Notices

Contents of this section:

[Note. An asterisk denotes a reference to a previously published or recurrent entry.]

Return to Contents Page of this issue


STATUTE APPROVED BY HER MAJESTY IN COUNCIL

Mr Vice-Chancellor has received a communication from the Clerk of Her Majesty's Privy Council, stating that on 18 March 1998 Her Majesty was pleased to approve the Statute concerning the Hope Fund, printed in Gazette, pp. 120–1 (approved by Congregation, p. 188).

Return to List of Contents of this section


CRAVEN AWARDS 1998

Craven Fellowship: GEORGE WILLIAMSON, Christ Church

Thomas Whitcombe Greene Scholarship for Classical Art and Archaeology: TED KAIZER, Brasenose College

Derby Scholarship: BEATE DIGNAS, Lady Margaret Hall

Henry Francis Pelham Studentship: NAJA ARMSTRONG, Magdalen College

Return to List of Contents of this section


BEIT SENIOR RESEARCH SCHOLARSHIP 1998–9

The Scholarship has been awarded to MARK C.R. HICKFORD, St Antony's College.

Return to List of Contents of this section


BEIT PRIZE 1997–8

The Prize has been awarded to MARTIN BUNTON, St Antony's College.

Proxime accessit: JEREMY OSBORN, Lincoln College.

Return to List of Contents of this section


GEOFFREY HILL SPRAY PRIZE IN CLINICAL BIOCHEMISTRY 1998

The Prize has been awarded to DAVID FRANK LAW, Wolfson College.

Return to List of Contents of this section


LITERAE HUMANIORES: DECLAMATION PRIZES 1998

Greek Reading

First Prize: NICHOLAS WILSHIRE, Trinity College Second Prize: DANIEL KISS, Corpus Christi College

Latin Reading

First Prize: MARIE LOUISE VON GLINSKI, New College

Second Prize: CAROLINE MURPHY, Brasenose College

Return to List of Contents of this section


Latin Recitation

Prize: ANDY HULL, Trinity College

Greek Recitation

Prize: CARLOTTA DUS, Balliol College

Honourably mentioned: LUKE PITCHER, Exeter College

Return to List of Contents of this section


INDEPENDENT REVIEW OF HIGHER EDUCATION PAY AND CONDITIONS

Submission by the University

Mr Vice-Chancellor has received an invitation (Appendix I) from the secretary of the Independent Review of Higher Education Pay and Conditions to send comments on behalf of the University to the body conducting that review. The submission at Appendix II has now, with the approval of Council and the General Board after consultation with the Academic Salaries Committee, the Board's Appointments Committee, and the Staff Committee, been sent to the review body.

Return to List of Contents of this section


APPENDIX I

Letter from the secretary of the Independent Review of Higher Education Pay and Conditions

                                           30 April 1998

I am writing to invite views, comments and supporting material from universities and colleges to assist the work of the Independent Review of Higher Education Pay and Conditions.

The review was established following a recommendation in the report of the National Committee of Inquiry into Higher Education (the Dearing Report). Its terms of reference require consideration of matters concerning pay levels, pay structure, conditions of service, and the future means of determining these—for all staff in higher education, academic and non-academic.

The attached note outlines some of the main issues which arise on each of these topics. The review committee would very much welcome your institution's views on any or all of these, together with other relevant comments and supporting material you may want to submit. As well as views on current difficulties, the committee would particularly welcome your suggestions on how these might be remedied within likely financial constraints. As it is intended that the review should report early in 1999, please could you let us have your response by no later than 30 June 1998.

Please note that, unless you specifically request confidentiality, the review committee may quote from your evidence in its report or otherwise make it publicly available.

If you have any questions about this letter or the submission of evidence, please contact the secretariat on 0171 467 7265, or visit our website at www.irhepc.org.uk.

Thank you in advance for your assistance in the work of the review.

Return to List of Contents of this section


Terms of reference

The terms of reference of the review are as suggested in the report of the National Committee of Inquiry into Higher Education (the Dearing Report), which recommended the committee's establishment: `In the light of the changes in higher education proposed in the National Committee of Inquiry's report, and the need to ensure the future well-being of higher education, to review and assess the options, and to make recommendations for all staff in higher education on:

—the framework for negotiating pay and terms and conditions of services;

—whether the pay levels, for all or any group, need adjustment;

with a view to achieving:

—new ways of working as outlined in the National Committee's report;

—a link between conditions of service and remuneration;

—arrangements which respect the autonomy and diversity of institutions and the need of each to ensure its own financial well-being and the quality of its provision;

—appropriate transitional arrangements.'

Return to List of Contents of this section


Members of the review

Sir Michael Bett (Chairman)
Dr Liz Allen, Head of Higher Education, National Association of Teachers in Further and Higher Education
Sheila Forbes, Director Lloyds TSB; Civil Service Commissioner
Professor Derek Fraser, Vice-Chancellor and Chief Executive of Teesside University
Elaine Harrison, Head of Higher Education, UNISON
David Henshaw, Chief Executive of Knowsley Metropolitan Borough
Dr Nigel Home, Special Adviser KPMG and Chairman of Alcatel UK
Peter Humphreys, Chief Executive of the Universities and Colleges Employers Association (UCEA)
Chris Kaufman, National Officer of the Transport and General Workers Union
Admiral Sir John Kerr, formerly Commander-in-Chief, Naval Home Command
Professor Philip Love, Vice-Chancellor of Liverpool University and Chairman of UCEA
Leif Mills, former General Secretary of the Banking, Insurance and Finance Union
Dr John Rea, Principal of the University College of St Mark and St John
Professor Richard Shaw, Principal and Vice-Chancellor of Paisley University
Paul Talbot, National Officer of the Manufacturing Science and Finance Union
Tom Wilson, Assistant General Secretary of the Association of University Teachers

Return to List of Contents of this section


Secretariat

Peter Thorpe (Secretary)
Grant Whitfield
Donald Tait

Return to List of Contents of this section


Issues to be addressed by the review

Pay levels. Examination of current pay rates and earnings levels for all groups of staff employed by higher education institutions (HEIs)—including of relativities between them and with external comparators—with particular reference to the implications for recruitment, retention and motivation; and taking account of issues concerning affordability and institutional efficiency.

Pay structures. Assessment of the case for harmonisation and rationalisation of pay scales across universities with different heritages and between different staff groups—taking account of the autonomy of HEIs and the diversity of their missions, together with the need to facilitate effective working in a developing higher education system and career progression for individuals; and considering means to reflect factors such as experience, responsibilities, performance and labour market considerations in decisions on initial pay levels and subsequent progression.

Terms and conditions of service. Review of the case and scope for harmonising conditions of service across different parts of the HE system and between different staff groups—taking account of the links with remuneration, and provisions for staff appraisal and development; and considering the position of part-time staff and those on fixed-term contracts.

Means of determining pay and conditions. Consideration of possible frameworks for determining pay and conditions—taking account of variations in labour markets and other factors nationally and locally; and including review of the arguments for and against a pay review body or other external inputs to inform the process.

Other issues. Taking account throughout of considerations such as equal opportunities, increasing casualisation in employment, the aspirations of staff (especially of younger staff), and the cost and quality of human resources management.

                                        (Signed) PETER THORPE

Return to List of Contents of this section


APPENDIX II

Submission by the University of Oxford to the Independent Review of Higher Education Pay and Conditions

The University of Oxford (excluding its constituent colleges) employs over 7,000 staff at an annual cost of £155m. It aims to recruit, reward, and retain staff of the highest standard and in many sectors recruits in international markets. The relative decline in higher education pay levels as compared with most other sectors is causing grave problems for the recruitment and retention of such staff, especially in the areas of management studies, economics, law, computing, and many sciences, as well as in secretarial, clerical, and accountancy positions. If the University is to retain international excellence in teaching and research, it is vital that appropriate staff benefits can be provided and financed.

The University appreciates the benefits which the economies of scale and the availability of professional expertise associated with central pay bargaining through the Universities and Colleges Employers Association (UCEA) convey. However, it is essential to the University that it retains the freedom locally to amend and adapt UCEA recommendations to suit Oxford's particular situation and needs. The University has, for example, its own distinct academic lecturer and academic-related research scales based upon the national spine; it has also added super-scale discretionary points, in excess of those recommended nationally, to most non-academic and academic-related scales. For the future, this local flexibility must be preserved and extended.

Any national arrangements for pay determination therefore should explicitly provide a flexible framework within which individual institutions can vary remuneration arrangements as required. One example of such an arrangement would be for the national bargaining to concentrate solely upon a revaluation of a pay spine, in the light of which each institution would be free to reposition and redefine the salary scale for each grade on the revalued pay spine, as locally appropriate. Thus, if the spine were revalued nationally by, say, increasing all spine-point salary values by `n' per cent, some institutions could simply apply that increase and no more; others could perhaps extend some, or all, grade-salary ranges by using one or more extra spine points, or could reposition certain grade-salary ranges higher up the spine. It is appreciated that each of these developments would add a further element to the cost of the pay review at the particular institution, but any such development would be under local control and would benefit the institution by enabling it to address any recruitment, reward, or retention problems it faced. This twin-element approach (national spine revaluation, plus genuinely optional local further element(s) related to the spine) would enable both the position of the more financially constrained universities and the needs of other institutions to be accommodated more readily than the present single-element national arrangement. Through the second element, institutions could, for example, respond to specific recruitment difficulties and to the wide differences in the cost of housing across the country.

In essence, any future national framework for pay determination should be de minimis and should enable, but not proscribe or limit, the freedom of individual institutions to vary pay arrangements to suit their particular needs and circumstances.

In the light of current employment law and good practice, the University supports the concept of a single pay spine for all staff, though it recognises more than one family of grade-salary scales may be derived from that spine. At Oxford, for example, the intricate system of joint appointments with colleges may require the University, for its part, to retain a unique set of pay scales for academic staff, which would none the less be derived from the single pay spine upon which the salary scales for all other university staff would be based. The University accepts the importance of ranking all jobs using a single, gender-neutral, job classification system (such as HERA), though additional factors, such as the institution's financial resources and priorities, the competitive employment market pressures (whether regional, national, or international), and perhaps performance, will also influence salary determination at institutional level.

Return to List of Contents of this section


MUSEUM OF THE HISTORY OF SCIENCE

Temporary closure

From Tuesday, 30 June, the museum will close to visitors for major building work and gallery refurbishment, mainly funded by the Heritage Lottery Fund. A reopening date has not yet been set, but it is expected that the museum will be closed for about a year. The museum's extensive Web site will remain open at http://www.mhs.ox.ac.uk, and new exhibitions will appear there while the building is closed.

Return to List of Contents of this section