Dr Charles-Edwards will be a fellow of Jesus College.
Council has also, under the provisions of Tit. X, Sect I, proviso ( h) (ii) (ibid., p. 74), on the recommendation of the Governing Body, approved the extension from 1 October 1997 to 31 December 1997 of the appointment of the present Warden, SIR CRISPIN TICKELL, GCMG, KCVO, MA.
The Prize for performance in Honour Moderations has been awarded to RUSSELL N. LYNCH, St Anne's College.
1. What should be the aims and purposes of higher education over the next twenty years?
2. What features are, or should be, distinctive of higher education as opposed to other levels or forms of education or training?
3. What forms of higher education provision will students need access to over the next twenty years?
4. What knowledge, skills and aptitudes will those leaving higher education need over the next twenty years and how can these be best delivered?
5. How can effective teaching and learning be identified and how should they be encouraged?
6. What is the place of scholarship (as opposed to teaching and research) in higher education?
7. How can the standards of degrees and other higher education qualifications be assured and maintained?
8. What proportion of higher education resources is it reasonable to use to verify standards of awards and the quality of provision?
9. How should research carried out in higher education institutions fit with the wider spectrum of research undertaken in the UK?
10. How should public funding for research in higher education institutions be distributed?
11. How should the organisation of research activity be developed over the next twenty years?
12. How can the quality of research in higher education best be maintained and enhanced?
14. What factors should determine the appropriate level of participation in higher education?
15. How do you expect the student body over the next twenty years to differ in age, background, education, employment, experience and motivation, aptitude and lifestyle from today?
16. What should be the requirements for entry in higher education?
17. How should the admissions procedure be organised for entry into higher education?
18. How diverse should the higher education sector be across institutions over the next twenty years?
19. What should be the balance between different providers of higher education?
20. How should higher education institutions themselves develop?
21. How should the shape and structure of the higher education sector be determined?
22. What requirements on internal governance in institutions of higher education should there be as a pre-requisite for receipt of public funds?
24. How can UK higher education capitalise on the fact that higher education is an international activity?
25. What should higher education seek to contribute to the social, cultural, moral and spiritual life of the nation?
27. What further measures may be available to increase the cost effectiveness of institutions of higher education without reducing the quality of teaching and research?
28. What factors should be taken into account in determining the level and proportion of public expenditure spent on higher education?
29. Who should pay the costs of tuition and of student maintenance?
30. How should scholarship (as distinct from research or teaching) be supported?
31. What is the most effective way of channelling public funds for teaching to higher education?
32. To what extent is it practicable and desirable for facilities and services in higher education to be provided by the private sector outside higher education?
A reply is being prepared by Council and the General Board which has to be submitted by 15 November 1996. If any member of Congregation wishes to express views on any of the above questions, in order to help in the drafting, please send them to the Secretary of Faculties, University Offices, Wellington Square by 28 October 1996. In the questionnaire, each of the above questions is followed by an indication of particular points on which comments may be thought desirable. If any member of Congregation wishes to have a copy of the full text, it is available from the Secretary of Faculties.
Published below, for the information of members of Congregation and others concerned, are the texts of (a) the reply sent by a Minister of State, Mr Eric Forth, MP, on 22 July, (b) a further letter from Professor Love, dated 29 July, and (c) a reply to that letter sent by another Minister of State, Lord Henley, on 17 September.
Thank you for your letter of 26 June addressed to the Prime Minister about academic pay. It has been passed to me for reply, as I am the Minister responsible for higher education.
You say that the Government made a 1 per cent cut in cash terms in the recurrent funding for higher education in 1996-7. In fact, the 1995 Budget confirmed plans for recurrent expenditure announced in the 1994 Budget. Total recurrent grants to the Higher Education Funding Council for England and the Teacher Training Agency remained broadly unchanged in cash terms between 19956 and 19967. It is against this background and within these available funds that university employers have to decide on pay increase in staff salaries. As you are no doubt aware, the Chancellor's statement of 18 September 1995 on public sector pay made clear that there would again be no access to the central Reserve to fund settlements this year.
It remains the Government's view that the pay of clinical academics employed by universities should be linked to NHS doctors' pay as determined by the DDRB. This is the principle that UCEA has observed in previous years. While I note what you say about the particular difficulties that have arisen this year, I would urge you to reconsider very carefully your own cogent arguments for retaining the link.
(Signed) ERIC FORTH
On 22 June 1996, I wrote to the Prime Minister drawing attention to the need for an additional £4.8m in funding for University Medical and Dental Schools, so that they can implement the pay award determined by the Government for Clinical Academic Staff. You replied on 22 July and I would like to comment on some of the points you make.
Funding for Higher Education was cut by 1 per cent this year relative to last, even if you prefer to describe this as recurrent grant `remained broadly unchanged in cash terms'. The cut in funding is the main reason why Universities and Colleges can afford a pay increase of only 1.5 per cent for all their staffs.
You say it is `the Government's view that the pay of clinical academics employed by universities should be linked to the NHS Doctors' pay as determined by the DDRB'. As you know the increase involved is 3.85 per cent.
You say too, that UCEA has observed this parity principle in previous years and so it has.
Since the Clinical Academic Staff Salaries Committee was established, with government support, in 1979, the principle of parity has been maintained and underwritten by additional funds from the Government whenever a significant gap between NHS and University funding emerged, as it has again this year. Additional funds have been provided on several occasions.
In 1986, the undertaking to provide additional funding was formalised and set out in a letter, dated 6 February 1986, from the then Secretary of State, Sir Keith Joseph, to the then CVCP Chairman. It is true that the promise was couched in relation to funding mechanisms which the Government has since changed, but the underlying principle is perfectly clear. I am afraid that it is not acceptable for the Government to abrogate this undertaking.
I have to say again, that without additional funding, it will not be possible to implement the 1996 DDRB award in relation to Clinical Academic staff. It is ironic, to say the very least, that while the Government expects universities to make increases in staff salaries through so called `efficiency gains' (i.e. cuts) MPs and Government Ministers are, quite remarkably, sheltered from having to meet their salary increases out of efficiency gains effected in relation to the running of Parliament and the support staff involved. Furthermore, there is just as much a discrepancy in the value of university staff salaries today as has just been corrected so expeditiously in the case of MPs and Government Ministers.
(Signed) PHILIP N. LOVE
Thank you for your letter of 29 July to Eric Forth about clinical academic pay.
You suggest that the principle of maintaining parity with NHS clinicians' pay has been maintained and underwritten by additional funds from Government since 1974. In fact the 1986 agreement to which you refer applies only where the National Health Service has obtained extra funds for the DDRB settlement and was last implemented in 19923. The NHS has obtained no additional funds for DDRB awards this year; and so the universities have been given no less favourable treatment in this respect.
I know that the situation is difficult this year, but this is an issue that has been faced and overcome many times in the past. I hope therefore that, as suggested by Eric in his letter of 22 July, the UCEA will reconsider its position, particularly in view of the importance of maintaining the link between the pay of clinical academics and NHS doctors' pay.
Subsequently Council decided that it was desirable to retain the ability to make some assistance available in the small number of cases where a professor moving to the Oxford area to take up appointment would otherwise face an insurmountable problem. Council also agreed, however, that the arrangements should be put on a more regular footing. The position has now been reviewed by an ad hoc working party, and Council has agreed that in future it will be made clear, in the `further particulars' of professorships which have been advertised, that where exceptional difficulty arises in regard to housing for a professor moving to the Oxford area to take up appointment (e.g. as may sometimes be the case where the move is from an area in which housing costs are substantially lower than in Oxford), the University may in certain circumstances be able to facilitate arrangements to assist house purchase. Holders of other posts at professorial level or above will in principle be eligible. Any such help will normally take the form of the University's bearing part of the cost of the house and retaining a proportionate share of the equity in respect of which share rent will be charged. In so far as the rent will be slightly below the normal return on capital investments there will be some net cost to the University; this cost will be charged to a small residue of the recurrent funding made available to the University some time ago for use only for discretionary payments to professors. Requests for assistance will be judged solely on the basis of need, assessed by reference to the personal resources of the incoming professor and the cost of a reasonable standard of housing in Oxford. The discretion to assist will be exercised by an independent panel appointed by Council, of which the current members are: Dr R.C. Repp, Master of St Cross College (Chairman); Dr R.P.H. Gasser, Brasenose College; and Professor P.C. Newell, St Peter's College.