1 In Trinity Term 1995 the working party reported to Council and the General Board recommending a scheme under which the salaries of university lecturers without tutorial fellowships (ULNTFs) would be increased by three additional points, the top point being equivalent to the top point on the national senior lecturer scale. The working party recommended that, not least for legal reasons, the additional payments should be made by colleges and the report then proposed arrangements by which the costs of this scheme would be met in part by the University and in part by the colleges. It was suggested that the college contribution should consist of two elements. The first of these was to be tutorial earnings for the equivalent of three hours' single tutorials per week, and the second a straightforward contribution of £500 per annum per lecturer by the college. It was recognised that in some cases the colleges would not be able to afford the £500 and the University would have to pay this in addition to its own general contribution. A fundamental principle of the scheme was that the ULNTFs should accept an obligation to undertake three hours of tutorial teaching or special graduate tuition in order to generate the necessary contribution.
2 The report was published in the Gazette (Supplement (1) to No. 4370, 10 July 1995) and Council and the General Board agreed to consult colleges, comments being requested by 3 November 1995. Although most of the comments which were received were supportive of the general intention to resolve the perceived inequity of the ULNTFs' position and although colleges containing the majority of ULNTFs supported the proposed scheme, a considerable number of detailed objections were made to it (such as administrative complexity, uncertainty about legal and VAT implications, and similar matters).
Return to List of Contents of the supplement
3 The working party has therefore considered whether there might be any alternative scheme which would achieve the same objective in a way likely to command greater support across the collegiate University as a whole. It now believes that it has devised such a scheme which it puts forward for consideration.
4 It is now proposed that the extra payments to the ULNTFs should be made by the University rather than the colleges. This would mean lengthening for eligible ULNTFs the university salary scale by three points (i.e. in 1995–6 terms £29,532, £30,446 and £31,357) to reach the equivalent of the national senior lecturer maximum. In its original report (para. 12) the working party said that it believed that there would be serious legal objections to any scheme in which the payments were made through the university payroll. It now believes, however, that if the formal university duties of ULNTFs are revised by amendments to their contracts, there will be legal justification for paying this particular group of lecturers more than the University pays university lecturers with tutorial fellowships. The substance of the alteration in the contract would be the introduction of a clause requiring individuals to undertake three hours' tutorial teaching per week per term (or three hours' special tuition of graduate students). The working party recognises that in certain subjects or for certain individuals it may not be possible for such teaching to be undertaken and the scheme would have to provide for this. Proposals on this point and further discussion of the legal issues are set out below in paras. 11 to 14.
5 The working party further proposes that, as with the original scheme, the latest proposal should not apply to those ULNTFs whose combined university and college pensionable stipend is already capable of reaching at least the national senior lecturer maximum. This therefore excludes most ULNTFs who hold fellowships at All Souls, Nuffield and Templeton. Since its previous report, the working party has received details of the arrangements which apply to ULNTFs at St Antony's and it considers that they too will not be eligible for the new scheme. [Note: see now explanatory note and resolution.] The working party has considered the legal issues involved in excluding such ULNTFs and on the basis of the advice it has received does not think that to do so would open the University to a major risk of successful legal challenge (see para. 13).
Return to List of Contents of the supplement
6 The original scheme proposed that tutorial earnings should contribute towards the costs of the extra payment and the working party maintains this view. Details of how this might work in practice are set out below but the effect will be to provide (where possible) a contribution of £1,107 per lecturer per year (in 1995-6 terms) to the cost of the scheme, as in the original. That scheme also accepted the argument that payments made to ULNTFs for special graduate tuition (which is linked to senior tutors' rates for tutorial teaching) should count towards the tutorial earnings and the working party proposes that the new scheme should operate similarly.
7 The working party has, however, agreed to abandon the suggestion that all colleges which can afford to do so should make a contribution of £500 per lecturer towards the cost of the scheme. Given the number of colleges which could not afford this and the somewhat controversial nature of the proposal as revealed by the consultation with colleges, the working party considers that what will be a relatively modest addition to the costs as far as the University is concerned ought to be accepted in the interests of simplicity and in the interest of securing general assent to the proposals. Moreover, the provision of a college contribution fitted much more logically into the earlier scheme in which payments were to be made to ULNTFs by colleges, not by the University, and where colleges (not individuals) were allowed to choose whether or not to join the scheme and therefore could decide whether or not to incur this expense. Estimated costings of the new scheme are set out below in para. 29.
Return to List of Contents of the supplement
8 During its discussions of the latest proposals the working party has consulted the Senior Tutors' Committee and the Estates Bursars' Committee and there has also been informal consultation with the governing bodies of the colleges chiefly concerned (i.e. those in which the bulk of the ULNTFs whose joint stipend is not capable of reaching the equivalent of the national senior lecturer scale hold fellowships) and with the ULNTFs themselves. The working party understands that the Senior Tutors' and Estates Bursars' Committees do not oppose the latest proposals and that the governing bodies of those colleges are similarly not opposed. Inevitably in discussion with the ULNTFs a large number of detailed points have been raised, many of which are addressed later in this report. It is recognised, however, that (if Congregation accepts the scheme) ULNTFs already in post who are prima facie eligible for the scheme will need time to consider whether or not to accept the proposed changes in their contracts. The working party is clear that acceptance of the scheme must be voluntary for each ULNTF now in post who will have to assess his or her own position. There must, however, be some time limits for the acceptance of the arrangements, and these are also set out in detail below. The working party also proposes that for ULNTFs appointed in the future, the new arrangements should be part of the normal terms and conditions of service.
Return to List of Contents of the supplement
9 The working party recognises that for all ULNTFs who accept the proposals one disadvantage is that they will `lose tenure'. Under s.204 of the Education Reform Act 1988 university employees become subject to the new provisions governing employment of academic staff (in Oxford's case Tit. XVI of the Statutes) if they are appointed on or after 20 November 1987 or are promoted on or after that date. S.204(3) defines promotion as follows `... a person shall be taken to be promoted ... if ... the terms of his appointment or of his contract of employment are varied ... so that—
(a) his rate of remuneration is increased to a rate which exceed the highest point on his former pay scale at the date on which the increase takes effect, or
(b) he is paid on another scale on which the highest point at the date of variation takes effect exceeds the highest point on his former pay scale at that date ... '
Established academic staff appointed or promoted on or after 20 November 1987 can still hold their appointments to the age of retirement. However, the act adds redundancy to the long accepted grounds on which such appointments can be terminated prior to the age of retirement (the so-called `good cause' reasons such as medical incapacity or misconduct). At Oxford, though, these redundancy provisions can come into play only if Congregation so decides. `Loss of tenure' refers in essence to the loss of protection against termination of employment on grounds of redundancy.
10 The working party sees no alternative, given the above provision, but to face the fact that the appointment of those who accept the scheme and were appointed after 20 November 1987 will in theory be capable of termination in future on grounds of redundancy. The working party notes too that this will be the result even if there were no other change in the contract of employment, apart from an increase in salary. It hopes, however, that ULNTFs will recognise that, given the very extensive procedures which must be gone through before a member of academic staff can be declared redundant (see Statutes, 1995, pp. 161–2), including (as stated above) a decision by Congregation, the risks involved for those whose current appointment was made prior to 20 November 1987 will be relatively small and that the advantages of the new scheme to improve the pensionable salary of ULNTFs outweigh those disadvantages. It should also be remembered that anyone promoted to senior lecturer at another university after 20 November 1987 will be in the same position.
Return to List of Contents of the supplement
11 On the legal position the working party is (as stated above) now of the view, on the basis of legal advice, that the University can, without serious risk of successful legal challenge, make additional payments direct to ULNTFs. Equal pay legislation is concerned to achieve equality of pay between the sexes. The challenge to a scheme in which the University paid a ULNTF more than a university lecturer with a tutorial fellowship would have to come from a female (or male) university lecturer with a tutorial fellowship, citing the payments made to a male (or female) ULNTF. The University's defence would in the first instance rest on the existence of a contractual term which required more work from ULNTFs than from other university lecturers. This would either constitute a situation of unequal work (thus defeating a claim ab initio) or it would constitute a material factor, other than a difference in sex, which would justify the difference in pay. The wording of the new contractual term is given in para. 16 below. This term would not itself be related to the sex of the ULNTF (if it were it would be prima facie discriminatory) but would apply to all eligible ULNTFs who opted into the scheme regardless of sex. The difference between duties which can justify higher pay has to be a substantive one. It is not possible merely to refer to a contractual term which states that an individual has duties greater than another. It must be shown that the duties are in fact greater. The second part of any defence would therefore have to consist of evidence that in fact a ULNTF was undertaking more work for the University. None the less, the existence of the contractual term would be an important foundation for a defence and so the working party proposes a common clause for all ULNTFs who join the scheme, even if it is clear at the outset that it is unlikely that the holders of posts in certain categories (e.g. lecturers in Continuing Education) will ever be able to undertake much, if any, undergraduate tutorial teaching and perhaps little if any special graduate tuition. Where an obligation to undertake three hours' tutorial teaching or special graduate tuition can be fulfilled and the earnings made over to the University as a contribution to the total cost of the scheme, the working party hopes that the matter will not prove controversial. ULNTFs in this position are obviously accepting an extra duty, in return for which extra payment is made.
Return to List of Contents of the supplement
12 Even for those who, for various reasons, cannot undertake tutorial teaching or special graduate tuition, the removal of a recognised equity is thought to be good grounds for making the extra payments and could be seen, in the event of a legal challenge, as a material factor justifying the payments. In such cases, it would then be argued in addition that self-evidently a person must by virtue (a) of not being able to undertake the required teaching and (b) of not holding a tutorial fellowship have more time to undertake university work. A significant group which will not be able to undertake the teaching is made up of university lecturers in Continuing Education and in Educational Studies and their work may be sufficiently different from that of university lecturers in other subjects to provide a firm basis for a defence if any claim is brought comparing extra payments to them with the absence of such payments for a university lecturer who is a tutorial fellow. As stated above it is important, however, to include a new term in all contracts of those eligible for the scheme who agree to take part in it since this gives a formal point of reference in any challenge. Moreover, it is intended to review the position of ULNTFs regularly to see whether or not such teaching can be undertaken, even if exemption has initially been granted. Apart perhaps from lecturers in Continuing Education and in Educational Studies there will be relatively few postholders who cannot, at least from time to time, undertake some of the required teaching and they will be bound under the contracts as worded to undertake such teaching unless exempt.
Return to List of Contents of the supplement
13 Legal advice suggests, moreover, that even if it could be shown that a ULNTF of one sex was doing for the University no more than, or less than, a university lecturer of the opposite sex with a tutorial fellowship it would be hard for the latter to bring a successful case for the following reasons. The working party has in essence proposed both in the original scheme and in the present scheme a joint minimum salary for all university lecturers and hence is excluding ULNTFs who already reach, or are eligible to reach, this joint minimum when both university and college stipends are taken into account. A tutorial fellow will still be obtaining, or be eligible to obtain, at least the joint minimum (and in fact more) in both combined stipend and allowances, and a relatively recent case in the European Court of Justice (Roberts v. Birds Eye Walls) is authority for the point that the employer is entitled to have regard to the totality of emoluments as a material factor not related to differences in sex justifying differences in the level of contributions from different sources. The way in which such emoluments are made up and the fact that possibly the relative proportions may be provided from different sources and may vary from one person to another is irrelevant if the total is the same. The working party relies on the same point in reaching its view (see para. 5) on the legal risks which might be incurred by omitting from the scheme ULNTFs at certain colleges where payments are already made which bring the joint university and college pensionable salary at least to the national senior lecturer maximum.
Return to List of Contents of the supplement
14 Two other legal points have arisen during the discussion.
(a) First, the working party has noted that some ULNTFs are already required by their university contracts to undertake college tutorial teaching (usually six hours). Some of these are fellows of colleges which already provide a stipend bringing the joint university/college salary to the figure now proposed. Like other ULNTFs at those colleges they will not be eligible for the scheme, as stated in para. 5 above (and they will of course retain all their tutorial earnings). As for those who are prima facie eligible to join the scheme, who do not receive and are not eligible to receive a joint stipend at the required figure, the working party is advised that there should be no legal difficulty. If they do not join the scheme, they will continue to receive all their tutorial earnings direct. If they do, they will surrender some of these earnings for an increase in pensionable stipend. They will continue to receive (but henceforth via the University) earnings for any teaching in excess of three hours and their existing obligation to teach above this figure will be unchanged. Perhaps the most important difference, however, will be the ability in these cases to substitute up to three hours' special graduate tuition for three hours' undergraduate tuition. This will of course potentially somewhat reduce the total amount of tutorial teaching capacity in these subjects but, as far as the individual ULNTF is concerned, a slightly greater element of flexibility is thereby introduced into the contract of employment which should be welcomed in the context of the general discussions about the desirability of increasing flexibility within the contracts of academic staff.
(b) The other legal issue is the relationship between the proposals for ULNTFs and the salaries of readers. Eligible ULNTFs will henceforth achieve a maximum salary equivalent to the top point of the reader scale. The working party has been advised that, from the legal point of view, this does not present difficulties. Provisions relating to equal pay as between men and women require only that pay is the same for work of the same or greater value. There is no legal requirement that work of greater value than the other work with which comparisons are made must be more generously remunerated. Second, the reader scale in any case contains discretionary points and exercises to make payments and these are held every three years. At present, 39 per cent of readers so benefit. Thus, regardless of the legal position described earlier in the paragraph, the University does in fact make provision for readers to receive additional remuneration.
Return to List of Contents of the supplement
15 As stated above, the extra points are to be added at the top of the normal university lecturer scale. Eligible ULNTFs who opt into the scheme or those for whom it is a part of their standard contract (see para. 25) will receive the first of the three new payments 12 months after he or she reaches the top of the present scale (normally at 41 but up to two years earlier where the starting salary of a ULNTF has been initially fixed, within the flexibility approved by Congregation, one or two points above the age-wage point). The relationship between incremental dates and obligations under the proposed new contractual position is discussed in para. 24 below.
16 Those ULNTFs now in post who are eligible for the scheme will be asked to accept the following additional clauses to their contracts and the same clauses would be inserted in all contracts for eligible ULNTFs appointed in the future with appropriate wording to indicate that the additional duties will apply from 1 October following the first of the three new increments (see para. 25). `(a) You must undertake without additional remuneration, three hours per week of tutorial teaching (subject to (b) below) for colleges or of special graduate tuition unless the General Board [and faculty board or other appointing authority] agree that tutorial teaching or special graduate tuition are not available in your subject or branch of the subject (for example because of the nature of the subject and branch of the subject), in which case the extent of your duties under the relevant clauses of the core duties as set out above [i.e. the general provisions in the contract defining the obligations to undertake teaching, research and administration] will be correspondingly greater than in the case of university lecturers with tutorial fellowships.
(b) The requirement to undertake three hours' tutorial teaching or special graduate tuition is reduced to one hour while you are paid at the age 42 point and to two hours while you are paid at the age 43 point.
(c) You are required to arrange for all your earnings from college tutorial teaching to be made over by the colleges concerned to the University. The University will retain a sum equivalent to the earnings for three hours per week of single tutorials at the rates set by the Senior Tutors' Committee (or for two hours or one hour in the case of those covered by (b) above) and pay the balance to the ULNTF (less tax and, if appropriate, national insurance).
(d) You are required to inform the University through the graduate supervision claim form how much special graduate tuition you have undertaken. In so far as your earnings for tutorial teaching under (c) above do not amount to the equivalent of three hours per week (or two hours or one hour in the case of those covered in (b) above) of single tutorials, the University will retain payments due to you for special supervision and will pay you the balance.
(e)Any request for exemption from the requirement to undertake tutorial teaching or special graduate tuition, for the reason given in (a), shall be made to [the faculty board or other appointing authority] which shall make a recommendation to the General Board for final decision.'
Return to List of Contents of the supplement
17 If the scheme is accepted, it is suggested that it might be administered in the following way. Individual ULNTFs to whom it applied would instruct the colleges for which they had taught to make over all such earnings to the University. The normal claim form would have to be amended to allow this. It has been established that such transfers would not be liable to VAT. Similarly, they would indicate on a revised graduate supervision claim form what special graduate tuition they had done. Earnings from both sources would be monitored by the University. Once they totalled the equivalent of earnings for three hours per week throughout the year at the single tutorial rate, any surplus would be paid to the individual (net of tax and employee's national insurance). Such fluctuating payments would not, of course, be superannuable.
18 In all cases it would be necessary for faculty boards or any other relevant employing authority to establish the position of each ULNTF who wished to join the scheme or for whom the scheme was a normal part of their contract and for this to be noted centrally. At the end of each year, the position would be reviewed and the Chairman of the General Board would initiate enquiries into those cases where earnings from tutorials and special supervision appeared to be falling short of what is required. The working party takes the view that there should be no payment to the lecturer by the University of any relevant earnings until the required contribution has been met. In other words, if a ULNTF earns in, say, Michaelmas Term more than one-third of the annual sum but less than that sum, the whole should be retained by the University.
19 Individuals on sabbatical or any other form of approved leave would not, of course, be expected to contribute earnings to the scheme. A year's leave would exempt them from any contribution in that year; leave for shorter periods would reduce the required annual contribution pro rata.
Return to List of Contents of the supplement
20 If a ULNTF for whom the scheme formed part of the contract and who had not been exempt from the requirement to contribute the required sum through tutorial earnings and special tuition failed none the less to make such a contribution in a particular year, appropriate action would have to be taken by the General Board after appropriate consultation. If there were no good reasons (e.g. that less teaching was required in the subject in that year) and if a case could not be made for exemption, the working party considers that the individual would have to leave the scheme and return to the former salary scale. This would apply whether the ULNTF had opted in to the scheme or whether the scheme had formed part of the conditions of employment from the outset.
Return to List of Contents of the supplement
21 The working party proposes that, if approved, the scheme should be phased in as proposed in the report on the original scheme. In other words, it should apply in full with (retrospective) effect from 1 October 1995 to all eligible ULNTFs over 50 at that date who opt to join the scheme and in any case to those who will retire at 30 September 1996. All eligible ULNTFs under 50 who opt to join it should receive one increment. From 1 October 1996 those aged 42 should receive one increment and those aged 43-49 should receive two. From 1 October 1997 the scheme should be implemented in full with those of 44 and over receiving three increments. (References here to ages should be interpreted as meaning the age points on the scale as in para. 4 above.) The position of those who retired at 30 September 1995 or who will retire at 30 September 1996 is set out in paras 26-7 below.
22 The working party recognises that backdating may possibly weaken the University's legal position (and it has been so advised), in that payments will be made but it will not be possible to know whether the additional duties required under the amended contract have been carried out (and of course it will not be possible for the University to recover any contribution to the costs for that year). The working party has discussed this at length but considers that in equity the scheme should be introduced from October 1995. This was the hope and expectation of the original scheme and it does not seem reasonable to withhold one year's pensionable salary in these circumstances. It will in any case be true that many ULNTFs will have in fact undertaken the additional work in 1995-6. The working party has considered an alternative under which the scheme would be introduced from 1 October 1996 with no phasing (and with ex gratia payments to those who retired at 30 September 1995 or who will retire at 30 September 1996 as set out in paras 26-7 below). Notwithstanding the advantage of this approach to those ULNTFs under 50, the working party is none the less of the view that, as the funds have been set aside, it is not appropriate to hold back one year's stipend.
23 For these reasons, the working party has made the proposal for backdating in para. 21. If such backdating were to be cited as part of any legal challenge to the new scheme, the University would have to rely both on the facts of the particular case (and show that the ULNTF whose earnings were the object of the challenge had in fact undertaken more work for the University than the person who made the challenge) and on the general point that the scheme had been introduced to remedy an inequity and the solution was not based on the sex of those concerned.
Return to List of Contents of the supplement
24 At present most university lecturers receive an increment on the age-related scale at the beginning of the quarter following their birthday and the remainder at the beginning of the month following their birthday. The working party has considered the relationship which should apply from 1 October 1997 when the scheme has been fully implemented between incremental dates and the increase in the obligation to undertake tutorial teaching or special tuition as individuals advance up the three new points. It has agreed to recommend that to avoid complications caused by obligations changing in the middle of a year, such changes should take place from 1 October after the increment has been received.
Return to List of Contents of the supplement
25 The working party proposes that (a) eligible ULNTFs already in post should have until 30 September 1996 to join the scheme if they wish to receive the benefit of payments for 1995-6; (b) eligible ULNTFs already in post or who have already been offered contracts of employment (which inevitably do not include any reference to the new scheme) who do not join by 30 September 1996 should otherwise have until 30 September 1997 to decide to join but should not be able to do so after that and no backdating should apply to those in post before 1 October 1996 but who do not join until 1996-7. (c) thereafter
(1) ULNTFs below the 41 age point, who are already in post, should be asked six months before they reach the date at which they receive the increase which takes them to the top of the existing scale if they wish to join the scheme, and should be given until that incremental date to decide, and
(2) the scheme should form part of the normal conditions of service of all eligible ULNTFs (i.e. those whose college remuneration will not in due course bring their joint stipend to the new top point) appointed after the scheme has been approved by Congregation (and any new contracts issued before such approval is given should describe the scheme and state that it will be part of the formal duties if Congregation endorses it). At appointment, therefore, new ULTNFs will either taken on additional duties at once if they are eligible to be paid at one of the new higher points or they will accept an obligation to undertake the duties at 1 October following the payment of the first of the new increments. The working party is clear that existing ULNTFs should not be able to join the scheme other than as set out above. Moreover, no ULNTF who has been required to leave the scheme under para. 20 should be permitted to rejoin.
Return to List of Contents of the supplement
26 The working party proposed in its first report that those who were due to retire on 30 September 1995 should receive ex gratia payments to make their lump sum what it would have been if their pensionable salary on retirement had been the proposed new top point of the ULNTF scale.
27 The working party repeats this recommendation. Since its first report it has moreover been realised that the proposed additions to salary will not count for pension purposes in the case of those aged 65 and over, and only in part for pension purposes for those between 64 and 65 at the date of introduction of the scheme. The working party therefore proposes that those due to retire at 30 September 1996 should receive similar ex gratia payments as those who retired at 30 September 1995; and that those aged 64 and over who continue to be employed after 30 September 1996 should, if they opt into the scheme, receive similar ex gratia payments on retirement as well as the appropriate addition to stipend for the remainder of their employment.
Return to List of Contents of the supplement
28 The working party has considered whether any increase in salary under this scheme should be reflected in any OMIS benefits (if OMIS is reintroduced as is proposed). If, for example, a ULNTF aged over 50 opts into the scheme by 1 October 1996 and retires under OMIS at 31 March 1997, the OMIS benefits could be as much as £6,200 (round) greater than would otherwise have been the case. As at present drafted, OMIS rules would permit this (in that any salary increases between the date at which it is formally agreed that an individual should leave under the scheme and the actual date of departure is to be taken into account in calculating OMIS benefits). The working party considers that no amendments should be made to the OMIS rules to exclude additional pensionable salary payments under this scheme.
Return to List of Contents of the supplement
29 In the 1995-6 budget, £500K was set aside for the ULNTF problem. The estimated net cost to the University of the original scheme was of the order of £370K (minimum). The estimated net cost of the revised scheme is £410K (minimum). The extra cost incurred by abandoning the £500 contribution per lecturer from colleges is balanced in part by a reduction in the number of eligible lecturers. It should be noted, however, that both estimates assume that all ULNTFs who receive the additional payments can contribute the equivalent of the earnings from three hours' teaching, except university lecturers in Continuing Education and Educational Studies.
30 Moreover, the calculation does not include one further extra cost which will fall to the University under this scheme. All tutorial payments which it passes on to ULNTFs will attract employer's national insurance contributions at 10.2 per cent. The University will have to pay this; were the payments made direct by the colleges to the ULNTFs, the colleges would bear this cost. It is not possible of course to calculate what the annual cost of this would be to the University as it depends on the value of the `surplus' earnings.
Return to List of Contents of the supplement
Return to List of Contents of the supplement
33 Third, the proposed new contractual terms may perhaps provide a point of reference for continuing discussions about general flexibility within the contracts of employment of academic staff and about interchangeability between graduate and undergraduate teaching in particular.
34 None the less, the working party recognises that the scheme is not ideal, notably in that it remains somewhat complex to administer especially in its initial years, and no absolute guarantee can be given that the University will be free from a successful legal challenge. While, as stated in para. 31, the working party recognises that any replacement will have to offer terms at least as beneficial as those now proposed, it is also its view that in the long run a more logical and simpler scheme ought in any case to be found.
35 Arising from the preceding paragraphs the working party makes three further proposals. First, it repeats the recommendation in its first report that there should be a job evaluation survey to compare the workloads of ULNTFs with those of university lecturers with tutorial fellowships. Second, it wishes the present report to be made available to the Commission of Inquiry. Third, as in the original report, the working party recommends that Council and the General Board should authorise the Chairman of the General Board (with appropriate consultation) to act on their behalf in all matters related to the implementation and operation of the scheme if it is introduced.
Return to List of Contents of the supplement
Return to List of Contents of the supplement