meeting the recommendations of the report and whilst I know that the General Board has continued to allow new students to be recruited for the 2026–27 academic year, the University should work as a whole to develop a lasting solution that will provide a secure future for the Vet School.
The University is one of only eight institutions in the UK that currently provide accredited education for vets. I believe that for this University to be barred from providing education in this sphere would damage its reputation.
Ms S. Murphy (Girton College), read by the Junior Pro‑Proctor:
Deputy Vice-Chancellor, I am making these remarks as a veterinary student; I am also an officer of the Cambridge University Veterinary Society (CUVS), the representative body for all six years of veterinary students here in Cambridge. I explain here what the committee of CUVS does, and how we hope to be involved in any future decisions made regarding the future of the Vet School.
The CUVS committee is composed primarily of fifth‑year students who run pastoral and academic events throughout the academic year. We also have dedicated year representatives for each cohort, ensuring that communication and student input is collected across all levels of study. Our purpose is to provide both academic and pastoral support for our students as they navigate the course.
Within CUVS, we have a structured support network, including welfare, equality and diversity, and sustainability representatives. These individuals organize events and offer peer support to students, as well as being points of contact for relaying student feedback and ideas to the Vet School. Additionally, CUVS maintains frequent and constructive dialogue with the Vet School through regular meetings each term, covering both educational matters with the faculty board representative and pastoral issues affecting our student body.
I would like to take the opportunity to note that I both recognize and appreciate the transparency and communication received from the Vet School during the period following the RCVS conditional accreditation. As well as being encouraged to attend a whole Vet School zoom meeting, we were signposted to Directors of Studies and tutors for further questions and to answer any concerns. The department has also created an FAQ page and email inbox for students to direct any individual concerns towards as and when they may arise. Many colleges also facilitated discussions following consultation between the Vet School and senior tutors, to ensure that students felt able to express their concerns and remained well-informed.
However, when the University was considering the Vet School’s future, I was perplexed at the announcements and pace at which decisions were being proposed without any interaction with students. Given our long-standing relationship with the Vet School and our established framework for student engagement, I believe that CUVS is perfectly positioned to serve as a direct point of contact for the University. Our society, with its specific representatives and comprehensive understanding of the Vet School’s operations, would be able to provide well-informed perspectives on a range of issues. The lack of engagement with students caused significant anxiety, particularly among the earlier years, as we were unaware of what aspects of the course’s future were in discussion and the implications this would have on our further training and ultimately qualification. I believe this could have been easily addressed through student meetings, which would have at the very least reassured us that our support for the Vet School was being acknowledged.
The student body was very pleased by the decision not to pause the 2026 intake, which has also eased many of the worries felt amongst the student body. I could speak endlessly as to why Cambridge Vet School is so important to us and the University, but I will try to briefly summarise what I believe are the key points. As with every Vet School in the UK, Cambridge holds a crucial role in addressing the national need for skilled veterinary professionals, a demand that continues to grow as animal health, food security, and biomedical research become ever more vital. Since its foundation in 1949 with just eight students, Cambridge has been dedicated to shaping not only competent veterinarians but deeply invested professionals who uphold the highest standards of care and innovation, with fundamental scientific-based foundations in their clinical training. The university’s world-leading research drives advancements in veterinary medicine, with students actively engaged in cutting-edge projects that inspire their own future contributions to the field. Learning from clinicians who are pioneers in their specialisms, we are constantly motivated by their expertise, passion, and commitment to the profession. Amidst the emergence of new veterinary schools, Cambridge remains a historic institution with an unmatched legacy, continuing to lead the way in producing outstanding veterinary professionals who are equipped to meet the challenges of modern veterinary medicine.
As such, I respectfully request that, moving forward, the University formally involves the student body in any decisions concerning the future of the Veterinary School. We extend an open invitation for collaboration and consultation with the University going forward, ensuring that the voices of those most affected are actively considered in shaping the future of veterinary education at Cambridge.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Mr J. C. Clark (Corpus Christi College), read by the Senior Pro‑Proctor:
Deputy Vice-Chancellor, I make these remarks as a member of both the Regent House and the Cambridge UCU, one of the three recognised trade unions who represent staff in the University, including in the Department of Veterinary Medicine. Each of these unions has been in close contact with staff since the General Board correspondence to the Head of Department in November 2024, and they have been working closely to represent staff concerns surrounding the Queen’s Veterinary School Hospital.
I have been a member of the University community as an undergraduate student, postgraduate student, and now College Fellow, and I have seen first hand the importance of the Veterinary School to each of those strata of the University community. Students and staff are heavily involved in College activity, and make a crucial contribution to the vibrant learning and working environments from which we are all fortunate to benefit. I am also aware that the Queen’s Veterinary School Hospital students and staff work with the RSPCA to provide some of the only low-cost veterinary care in the entirety of Cambridgeshire, underlining the importance of the Veterinary School in maintaining a positive relationship between the University and the wider city community. It also performs a public service in continuing to support the training of new veterinarians in the context of a national shortage of staff in this critical profession.
I will not reiterate the points stated in the request for Discussion here, but I wish to register my concern that the communications from the General Board to the Department from November 2024 suggested steps towards changed working conditions for staff within the Hospital, without consultation with recognised staff trade unions. While formal decisions may not yet have been made at this stage, it is critical for the welfare of staff and the democratic functioning of the University that any consideration being given to Departmental restructuring takes place with the greatest transparency, and with a forum for bidirectional communication with staff. The nature of communications in this instance has created untold uncertainty and anxiety for staff, as well as students, at a time of enormous existing pressure following the publication of the RCVS accreditation report.
The student and staff campaign that emerged from these concerns revealed an outpouring of support from within the University community, as well as from alumni, Cambridge residents, and colleagues from other Universities nationally and internationally. This support is documented in the form of an open letter which received a total of 1,700 signatures in just two weeks, and has created a community who are watching future developments in regards to the Veterinary School with great interest.
I note the General Board’s decision at its meeting on 5 March to allow continued admission to the Veterinary Medicine course from 2026, and wish to express my gratitude to the General Board for listening to the concerns of myself and many others in the University community. While a great deal of uncertainty remains for students and staff in the Department, now is the perfect time to instigate a spirit of ongoing collaboration between the General Board, the School of Biological Sciences, the Department, its student and staff representatives (including the Cambridge University Veterinary Society, the Students’ Union, and the three recognised staff unions), and the wider Cambridge community. Such a process would represent a strong commitment to the welfare of students and staff, while ensuring these groups have a venue to discuss their concerns would cultivate trust in University processes.
To summarise, the Queen’s Veterinary School and Hospital is a locally, nationally, and internationally treasured institution, from which the entirety of Cambridge benefits. It is my sincere belief that, by collaboration between all relevant groups, a solution can be found that ensures its long-term future as a hub of clinical teaching and community building.
(Reporter, 6774, 2024–25, p. 399).
Professor F. I. Aigbirhio (Department of Clinical Neurosciences and Magdalene College):
Deputy Vice-Chancellor, I make these remarks as the Director of the Molecular Imaging Chemistry Laboratory (MICL).
As outlined in my remarks on 16 July 20241 the MICL is central to the School Clinical Medicine strategy for the development and application of the biomedical molecular imaging technology of positron emission tomography. In addition, in the remarks I highlighted the urgency to construct a new facility and relocate from the dire MICL accommodation within the West Forvie Building. With this already described in the remarks and also summarised in this Report I will not repeat the issues. They are clearly stated.
Instead, I speak to welcome and support this alternative proposal by University Estates to develop and relocate the MICL. Therefore, not on the East Forvie Car Park site as in the Report in July 20242 which raised significant concerns, instead to establish it next to the John Van Geest Centre for Brain Repair on the Forvie site. This being an outcome of a sub-committee that included a range of stakeholders from the Forvie site, including representatives from the East Forvie Building and the John Van Geest Centre for Brain Repair. This new option is preferable, bringing greater synergies scientifically, improved operational efficiency and stronger academic-social interactions for the MICL researchers. The hope is this construction can now proceed at pace to completion and so finally address this unsustainable situation with the MICL accommodation at West Forvie Building that has been ongoing since 2017.
Professor G. R. Evans (Emeritus Professor of Medieval Theology and Intellectual History), read by the Junior Pro‑Proctor:
Deputy Vice-Chancellor, two items for Discussion today concern buildings on the Cambridge Biomedical Campus: the alteration and development of the Hutchison Building and a new but temporary building for Molecular Imaging, for both of which the consent of the Regent House is required under Statute F II 3.
This is not the first time building in this area has come up for discussion. A Green Paper in the Reporter of 25 June 20101 referred the reader to four earlier Reports and two Notices. Confidence was then expressed that as this was ‘the last major piece of undeveloped land in the ownership of the University’ its ‘release from the Green Belt’ was intended ‘to meet the University’s needs for the next 20 years or so’. At that date ‘the Area Action Plan’ provided for ‘100,000 sqm of academic and commercial research/research institute space, in the ratio of 60:40 respectively’. Even though there were ‘no specific plans at present for academic developments on the site’, provision had ‘been made in the masterplan for future buildings’ the ‘strategy for development and sale/investment of these facilities will follow normal procedures for approval by the Regent House and development control through the Council’s Buildings Committee’. That is now happening.
The convention has long been that when proposals are made under Statute F the Regent House will first be invited to approve in principle and that then ‘the Director of Estates be authorised to apply construct the facility in due course’. For the Hutchison building the Regent House is invited to approve that ‘the Pro-Vice-Chancellor (Resources and Operations) be authorised to accept a tender for the works, within the available funding, in due course’. That is the plan in the case of ‘Molecular Imaging’, but with an addition allowing construction to take place, namely that ‘the Director of Estates be authorised to apply for full planning permission’.
It would be helpful to know the reason for this difference in the approvals requested.