Reports

Thirtieth Report of the Board of Scrutiny

The Board of Scrutiny begs leave to report to the University as follows:

1. The Board of Scrutiny was established on the recommendation of the Wass Syndicate (Reporter, 5399, 1988–89, p. 617) to provide independent analysis and oversight on behalf of the Regent House by examining the Annual Report of the Council (including that of the General Board to the Council), the Abstract of the Accounts, and any Report of the Council proposing allocations from the Chest. It has the right to comment on related matters that it believes should be drawn to the attention of the University, including issues of policy. Further information can be found on the Board’s website1 and in Statutes and Ordinances.2 The Board has the right of reporting to the University, and this is its thirtieth annual Report. Previous Board Reports may be found online.3

2. The Board encourages members of the Regent House, the University’s governing body, to think about and engage in governance as part of a process intended to be complementary to, rather than in conflict with, administration by the Council and the General Board. Nevertheless, the intention of the Wass Syndicate was to provide an additional mechanism for holding the Council to account for the increased powers it had acquired, particularly in relation to the items that the Board is required by Statute to examine.

3. Although the Board aims to assist the Council in its work, it is important to note that the Board is a constitutionally separate body, exercising the responsibilities and powers conferred by Statute, as well as engaging with the conduct of business by, for example, commenting at Discussions, or opposing, supporting, amending, or promoting Graces. The Board may be able to comment more freely than the Council, or to give greater attention to certain areas of business and, although it has some capacity to act on its own account, it can neither supplant the responsibilities of the Regent House collectively nor perform the work of the Council. The Board hopes to encourage discussion and collaborative thinking across the University.

Activity of the Board, 2024–25

4. Fourteen meetings of the whole Board were held in person or online, including nine at which senior officers attended as guests: the Vice-Chancellor, Professor Deborah Prentice; the Pro-Vice-Chancellor for Education and Environmental Sustainability, Professor Bhaskar Vira; the Pro-Vice-Chancellor for Research, Professor John Aston; the Pro‑Vice-Chancellor for Resources and Operations, Professor Anna Philpott; the Pro-Vice-Chancellor for University Community and Engagement, Professor Kamal Munir; the Chief Financial Officer, Mr Anthony Odgers; the Registrary, Ms Emma Rampton; the Academic Secretary, Dr Michael Glover; and the Director of Human Resources, Ms Andrea Hudson.

5. Working groups of members met with Mr Michael Nicholson (Deputy Head of Education Services – Admissions and Participation), Ms Sarah d’Ambrumenil (Interim Deputy Head of Student Administration, Education Services), Professor Jon Simons (Head of the School of the Biological Sciences), Professor Judy Hirst (Professor of Biological Chemistry and Director of the MRC Mitochondrial Biology Unit), Mr Alexander Reeve (Sustainable Construction Manager, Estates Division) and Mr Ron Chambers (then Director of Enterprise Platforms – Transformation, University Information Services). Further information and assistance were provided by the Director of Governance and Compliance, Dr Regina Sachers. The Board is grateful to all the above for their time and thought. The Board also records its thanks to Ms Sarah Greaves for her administrative support.

Introduction

6. On 1 October 2024, the Vice-Chancellor, Professor Deborah Prentice began her first full academic year at the University and gave her second annual address. She began by referring to the University’s considerable successes and the prominence of the University’s place in the UK. She went on to note, inter alia, the importance of ‘spotting the changes’ early on to avoid incipient decline. She also noted financial pressures, the sometimes difficult balance between spending today and investing for tomorrow, and the crucial importance of continuing to attract top talent. The Board was encouraged by the Vice-Chancellor’s drawing attention to these issues in an important address. This Report seeks to provide independent analysis and oversight of some of them.

7. Last year’s Report focused on the importance of including financial considerations in planning and decision‑making. In addition, while noting that the transformation programmes were essential, there was a need for greater operational grip. The Board this year heard evidence to suggest these issues largely remain. The delivery of transformation programmes, while evincing some progress, is still in train. One has effectively been paused. There were again assurances of future delivery, despite changes in senior personnel. The benefits of the programmes were sometimes referred to as rather more aspirational than realistic, acknowledging the need for more effort to be put into implementation and accountability for outcomes. Of significant concern this year was the announcement that budgeted financial deficits were to be accepted for a ‘foreseeable’ future that was ill-defined, while actual deficits appeared to be growing. Enhanced Financial Transparency, it would seem, cannot come soon enough, but the system in and of itself will not turn deficits into surpluses. The changes in ways of working may take even longer to bear fruit than the long-awaited financial system.

8. In this, its thirtieth year of operation, the Board reviewed its own effectiveness and will again reflect on measures to improve its effectiveness over the next year. The Report of Allocations from the Chest is likely to change with the new financial systems and thus the Board’s remit may require formal amendment at the time these changes are implemented. The roles of the Chair and Secretary were considered, as was the management of material conflicts of interest. The Board noted that part of its work might benefit from planning over a period lasting more than one year, rather than being subject to redefinition each year. Some of the information requested by the Board proved difficult to obtain. The Board urges the University to respond more promptly to such requests, as access to information is essential for the Board to fulfil its statutory duties. The Board considered enhancements to its reporting, including, where appropriate, the possibility of reporting to the University on a particular issue during the year rather than waiting until the delivery of its annual Report. It also considered some changes to the format of its annual Report, in the interests of clearer and more effective communication.

9. The Board considered the history of its recommendations across the previous twenty-nine annual Reports and found that there has been a general shift from financial and governance factors to a broader range of issues, perhaps reflecting the growing complexity of the management of such a large institution. Figure 1 illustrates the change over time. However, it is to be noted that this records all Board recommendations as of equal weight, while it is likely that, at the time they were written, some were seen as more significant than others.

Figure 1: Board of Scrutiny recommendations illustrated by theme by year

10. The Board was grateful to the Vice-Chancellor for the openness with which she engaged with the Board but notes that some other officers appeared somewhat more reluctant to do so. The Board was encouraged to learn that open and challenging discussions continue to take place at the Council.

11. The Board received an increased and significant amount of correspondence from members of the Regent House on a wide variety of topics this year. While involvement in individual cases falls outside its remit, the Board views this as a positive sign of the Board’s purpose and function and warmly thanks members for their engagement. Such cases may prompt the Board to raise concerns and/or make recommendations about general processes, without commenting on specific cases; moreover, communications about general issues and processes assisted the Board in enquiries relating, for example, to developments this year in the Department of Veterinary Medicine.

12. Noting that many of the Board’s recommendations, both this year and in previous Reports, relate to openness of information, the Board recommends that the Council undertakes its own transparency review to consider whether more of the information prepared for the Council or for other senior committees could be made available to the Regent House, with a presumption in favour of publication rather than against. This could include making consultancy reports available in draft for comment from the Regent House, or perhaps even making the Council’s open agenda and papers available via SharePoint, as is already the case with certain committees. There are many topics on which it is said that consultation has been carried out with the wider University in one form or another, but rarely a report back on what information that consultation yielded and how it was/will be used to shape the resulting recommendations.

13. There are also times when communication could be set out more clearly in plain English to encourage greater engagement from the Regent House. A line from the General Board’s latest Annual Report,4 with respect to the Change and Programme Management Board, reads ‘The CPMB also initiated a wider change review of the overall portfolio of transformation, to ensure that it is set up for success, and established a Business Systems Oversight Group as a sub‑committee of the CPMB, to provide oversight of all projects and activities which form the Business Systems Ecosystem (the technology services, systems and platforms that affect or are affected by the major transformation programmes)’. A greater focus on what it is that the Council wishes to communicate to the reader may make these Reports clearer.

14. The Board’s Report continues by setting out the Board’s consideration of issues under the headings of: Finance; Education and collegiate University; People; and Sustainability.

Finance

15. As the Board has noted for the past few years, the University is in a process of reforming its budgeting process. Historically, the budget (but not the accounts) is split into Chest and non-Chest parts, where Chest allocations and expenditure cover the majority of the recurrent pay costs of the University’s academic and professional services posts, whilst non-Chest expenditure covers almost all research activity, some teaching activity and some other activities. Under the Finance Transformation Programme (FTP) this split will be eliminated, but at present it still exists. The hope is that these changes and, in particular, the Enhanced Financial Transparency (EFT) project, will provide more reliable and transparent financial information so that institutions can make better informed decisions and plan and budget more effectively.

16. The University’s financial position, both current and forecast, remains of concern to the Board. The University has budgeted for a Chest deficit every year since 2016–17, reaching a nadir of a £89.5m projected Chest expenditure deficit for 2023–245 (on the positive side, the outturn was ‘only’ a £64.5m deficit6). Some progress has been made: in 2024–25 the Chest projected expenditure deficit was reduced to £62.6m,7 while, for the current year, 2025–26, the projected Chest expenditure deficit is £39.7m. However, the latter is after the previously announced 5% cut in Chest allocations, and a 5% tax levied on certain non-Chest income which is being used to reduce the Chest deficit.

17. Nonetheless, the Chest allocation and outturn tell only part of the story. As noted in the Financial Statements for the year ended 31 July 2024,8 the University considers the best measure of underlying recurrent operating performance of the ‘Group’9 to be the adjusted operating surplus/(deficit) for the year, shown in Appendix 1 of those statements. This was a deficit of £15.7m in 2023–24, compared to a deficit of £9.5m in 2022–23, and surpluses of £25.4m, £19.8m and £50.8m in 2021–22, 2020–21 and 2018–19 respectively (there was a deficit of £42.3m in 2019–20, but that year covered the start of the pandemic).

18. One might argue that, given the income of the Group is £2.6bn, the deficit is small and should not be of great concern. However, the adjusted operating deficit of the Academic University in 2023–24 was £105m, up from £73m in 2022–23 and £47m in 2021–22.10 These deficits are significant, given that in 2022–23, the Chief Financial Officer (CFO) commented that:

Within the Academic University, we are targeting a sustainable annual surplus over time, through raising revenues and utilising collective resources more efficiently, while enhancing the academic strengths of the University and investing in our people.11

The Board agrees with the statement in the 2023–24 accounts commentary, that the University ‘cannot be complacent’,12 given that diverted resources to meet the deficit would otherwise be available for the investment necessary to maintain the University’s reputation for research and teaching. Moreover, the Board notes the Council’s awareness of the reliance on revenues from Cambridge University Press & Assessment (CUPA), particularly given the deficits. Given the increasingly competitive environment in which CUPA operates, this constitutes a significant financial risk which needs careful management.

19. While the Board notes that other universities are suffering financial problems, because of, inter alia, significant cost increases, it had hoped that some light at the end of the tunnel might be visible by now. However, an interim update of the Ten-year cash flow model presented to the Council in June 2025 was disappointing, indicating that the outlook for the core academic deficit has worsened (with the outturn deficit for the current year expected to be no better and possibly worse than for last year), and with recovery remaining highly dependent on cost savings.

20. Whilst the Board can only agree with the need for tight fiscal discipline, the Board is concerned about the University-wide 5% savings, as a blunt instrument implemented across all Schools and Departments regardless of individual circumstances. The Board recognises that there was agreement by the Heads of Schools that this 5% figure was achievable, that the decision-making as to how it should be achieved was devolved rather than centrally imposed, and also that it would be desirable to increase income rather than reduce expenditure. However, the Board is concerned that:

•some institutions seemed to be deferring necessary difficult decisions by temporarily using reserves to cover reductions in Chest allocations;

•in places, cuts were being achieved by freezing academic appointments, despite what the Board understands to be the Council’s clearly expressed objective that the cuts should not affect our academic offering; and

•there is apparently no mechanism to report precisely how the cuts are being made, without which the Council’s wish that academic delivery not be impacted cannot readily be measured.

The above examples highlight a difficulty between School autonomy and the Council: while it is appropriate that Schools have full decision-making freedom in their own budgets, this may not always be aligned with the Council’s aims.

21. Further, when the Board enquired as to views on where cost savings might be achieved outside of the academic offering, e.g. if it turned out that further reductions in expenditure were necessary, it was surprised by one officer’s suggestion that it would ‘be helpful for the University to indicate where we should make cuts’. The Board agrees that key decisions need to be made at Committees, but surely it is the responsibility of the Heads of Institution to propose areas where cost savings are achievable.

22. Last year the Board regretted the abandonment of the former tried and tested, if somewhat unwieldy, planning process based on the Resource Allocation Model (RAM), before the new planning process using EFT was in place (predicted to be in 2027). The Board commented that the result was that, to a certain extent, the University has been ‘flying blind’ as regards planning. In the interim, and on the plus side, the Board welcomes the recent establishment of the Academic Planning and Strategy Office (APSO) in the Academic Division, which has been formed from two teams which were formerly in the Finance Division. The APSO will support the development and implementation of academic and strategic plans, provide planning advice and support across the University.

23. This change seems to reverse a decision of over eight years ago, when the Planning and Resource Allocation Office was moved into the Finance Division from the Academic Division (with the intention of strengthening academic and financial planning by placing them side by side). However, even by early 2018 it was clear that the ‘potential [had] not yet been realised and many [had] commented that, in their view, the academic planning function [had] been diminished rather than enhanced’.13 The Board is, of course, open to the University’s trying new processes, but when a change is clearly not working, it should not take seven years to reverse an unsuccessful experiment.

24. With financial recovery remaining highly dependent on cost savings, the Board is concerned that unrealistic optimism appears to be placed on the expenditure reductions which will result from the University’s change programmes. These programmes do not, by themselves, deliver efficiencies: it is the changes in the way of working facilitated by these systems which have the potential to yield cost savings.

25. The Board has seen little evidence that the necessary changes in process for delivering cost savings have been clearly defined, let alone planned to be put in place. While the Enhanced Financial Transparency programme ought to deliver better information, understanding that information and making effective use of it will take time to bed in, not least since greater devolution of decision-making is anticipated. On a technical point, the Board notes that little progress seems to have been made in planning how to implement the robust cross-subsidies between institutions necessary to ensure that the University continues to provide a wide range of thriving academic disciplines. The Board recommends that there be a clearer understanding of cost-sharing activities at the most disaggregated level so there can be a wider understanding of this area in preparation for the new financial systems.

26. The HR Transformation Programme (Systems and Processes) provides evidence of several of the problems in the transformation programmes.

•When the programme was proposed in January 2019, University Information Services (UIS) informed the HR Division that the supplier, Midland HR, would be ending support for its on‑premise HR system (CHRIS), and that the University would either have to move to Midland’s Cloud-based product or switch provider. A 3–5 year programme was proposed for a ‘modern HR system that would provide functionality and capability enabling the delivery of a wide range of HR initiatives to address current organisational pressures, enable strategic priorities and improve our employee experience’. Yet six years on, the University is still running the old system, and the implementation of the new system has been paused. The University needs accurate timescale information in order to make optimal decisions.

•One of the reasons that the programme has experienced major delays is because of communication difficulties between the new and old HR systems and the University’s bespoke and, arguably, insufficiently documented Jackdaw database. 14 That this risk to the new HR system was seemingly under-appreciated is somewhat disappointing since the Board has been informed that, well over a decade ago, a former member of both the Board and the Council had raised concerns about the risk Jackdaw posed.

•In response to a question posed by the Board, the progress of the programme was reported in terms of money spent rather than progress achieved. This would indicate a worrying approach to monitoring and evaluation.

27. The Board recommends that there be a clearer way for staff to understand progress on all the transformational change programmes, perhaps a regularly updated dashboard showing progress on various projects, both in terms of time and cost. This would both help with transparency and also with holding decision-makers accountable.

28. As noted in the recent Allocations Report, the number of non-academic staff continues to increase while the number of academic staff is essentially flat, with 54%/46% staff classified as non-academic/academic. Whilst not all non‑academic staff are administrative, the numbers of professional services staff have risen. Some of these increases are said to be temporary, during the delivery of transformation programmes; however, the duration of those programmes means that ‘temporary’ may last a decade. At the intersection of deficit and staffing lies a very simple question: can the University still afford to do everything that it wishes to do, or does it now need to become more selective in what it prioritises? Reviewing this issue may require consideration of the degree of risk the University is prepared to bear in order to reduce costs.

29. Last year, the Board recommended that all proposals put to the Regent House (or other decision-making 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 responded saying that full costing may be too resource-intensive but agreeing that for any major decision 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. However, the example given, for the change to retirement age, was that the Council had received assurance that ‘the University would be able to manage the financial implications’ – and this was thought to be sufficient. The Board does not agree that such general assurances are sufficient to inculcate a culture of financial control. Indeed, this perpetuates the impression that the University has money to spare. Thus, the Board reiterates its point about the need to embed a culture of financial control across the University and agrees that the information provided to approve a proposal (or otherwise) should be in sufficient and proportionate detail.

Education and collegiate University

30. The Board welcomes the publication of the final recommendations of the University’s Teaching Review, which ran from December 2023 until March 2025. The priorities of the Review were the teaching arrangements pertinent to undergraduate Tripos courses only, and were to some extent motivated by concerns, expressed both by students and staff, that the University was normalising a culture of overwork which was negatively impacting learning and well-being, and stalling the professional progress of especially early career academics. The supervision system has also come under considerable scrutiny in recent years.

31. Given that the themes of transparency and communication pervade this and earlier Board of Scrutiny Reports, we will be able, in the next academic cycle, to treat the response to the Teaching Review recommendations as something of a test case for how Colleges, Faculties, Departments, and, indeed, individuals themselves, are able to embrace and implement directives furnished as a result of a central Review.

32. It is noted that the General Board’s Education Committee will have a decisive role in tracking the extent of the implementation and impact in all but one of the nine recommendations (Recommendation 4 will require the establishment of a working group). The Board welcomes this as an example of clear and specific assignment of responsibility for consultation, delivery and ongoing evaluation. Looking ahead over the next academic year, the Board will take a keen interest in any findings established in this connection. Discerning impact in an accurate and reliable manner may well be difficult, but this should not deter efforts to effect change. Positive impressions detected in National Student Survey responses would rightly be seen as encouraging but should not be the only means of securing data (especially given levels of participation in that survey). Continued dialogue with stakeholders, an approach mentioned in the Review, seems the responsible way to proceed. In this connection, greater transparency and better communication would be achieved if all Directors of Studies (DoS) had access rather than just Chairs of DoS committees.

33. The Board notes the Review is framed at an aspirational level and is accordingly relatively unspecific as to both the mechanisms by which its aspirations are to be implemented and also the measures by which the ‘enhancements’ to learning and teaching that the Review anticipates are to be evaluated. The Board hopes that the further development and implementation of the Review’s aims will be appropriately underpinned by educational theory and practical feasibility, especially with regard to workload. For example, assumptions that increasing contact hours, workload and pressure drives results ought to be substantiated by empirical evidence. Similarly, the focus on ‘self-directed study’ to counter over-teaching should be tested in consultation with students and by reference to relevant deeper educational principles.

34. Given the prevalent culture of academic competition and professional aspiration, any shift towards a student‑centred ‘individual learning journey’ will require new measures of achievement and progress, to replace cohort rankings, to supply supporting positive reinforcement and to guide improvements. The expectations placed on all those involved in teaching and education could be radically reframed as a consequence.

35. The Board further notes that a significant responsibility is passed onto Faculties, DoS committees and supervisors to work through the suggestions set out in the Review. It remains to be seen whether there is a widespread appetite to undertake this work, whether the parties have sufficient incentive to change their practices, and whether they have the authority to do so. With regard to the key concerns of the Review, the tone of ‘something needs to be done’ is prominent, and perhaps at least this concession is to be welcomed by students and supervisors. Again, leadership, consultation and monitoring will be required if the Review’s ambitions are to be realised. The Board recommends that updates on the progress of implementation of the Teaching Review be published to demonstrate what progress has been achieved in Michaelmas 2025 and regularly thereafter.

36. The Board also notes that communication issues continue to hinder progress, with a persistent lack of clear messaging and coordination across the relevant teams and faculties. For example, whilst the original Strategic Review of Admissions and Outreach conducted an extensive consultation with Faculties and Departments, the latest Review of Undergraduate Admissions Governance did not. The stated principle of ‘College and University co‑ownership of undergraduate admissions and outreach’ was clearly hindered by the lack of consistent consultation with Faculties and Departments on the Governance and Management Reform of Undergraduate Admissions, which resulted in Faculties being presented with an agreed outcome, without any meaningful chance for input.

37. The Board nonetheless welcomes the outcome of the review of admissions governance and the resulting clearer, slimmer structure. Last year, the Board recommended that the University and Colleges improve co‑ordination of admissions processes and widening-participation schemes, including greater collaboration on bridging courses and preparation weeks. The Council noted in response that Colleges already follow the University’s admissions policy and that a joint review of governance, recruitment and outreach is under way, with new arrangements due for 2025–26. While expansion of bridging and induction programmes is welcomed, the Council’s response to the Board emphasised the need for consistent approaches to admissions, better coordination of resources, and action to address regional and ethnic under‑representation. The Board remains concerned that Cambridge continues to be perceived as less consistent in its admissions approach than Oxford.

38. There is real potential with this review for more transparent and better coordinated decision-making. However, the Board expresses concern at what appears to be a missed opportunity to introduce a robust and reliable mechanism for consultation with subject representatives and also at an apparent lack of a coherent University-wide policy. Effective coordination cannot be achieved through top-down harmonisation of the public face of subject admissions alone. Without meaningful input from those with direct subject expertise, such changes risk generating conflicting information for applicants and undermining the very transparency they aim to foster. The Board is nonetheless heartened by the stated commitment to maximum transparency and looks forward to the timely publication of minutes from the new University Admissions Committee (UAC). The Board welcomes the simplified revised governance structure for undergraduate admissions and recommends that the University closely monitors its implementation and ensures ongoing consultation with subject representatives.

39. The Board acknowledges progress within the University on the use of generative artificial intelligence, but it remains concerned about the University’s delayed, vague, and in some cases ineffective response to the rapid developments in this technology, particularly with respect to examining, teaching and admissions. The Board recognises that this is a moving target and that guidance is being developed at pace. While the Digital Assessment Programme is a step in the right direction, it must be accompanied by a wider framework for policy and pedagogical adaptation to new technologies. The Board expects to take up the issue in future Reports.

40. The Board also welcomes the progress made regarding the revision to exam allowances and in this respect notes the effective engagement with Faculties and Departments, as well as Colleges, on this issue. Whilst the timescale of the consultation was very short, it was wide-ranging and flexible enough to address the differences between subjects.

41. The Change Programme initiated by the Strategic Review of Mental Health Provision has concluded, with the introduction of a stepped care model of support to ensure effective use of resources, appropriate care for students and the effective management of risk, with an emphasis on provision by subject and an enhanced role for Faculties and Departments. The information received by the Board points to variations in the level of support across different Faculties and Departments. A full evaluation of the impact of the changes should be carried out and published, as the Board suggested in its Twenty-ninth Report.

People

42. The Board remarks with pleasure that the new Academic Career Pathways (Research) and Contribution Reward Scheme (Academic and Research) have been successfully approved by Grace and will be introduced over the next year. The Board congratulates the University on completion of the academic career pathway reform and administratively integrating that into the academic system so that research staff enjoy better recognition, career progression and respect. This has significantly increased staff morale and engendered a culture change which should have a lasting effect on research and teaching in the academic community in Cambridge. In particular, this scheme benefits women who are overrepresented in the relevant research careers, although the gender pay gap remains a concern. The Board also acknowledges the extension of the Professional Services Recognition Scheme, which recognises excellent contributions from individuals and teams supporting research and education across the University.

43. The Board notes that the University’s new Human Resources (HR) and payroll software system, ‘myHR’, was originally due to be operational in Summer 2024. However, on 24 January 2025, it was announced that the Change and Programme Management Board had postponed the introduction of myHR ‘for a period of around two to three years’. This represents a serious slippage against the original timetable. There is now no firm date for its implementation in the public domain.

44. The Board’s working group met with key individuals so as to understand the causes of delay. There were significant difficulties in integrating myHR with legacy software, necessitating accelerated implementation of a new identity and access management system controlling user access to resources such as emails and data. It was unclear whether effective mechanisms were in place to ensure coordination between UIS and the HR Division. The Board believes that these were foreseeable problems whose effect could and should have been incorporated into the planning and the original time/cost estimates. The extent of the delay shows that the scale of the challenge was seriously underestimated.

45. Software projects that overrun and are over-budget can stem from inadequate risk management or planning. Planning can be made even more difficult when multiple software platforms are being reviewed or replaced concurrently. Increased costs due to delayed delivery can be substantial, which is concerning, given the financial position of the University. Accordingly, the causes of the delay of myHR should be the subject of independent review so that the appropriate lessons can be learned for future transformation programmes. The Board recommends that a new implementation date now be provided. This would give confidence that the structural foundations are in place and that the project management is on track.

46. The Board welcomes the University’s undertaking of a Staff Culture Survey, which invited responses from academics, professional services staff, researchers and technical support staff on key issues, including work-life balance, bullying, harassment, discrimination, mental health, career progression and flexible working. This is an important initiative that can shed light on some persistent problems in the University’s culture. The survey closed on 7 February 2024.

47. The Board regrets that the detailed analysis of the complete report on the Staff Culture Survey has still not appeared on any University website or been circulated to staff, although basic data were shared in February 2025.15 Some, but not all, Departments did receive summaries of their own performance for discussion. Full analysis of the data in the Staff Culture Survey could assist the University in identifying and supporting poorly performing Departments or in tackling some persistent problems in the University. For example, frequency of bullying or work-related stress or racial discrimination across different disciplines and staff groupings could be usefully examined. The Board is concerned that the precious data in the Staff Culture Survey have not yet been fully analysed and exploited.

48. The Board continues to be made aware of a range of human resources issues by staff and students. While detailed examination of individual cases falls outside its remit, the matters raised with the Board may point to weaknesses in processes, procedures and timescales. The Board emphasises the importance of resolving grievances promptly to minimise stress and avoid unnecessary waste of time, money and resources.

49. The Board commends the Office of Student Conduct, Complaints and Appeals (OSCCA) for providing extensive data on the handling of student grievances in its Annual Reports. The equivalent data on staff grievances should also be provided with the same level of detail and presented with equal care in an annual report. This would provide a valuable check on the efficacy of HR processes and procedures. Major revisions to the Dignity at Work policies occur frequently (for example, on 20 June 2023), yet they do not appear to be guided by any available data. This raises questions about the overall effectiveness of the policy.

50. The Board believes that openness, transparency and accountability, supported by robust and fair processes, are essential to maintaining confidence and trust in our University. Reliable statistical data play a key role in promoting cultural improvement. The Board recommends that the University publish the entirety of the Staff Culture Survey data, alongside an accompanying analysis and any consequent recommendations, at the earliest opportunity. The University may also wish to comment on whether it considers the response levels sufficiently representative. There is much to be gained from running such Staff Culture Surveys regularly, say every two to three years. This would enable changes to be tracked and improvements to be monitored and demonstrated. There is a need for annual statistical data on handling of staff grievances at the same level of detail as student grievances.

51. The People Strategy is an ambitious programme with five themes (talent attraction, reward and recognition, talent management, culture and community, organisational effectiveness). Although strongly supportive of the aims of the People Strategy, the Board is concerned at both its implementation and its effectiveness, noting that, in the high-level documentation published to date, the key performance indicators or metrics for the People Strategy are unclear, as is the delivery timeline. There is an absence of quantitative tracking to highlight progress and identify hold-ups. The delay in delivery of myHR has highlighted the challenges in accountability between stakeholders, given the federated nature of the University. The Board recommends that every part of the People Strategy have an accountable owner with numerical targets or goals set to ensure delivery in a timely manner. A new University-wide document should be provided with these details, as the current high-level presentation leaves the People Strategy’s key metrics and delivery timeline unclear.

52. The Board sees some common threads running through many ‘people’ issues. The first is a lack of effective communication. This is not only a practical worry but a structural one, with signs that poor communication is becoming embedded in new governance and operational arrangements. One concern is the University’s drift away from traditional Discussions as a forum for open debate, in favour of more tightly managed ‘town halls’. This approach risks marginalising critical voices and weakening the culture of collegial governance that should underpin major institutional decisions. Another concern is that decision-making has become concentrated within small groups of senior management rather than being exercised through the University’s democratic structures.

53. Similarly, staff grievances are best addressed swiftly, as a lack of effective communication often magnifies small concerns into protracted and costly disputes that disrupt both research and teaching. At a time of tightening budgets, improving communication and resolving grievances more effectively offers the University a valuable opportunity to save money, as well as time and energy. For example, the useful flowchart on grievance procedures provided by the HR Division16 could be annotated with the expected times for each stage to take place and the performance in relation to these standards of service should be monitored and reported.

54. The second commonality is the tendency of the University’s transformation programmes to be couched in vague terms. Ambition and vision are commendable, but mechanisms are needed to ensure measurable progress and accountability. The absence of clearly defined milestones, key performance indicators and regular assessments can undermine operational effectiveness. It becomes impossible to determine whether a programme is on track or to identify areas requiring corrective action. This may be one of the causes of the postponement of myHR and the lack of concrete progress on the People Strategy.

55. The Board recognises that, in an organisation of this scale, some sense of disconnection is perhaps inevitable between those responsible for making decisions and those who experience the day-to-day realities and challenges that policies create. To address this, the Board recommends that the University consider additional measures to strengthen cohesion and improve channels of communication and enhance transparency. Possible initiatives might include: bookable surgeries or scheduled open office sessions enabling staff to meet directly with senior leaders to raise issues or concerns (an approach pioneered by Vice‑Chancellor Professor Shearer West during her tenure at the University of Nottingham), and confidential digital feedback platforms with clear commitments to timely acknowledgements and responses. Concepts such as shadowing or ‘day-in-the-life’ could also enhance understanding of diverse roles across the University.

56. Last year, the Board recommended that the University should collect more and better EDI data relating to staff recruitment, including socio-economic background, to guide further development of strategy and policy in this area. The Council’s response to the Board, published in the Reporter on 5 February 2025, was that this functionality would be provided by myHR. This was an unfortunate reply, given that myHR was formally postponed only days earlier, on 24 January 2025. The Board nevertheless hopes that the University will make alternative plans to collect such data.

Sustainability

57. It would be unreasonable of the Board simultaneously to criticise the University for its poor deficit management and to push for more up-front investment in sustainability initiatives. However, such investment is likely to be cost effective in the long term, and it is the University’s stated aim to achieve a 72% reduction in energy-related carbon emissions by 2030, something that was never going to be achieved at zero cost, and to reach carbon neutrality by 2036. Thus, it is to be hoped that the financial impacts of this decision were clear and accepted at the time this commitment was made. The Board raises this point as there is currently a lack of clarity within the University community as to how sustainability objectives are to be achieved and what is considered an acceptable level of cost.

58. The Strategic Estate Framework is a welcome move to provide clarity in the direction of the University, but as yet it is not clear, because the extent to which any of these investments can be afforded has not been well explained to the University as a whole. As the Eunomia report pointed out, the University spends money on preparing projects which ultimately are not proceeded with for reasons such as ‘the investment would be better placed in furthering research’ which could have been foreseen before committing to the costs of preparing such projects. The Eunomia report also notes that ‘The University’s sign-off process is not laid out clearly, and stakeholder engagement makes it clear that decisions must pass through numerous committees and other interest groups with conflicting objectives’.

59. While the Eunomia report is generally laudable, it focuses strongly on preparing strategies and plans for action. There are multiple recommendations for new plans, no doubt all necessary, but a pragmatic view is needed of how and when plans will be implemented and the extent of the University capacity to implement such plans. Simply having plans without having the resources to implement them leads to raising expectations just for those hopes to remain unfulfilled. The University needs to prioritise according to its resources. Multiple plans which we cannot implement might be better replaced with one plan about which visible and demonstrable action is achievable.

60. The Board recommended last year that ‘the Council publish a comprehensive update to the Regent House by July 2025 on progress towards the University’s environmental sustainability commitments’ and the Council responded that ‘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’. At the date of writing this report, this update has not been published, and the individual has not been appointed. It is thus unsurprising that stakeholders report to the Board the impression that sustainability is no longer a priority for the University.

61. The Board notes the Eunomia report’s recommendations for creating a dedicated sustainability budget, independent of capital works, and making the financial approval processes completely transparent, to avoid wasteful preparation of projects which are later abandoned. It is also important to strengthen governance by appointing a high-level sponsor for each project, streamlining the committee structure, and enhancing the Head of Environmental Sustainability’s role in coordinating funding and ensuring the Schools understand the process. An annual published table of all estates projects, their sustainability credentials, budget, timelines, current cost estimate and completion timetable would make the whole process more transparent to staff and possibly avoid an impression of wasted money or lack of progress. The Board welcomes the Council’s agreement to implement the Eunomia report’s recommendations17 including the creation of a dedicated sustainability budget, independent of capital works, and recommends that the approval process be made transparent and time-bound, with results published annually.

62. The Board is encouraged to see progress in that the University has signed the Concordat for the Environmental Sustainability of Research and Innovation Practice. This is a significant step forward in the pursuit of sustainable practice. However, the implementation seems to be left to unfunded mandates which do not seem designed to implement this best practice in a timely fashion, despite the enthusiasm and commitment of the committee concerned. The Board recommends that the Council encourages a stronger recognition of the responsibility of each individual member of staff for the sustainability ambitions of the University, whether that be to reduce carbon emissions, incorporate sustainability in teaching, or implement the Concordat for the Environmental Sustainability of Research and Innovation Practice. To facilitate this, staff should be clear on the objectives and resources available.

16 October 2025

 

Report of the Council on the proposed disposal of land and buildings at 1–3 Hills Road

The Council begs leave to report to the University as follows:

1. The Council is proposing that the site at 1–3 Hills Road, Cambridge – previously occupied by Cambridge Assessment – be developed as an innovation hub, with investment from external partners. One of the prerequisites for the development phase is the transfer of the site on a long leasehold interest (of at least 250 years) to a newly formed joint venture company comprising the University as one member and up to two other entities. As a central city site, 1–3 Hills Road is of present and prospective use to the University and therefore the Regent House is being asked to approve the transfer (see plan on p. 74).

2. The site of c. 2.75 acres at 1–3 Hills Road was used by Cambridge Assessment until its decant in 2018, when the property became a mainly vacant building and site. The Estates Division determined that it would require significant expenditure to bring the site into a usable condition. In May 2022, the Finance Committee recommended to the Council the site’s disposal on a 150‑year lease with associated ground-rent and restrictive covenants. Due to external economic factors, the Property Board was not able to complete the anticipated disposal of the site. While options for disposal continued to be explored by the Property Board, 1–3 Hills Road was returned to the operational estate to be used as a recycling and storage facility from December 2023.

3. In early 2025, the government stated its support for the University’s plans to deliver a large-scale innovation hub in the city centre. There is an expectation that a grant will be provided via the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology (subject to further due diligence). The innovation hub will co‑locate tech and life sciences companies, entrepreneurs and corporations to deliver innovation at scale. It is proposed to feature co‑working space, shared labs, and events and meeting space in an environment intended to nurture spin‑out companies and start‑ups alongside mature companies, bringing a range of socio-economic benefits to Cambridge, the region and the UK. 1–3 Hills Road was identified as an ideal city-centre location for the hub.

4. The proposed innovation hub presents a unique opportunity to leverage city centre landholdings to generate forecast commercial returns and strategic benefits at scale for the University. The Council supports the Property Board’s plans to work in partnership with private sector investors to deliver the innovation hub on a commercial basis, and discussions are under way with interested partners.

5. Terms for the transfer are expected to be agreed in early 2026, subject to successful engagement with interested parties. Vacant possession of the buildings on site will only be required once planning permission is in place. This could take a further twelve to eighteen months to secure (pending further business planning under the joint venture). The indicative timeline is sufficient for the current temporary storage use to be relocated elsewhere within the estate, if a storage facility is still needed at that point. If the Regent House approves the recommendations of this Report, the Finance Committee will have oversight of the disposal terms, including the terms under which the joint venture company is established and any conditions to be met.

6. The Council recommends:

I.That approval be given for the disposal of the buildings and land at 1–3 Hills Road as described in paragraph 1 of this Report.

II.That the Finance Committee be authorised to approve the terms for the disposal.

20 October 2025

Location plan: Proposed disposal of land and buildings at 1–3 Hills Road