To Gazette No. 4412 (17 October 1996)
I believe that the academic year which we are now about to enter will be very significant both for Oxford and for the entire university system in this country. For that reason, I shall touch rather more lightly than may be the custom on the events of the past year before moving on to address some of the issues likely to arise in the year to come.
However, let it not be thought that 1995-6 was devoid of significance for the University. Far from it. In any case real life does not stop on 30 September and start again on 1 October, and many of the concerns of last year will carry on into next.
Much work has been done during the past year on the structure and organisation of our libraries. We have had the benefit of advice from working parties chaired by the Warden of Wadham, by the President of Corpus Christi, and by the Warden of Rhodes House. We have considered how far our library system should be co-ordinated, or indeed integrated. Of course much co-ordination has already stemmed from the computerisation of catalogues, and I congratulate warmly all those in the Bodleian Library, and across the university library system at large, who have contributed to that. One result, of course, has been that more people now know which books are where, and—not surprisingly—they want to read them, putting increasing strain on those responsible for delivering the library service to all readers; and here I note that considerably more readers come from outside the University than from within it, such is our responsibility as the guardian of collections of national, and international, importance.
I know that the development of a strategy for the library system has caused anxieties to a number of members of the University, but I am confident that the University is moving ahead in the right direction with the establishment of the new post of Director of Library Services and Bodley's Librarian. I am particularly pleased that Mr Reg Carr, currently Librarian of Leeds University, has been appointed to take on this role—a role demanding both administratively, and in terms of winning the confidence and support of librarians and library users across the University. We wish him well in his new post, which he takes up in January 1997, in place of David Vaisey, whose contribution to the whole world of libraries was well recognised by the recent award of a CBE. He is, however, our man, and I would like here to pay tribute to him on behalf of the University which he has served with such distinction and good humour. Happily, retirement from the post will not deprive us of him: he will remain with us as Keeper of the Archives.
I must now turn to a range of issues which affect many of us personally, relating to status and stipend.
The last year has seen the introduction of the scheme for the award of titles of professor or reader. This has enabled the University to recognise the distinction of many of its senior members at a time when financial circumstances preclude any large-scale provision for more salaries at reader or professorial level. Three hundred and forty-four people applied for consideration—each set of the papers considered by the committee weighed some twenty-two kilos—and the overall strength of applications was immensely heartening. We were able to award the title of Professor to 162 people and the title of Reader to ninety-nine. Of course some were disappointed at the outcome of the 1996 exercise, but the process is to be an annual one. I should also note that the new scheme is not wholly a substitute for the more orthodox ad hominem promotions exercises, the next of which it is hoped to hold in 1997-8.
Another issue addressed during the year concerned the financial position of university lecturers not holding tutorial fellowships, whose contribution to the life of the University was widely considered to be inadequately recognised. Happily, the Working Party established to look at this problem was able to put forward proposals which, to a degree at least, meet the legitimate financial concerns of this group. I know that many of them regard the measures taken as merely interim, and that it is their hope that the whole structure of posts can be addressed by the Commission of Inquiry.
Although in electoral boards the role of the Vice-Chancellor, or as I gratefully acknowledge, the role of Pro-Vice-Chancellors, is mainly to act as chairman, the Vice-Chancellor is essentially, and rightly, deeply involved in the process of securing first-class appointments to the University's most senior posts. It is in the nature of things that the distinction of those whom we wish to appoint has often already been recognised by the institutions from which we try to attract them; and such distinction tends to be recognised financially in two ways, first in terms of stipend and second in terms of the research support provided. How can we compete?
So far as research support is concerned, great efforts are made—for example at the Buildings Committee and the Research and Equipment Committee, frequently supported by generous help from the Higher Studies Fund Trustees—to be ready to meet the needs of incoming professors. This is not always easy; nor has it always proved possible to meet the aspirations of those whom we wish to recruit and who would otherwise be willing to come to Oxford. That problem will undoubtedly persist. We have nevertheless succeeded in making highly distinguished appointments to our chairs.
However, there is also the question of personal finance. Some five years ago the University moved from a system of uniform professorial salaries to one in which a professor could be given a distinction award in addition to the basic salary. I believe that that decision, though not uncontentious, had a salutary effect, but I have no doubt that the University has continued to fall behind in terms of salary offered. I am glad therefore that the University was prepared during the past year—I think with far fewer qualms than it would have had five years ago—to accept a further extension of this scheme, providing for a wider range of awards, and to agree that the Vice-Chancellor should have authority, subject to taking extensive advice within and outside the University, to offer such an award to a potential incoming professor.
This scheme, of course does nothing in respect of posts other than chairs, and that takes me on to the general issue of pay. Some striking figures are in circulation. It is said of the university system as a whole that the average academic has responsibility for 40 per cent more students now than in 1989. There has been no compensatory increase in pay—rather the opposite. The Association of University Teachers has calculated that university teachers' pay has declined in relation to average earnings by 16.4 per cent over the last ten years. The problem is strikingly evident in the current—and this is October—negotiations about the general pay increase due last April. Figures of the order of 1.5 per cent—well below the level of inflation—have been under discussion; but there are universities which find that they cannot afford to pay any increase at all. Oxford is not one of these, but looking ahead it is inevitable that the cost of sustaining increases in pay levels will have to be met by diminution in expenditure elsewhere. As far the largest element of our expenditure is on salaries, we can only increase pay by shedding posts, which in turn must increase the burdens on those remaining. The root cause is the under-funding of the universities. I shall to return to that later.
A Vice-Chancellor nowadays is necessarily much involved in the `external relations' of the University, and the Oration provides an opportunity to say something, very briefly, about that. It has indeed been an eventful year for Oxford abroad.
First, there was a major event in Canada in February. An aim of the Campaign for Oxford, and a particular objective of Canadian Oxonians and friends, was the establishment of a new Chair of International Relations in memory of Lester Pearson in this the fiftieth anniversary year of the United Nations, of which he was a founder member. The culmination of the process was a Gala Dinner organised in Toronto by the Canadian fund-raising committee at which the Prime Minister of Canada, Marrack Goulding, Under-Secretary General of the United Nations and a loyal Oxonian, and I, spoke. It was an excellent opportunity to carry Oxford's message to Canada at the highest level. The occasion raised sufficient funds to complete the endowment of the chair, and Professor MacFarlane—fittingly if fortuitously a Canadian himself—is already in post.
Only about a month later the major University North American Reunion—now held biennially—was held in New York. A reception at the United Nations Building for over 1,000 people was kindly given by Sir John Weston, the United Kingdom Permanent Representative at the United Nations and an old member of Worcester College. This event was followed the next day by a series of seminars, lectures, and debates on a range of issues to which the main contributors were Oxonians from both sides of the Atlantic, and the whole reunion culminated in a series of individual college celebrations. It was particularly encouraging to see such an effective combination of University and college activity.
One country with which, for good reason, our connections have been less strong than once they were (apart from the continuing link through the Rhodes Trust) is South Africa. This is changing fast. A highlight of the past year was the unique degree ceremony at which the Chancellor had the privilege of conferring the degree of Doctor of Civil Law by Diploma upon President Mandela, one of the great figures of this century, not in the Sheldonian Theatre but with seven other universities in the gardens of Buckingham Palace. The opportunity was taken of indicating to the President the University's interest in developing stronger academic links with his country, and that was pursued during my visit to South Africa last month.
Another area of the world with which we believe it important to strengthen our academic links is the People's Republic of China, not least in the context of the return of Hong Kong—with which we have long and strong links—to Chinese rule next year. To that end, the Chancellor and I will together be visiting Beijing and Hong Kong in December.
I must here refer to the very important role in furthering our overseas links played by the Oxford University Press, which now has over fifty branches or offices across the world. The last year has seen significant new activity in Central and South America, in Central and Eastern Europe, and in China. One of the great advantages for a Vice-Chancellor travelling abroad is the ready assistance provided by the offices of the Press in whatever country he happens to be. At the same time a visit by the Vice-Chancellor may also help the Press. The Vice-Chancellor is Chairman of the Delegates of the Press and his presence can provide an opportunity for high-profile publishing events, which on a number of occasions during the past three years have involved the Head of State or Head of Government of the country concerned. It is important for both the Press and the rest of the University that the contribution that each makes to the other is fully realised. It is a two-way process, and the success of the Press has a direct impact on the University in several ways. Its distinction as a great academic publishing house reflects very clearly and directly on the University, which must be the only university in the world to have, in a manner of speaking, through The Oxford English Dictionary, the custodianship of the national language. Meanwhile, the commercial success of the Press has enabled it in recent years to make substantial financial contributions in support of the academic activities of the University, which has thus been provided with something of a cushion when facing the hard financial realities of the present university world.
May I now turn my attention to some issues for the year ahead?
I would like to start with the matter of sites, since it encompasses a number of other issues on which I would like to comment. We have made very substantial progress with two parts of our `three site strategy'. So far as the Ashmolean site is concerned, a very substantial pledge from the Sackler Foundation, to the far-sighted generosity of which I must here pay the warmest tribute, will enable the first phase of the project to go ahead, namely the building of what will be known as the Sackler Library; it is hoped also to provide accommodation at least on a temporary basis for a new and much needed Classics Centre.
As to the St Cross site, where a new building for Economics has long been planned, work on preparing the first phase of the project is now well advanced: the funds are available, Sir Norman Foster has been appointed as architect, and it is hoped that work will begin on site next summer. As soon as phase I is completed space can be released in the existing St Cross Building for the benefit of Law and English, the other two main occupants of that site.
The third site of the three—the central area round the Bodleian—is still under review, and progress will depend on first finding ways to ease the pressure there and thus provide some room for manoeuvre. I hope that the Working Party on the University's site needs, chaired by the Master of Balliol, will be able to find a way forward: it plans to report in the course of the coming year.
Meanwhile I should record steps taken over the past year to purchase two pieces of land adjoining the Churchill Hospital in Headington, the first to provide a home for the new Institute of Health Sciences and the second, adjoining the first, to provide for a permanent home for the Wellcome Centre for Human Genetics, for the construction of which we are applying to the Wellcome Trust.
One further major issue involving sites—and more—which it will be necessary for the University to address in the coming term relates to the development of Management Studies. I was able during the Long Vacation to report briefly to members of Congregation the offer of £20 million from Mr Wafic Said to enable the University to proceed with its plan, agreed in principle by the University some six years ago, to build a new School of Management Studies. Council and the General Board will be asking Congregation to agree to the use for the School of a site on the former Merton playing field in Mansfield Road. This proposal raises a number of substantial concerns, not least among them being the fact that when the field was acquired over thirty years ago, through the generous decision of Merton to part with it in the University's interest, it was on the basis that the area now in question would remain open space in perpetuity. We shall also have to ensure that satisfactory alternative arrangements are made for the sporting activities of the University Club. These concerns and others will be addressed in some detail in a note which will be published in the Gazette later this week being explanatory of a resolution to be placed before Congregation next month. I therefore do not propose to examine them further now.
I must however say two things about the proposal. The first is that amid the concerns and anxieties we must not lose sight of the fact that we have within reach the opportunity to achieve in full a major policy objective of the University. The second is to pay tribute to the benefactor. Mr Said's single- minded determination to enable us to implement our plan to create a new sort of business school, fully integrated within the University, and of world class, is matched only by the munificence of his gift.
I now come to the last major topic which I wish to address today: university funding. There is no doubt that last year's cuts in the financial provision for higher education are damaging the whole university system, and they have been followed by a further cut in recurrent funding of 3 per cent in the year about to begin, with `promises' of further cuts of 3 per cent in the following year and 2 per cent in the third. The cut in capital funding, spread over two years, is 50 per cent.
Cuts of 8 per cent over the next three years, added to the cuts over the previous seven, mean that the system will have suffered a 36 per cent reduction in recurrent funding per student during the course of a decade. I do not believe that any commercial concern could have coped with cuts of this magnitude without reducing the quality of its goods or services, with consequent loss of competitiveness. It is a most striking fact that the universities—predominantly through the ever-increasing efforts of those who work in them—have continued to produce high quality teaching and research despite the savage reduction in public funding. It is true that some universities, of which Oxford is one, have been able to sustain and increase the funding obtained for research, and our own fund-raising activities have played a very important part in sustaining our ability to contemplate new developments despite these cuts. Even so, to balance the books we have had to lop £1 million off the 1996-7 maintenance budget and over £2 million off the provision for equipment; and but for the help from the Press the position would have been far worse.
Frankly, I do not believe that the university system can take any more of this treatment without serious damage to its quality. There is increasing evidence that quality is suffering. It is hard for any one university publicly to say that it is not as good as it used to be. It is easier for the system as a whole to say it, and it is true. And if quality is threatened, so is competitiveness. The international standing of British higher education will decline, and with it the ability to attract first-rate undergraduates and research students, and first rate academics, from other parts of the world. If this continues, we shall end up with a second-rate university system. No one wants that to happen. But a great deal will turn on the firmness with which Sir Ron Dearing, and his National Committee of Inquiry into Higher Education, grasp this problem.
What then is the way forward? There are short-term and longer-term measures to consider. The immediate need is to convince Government that the cuts planned for the next two years must be abandoned if the university system is to retain its high quality, and that the capital funding cut last year was a disastrous mistake. The Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals has been energetically campaigning to that end. The problem does not affect the Department for Education and Employment alone. Research funding comes largely through the Department for Trade and Industry which includes within it the Office of Science and Technology; that Department surely cannot but be concerned if supposedly `well-found' laboratories in the universities where research council projects are conducted find their equipment funding halved. The Department of Health cannot ignore the plight of universities whose medical schools will provide the next generation of doctors, particularly when it wants the number of medical students to be increased. The Department of National Heritage, again, has an interest through its responsibility for museums and galleries, as well as for buildings which form part of that heritage.
One step which I have taken in conjunction with the Vice-Chancellor of Oxford Brookes University has been to talk to the Members of Parliament—whether Front Benchers or not—whose constituencies lie in Oxfordshire, in order to explain how these problems affect the universities which employ so many of their constituents. At the national level important steps were taken on the initiative of the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals. The Secretary of State for Education and Employment was persuaded to set up two working parties which included representatives not only of her own department and of the CVCP, but also of the Higher Education Funding Council for England and of the Treasury, to report respectively on the impact of the budget settlement on the universities' recurrent funding, and on the impact of the Private Finance Initiative (PFI). The first of these reports shows very clearly the effects of persistent cuts in funding: posts to be lost, projects abandoned, and overall financial security imperilled. Alas, it states equally clearly, on its very first page, that the Department (that is the Department for Education and Employment), and I quote, `does not necessarily share or accept the views set out in the report'. In other words, the report is put forward essentially as an account of the problems which the universities face. There is no departmental response to those problems. Response there must be.
As to the second report, it seems to have been assumed when capital funding was cut that PFI would be our salvation. Cut public funds, and the private sector will step in. There are two fundamental flaws in that approach. The first is that the `capital' was not capital in the real sense, but was, for the most part, funds provided recurrently for equipment and maintenance, neither of which can produce the income stream required if the private sector is to supply the service that we need. The second flaw is connected to that. If universities are to fund projects on a recurrent rather than capital basis they need recurrent money to do it with, and if they have not got it they can only find it by cutting something else. Many universities could have access to the necessary funds simply by borrowing from a bank and, in the process, avoid payment of VAT on a PFI contract. It is the absence of an income stream and of recurrent funding which causes the difficulty: there is little merit in advising someone who is short of money to go and buy some. I am glad to say that the PFI report, while it indicates some areas (such as IT) where private finance might assist, recognises that there are others where it could not; it also recognises the income-stream problem, recommending (I quote) that `in reviewing the Government's expenditure plans in the 1996 Public Expenditure Survey, account should be taken of the recurrent effects of PFI deals, in addition to the burden of servicing existing borrowing'. It is crucial that regard is paid to this report in the next public expenditure round.
If those are some of the more immediate concerns, what of the longer term? The University will shortly have to submit its evidence to the Dearing Committee. Among a whole range of issues which that committee will consider, two are fundamental. The first is the nature of the range of universities in this country, and the second is funding.
As regards the range, it is clear that universities such as Oxford compete in the world market for staff, students, research contracts, and resources of all kinds, physical and intellectual. The country cannot afford to let these universities fall out of that market. But the country also cannot afford to have all its universities operating in this way. `Selectivity', inevitably unwelcome to some, is essential if a continued decline is to be avoided. I do not mean that any university has a divine right to be `selected'. Indeed, the much maligned research assessment exercise operates not institution by institution but department by department and faculty by faculty. Certainly, moreover, it is important to ensure that departments—or universities if that is the consequence—can move from category to category. But I have no doubt of the need for substantially selective funding to support international excellence in teaching and research. I firmly believe that the Dearing Committee will do the nation a disservice if it does not accept that approach.
Selectivity, of course, is about distributing the available resources; but what resources are to be available to distribute? This is the second fundamental issue for Sir Ron Dearing and his colleagues. An increase in the funding available to universities is essential.
On this issue I start from the premise that it would be unrealistic to expect an increase in public funding over the next decade from Government, of whatever colour. New sources of funding must be found. There is a growing acceptance across the university community, and more widely, that the only possible source of additional funding will be a contribution by students, not only to the costs of their maintenance, but also to the costs of their education. If, as I believe, there is going to be a move in that direction, then it will be imperative to guard effectively against the risk that students from poorer families will be disadvantaged. Among possibilities which the CVCP will no doubt urge the Dearing Committee to consider will be an income- contingent loan scheme, whereby students who benefit from a university education would in later years—depending on their income—repay part of the cost. There is, however, one crucial precondition: those funds must be additional to funds already available to the university system. They must not be a substitute for Treasury funding. I know that there are deep concerns that, even if a guarantee of that were given, it would not stand the test of time, and recent events in Australia, where such a scheme has hitherto been running successfully, have strengthened those concerns. But whatever arrangements the Dearing Committee proposes, one thing is clear: additional resources will be needed if there is to be first-rate higher education in this country.
I have attempted to indicate some of the steps needed to put higher education back on the right track. These are national issues, and I must return briefly to this University. The Commission of Inquiry which I chair hopes to report the outcome of its deliberations in a few months' time, and I do not propose to go into detail now about the way in which its views are shaping. I would only say that the Commission has been very carefully reviewing not only a mass of information but also a very large volume of constructive advice and comment which has poured in. Amongst this has been comment on the report on the governance of the University by Messrs Coopers & Lybrand. The Commission will come forward with its own proposals on governance in due course, and at this juncture I would merely indicate two of its particular concerns. The first is that the detailed management of affairs should, as far as is consistent with the overall responsibility of the University centrally, be delegated to those most directly affected; and the second is that the University needs more effective structures than it has at the moment to facilitate long-term strategic planning.
Despite all these concerns about the future, it would be wrong to close on a gloomy note. We have seen many examples in this last year of distinction and success in a whole range of fields. For example, it has been a pleasure to congratulate Dr John Brown, Professor Christopher Dobson, Professor George Smith, and Professor David Stuart on their election as Fellows of the Royal Society and to congratulate Professor John Carey, Dr Rosemary Foot, Professor Martin Goodman and Dr John Maddicott on their election as Fellows of the British Academy. The University's research income continues to rise, from £94 million in 1994–5 to over £104 million in 1995–6, an increase of 11 per cent and still the highest sum received by any university in the country and sure witness to the energies of our science colleagues and also those in the social sciences and humanities. It is a pleasure to be able to congratulate Professor George Radda on his appointment as Chief Executive of the Medical Research Council: we shall miss his wisdom in many aspects of the affairs of the University, but take pleasure in the fact that he is now the fourth member of the University to hold a position of great significance in the scientific research field, joining as he does Sir Robert May, the Government Chief Scientific Adviser, Professor Richard Brook, the Chief Executive of the EPSRC, and Professor John Krebs, the Chief Executive of the NERC. Oxford's contribution to scientific policy-making at the highest level is indeed considerable.
No fewer than eight colleges have new heads this coming year. At New College we welcome back to Oxford Dr Alan Ryan in place of Dr Harvey McGregor, whilst another lawyer, Mr Michael Beloff, succeeds Sir John Burgh at Trinity. Indeed the legal links continue with the arrival at St Edmund Hall of His Honour Sir Stephen Tumim in place of Mr Justin Gosling—to whom I owe many thanks as a former Pro-Vice-Chancellor. At Hertford, Sir Walter Bodmer returns to Oxford and at Somerville Mrs Catherine Hughes is succeeded by Dame Fiona Caldicott. The outgoing Chairman of the General Board, Dr Paul Slack—to whom many thanks for all he has done for the University this past year—moves to Linacre as successor to Sir Bryan Cartledge; whilst Mr Dennis Trevelyan is succeeded at Mansfield by Mr David Marquand. Finally, at Templeton we welcome Dr Michael von Clemm in place of Dr Clark Brundin, to whom particular thanks are owed for his service to the University in a variety of capacities, not least most recently as Peter Moores Director of the School of Management Studies. To all those who are retiring I offer the thanks of the University, in addition to that of their colleges, for their many contributions to the wider life of the University, and I welcome their successors in full expectation of the contributions that they will make.
Over the past twelve months we have seen the retirement of a number of our colleagues who have provided the University with distinguished academic service. In addition to those I have mentioned already, I have in mind, for example, the retirement of Professor P.G.M. Dickson, Professor of Early Modern History; Professor Sir Roger Elliott, Professor of Theoretical Physics and former Secretary to the Delegates of the Oxford University Press; Professor D.E. Evans, Jesus Professor of Celtic; Professor M.G. Gelder, W.A. Handley Professor of Psychiatry; Professor R.W. Guillery, Dr Lee's Professor of Anatomy; Professor D.F. McKenzie, Professor of Bibliography and Texual Criticism; Professor P.B.C. Matthews, Professor of Sensorimotor Physiology; Professor S.E. Moorbath, Professor of Isotope Geology; Professor E.A. Newsholme, Professor of Biochemistry; Professor R. Posner, Professor of Romance Languages; Professor P.G.J. Pulzer, Gladstone Professor of Government and Public Administration; Professor G.H. Treitel, Vinerian Professor of English Law; Professor B.L. Trowell, Heather Professor of Music; Professor B.A.O. Williams, White's Professor of Moral Philosophy, and Professor Z.A.B. Zeeman, Research Professor in European History. From Readerships, the following have retired: Dr D.H. Gath, Dr J.E. Allen, Mr J.L. Barton, Dr D.A. Edwards, Mr N. Johnson, Dr A.S. Kussmaul, Mr J.R. Lucas, and Dr M. Treisman.
Many others have retired from their academic posts after long and loyal service: Dr G.B. Robinson, Dr C.C.F. Blake, Dr P.G. Dickens, Dr J.F. Ashton, Dr M.C. Brown, Mr J.D. Davies, Dr R.F. Green, Dr G.W. Groves, Mr J.B. Hainsworth, Dr P.E. Hodgson, Mrs A.M. Mann, Dr A. Milner, Dr C.W. Newbury, Dr J.G. Olliver, Dr R. Park, Dr W.E. Parry, Mr J.R. Rea, Dr B.A. Richards, Mr J.R. Torrance, Mr G.J. Tyler, Dr G.H. Whitham, Dr D.G. Wild, and Dr W.S.C. Williams. There have been a number of retirements from other areas of the life of the University. I think in particular of the retirement of Mr Giles Barber as Librarian of the Taylor Institution, Mr A.P. Dyson as Director of the Language Teaching Centre, and Mr Tom Snow as Director of the Careers Service. Others who have retired from professional or administrative posts include Mr W.M.R. Addison, Mr J. Berry, Mr F. Boyce, Mr W.H. Clennell, Mr P. James, Mr J.G. Lum, Mr A.F.W. Mattingley, Mr J.A.N. Railton, Mr J. Shuttleworth, and Mr D.A. Stuart.
I would like to single out one person for particular mention on this occasion, namely Mr John Glozier, the Bedel of Divinity, who finally retires today some fifty years after first joining the service of the University.
It is fitting that I should record our gratitude for the lives and service of those who have died in office during the past year. We salute the memory of Professor Peter Hinchliff and Dr Paul Hayes. The University's loss among our former colleagues who have died in retirement is considerable. We remember such distinguished scholars and servants of the University as Professor Alfred Beeston, Professor Brooke Benjamin, Professor Richard Cobb, Professor Geoffrey Dawes, Professor Sir Rudolph Peierls, Lord Goodman, The Very Revd Eric Heaton, Mr Duncan Stewart, Sir Geoffrey Warnock, sometime Vice-Chancellor, and Sir Edgar (Bill) Williams.
I must conclude by expressing my thanks to all those—Pro-Vice- Chancellors, senior University officers, and many more—who have provided me with so much support this past year. I can promise that such support will undoubtedly be called for as we face the challenges of the year to come, challenges which I know the University will face with energy, imagination, and robust confidence.
8 October 1996
To Gazette No. 4412 (17 October 1996)