It is as well to recall that the public funding of college fees at Oxford and Cambridge was brought into question by the Dearing Committee of Inquiry into Higher Education. It recommended that there should not be more than modest variations in the public funding of teaching except in cases of approved difference in provision or of a recognition that an exceptionally high level represents a good use of resources. We should remember also that the Dearing Committee was established as a response to a massive funding crisis in Higher Education. The urgency of the financial problems of the sector was forcibly expressed by the CVCP and by individual Vice-Chancellors, including my predecessor. The Dearing Report demonstrated the justice of those concerns.
As part of its general acceptance of the Report, the Government acted upon this recommendation by asking HEFCE to advise it on the matter. This was in fact to place the matter within a particular context. HEFCE has developed a funding methodology based upon the grouping of all teaching fees nationally into three subject-related bands with little tolerance for deviation for different institutional conditions. Any substantial premium must, under this formula, be based upon a special factor applicable wherever it pertains across the sector. Certainly, the Dearing Committee also commended the diversity of institutional missions within the sector as a whole. It commented that that diversity must include institutions of world renown (and that it must be a conscious objective of national policy to have such institutions). It specifically recommended that funding arrangements for institutions should reflect that diversity. Nonetheless, if the Government was not to regard colleges and their fees as sui generis and objects of separate public funding, then the issue was bound to be whether, how and on what premise they could be included within the ordinary mechanisms of the funding of higher education.
It is of course entirely proper -- and there has never been any suggestion to the contrary on our part -- that the Government should scrutinise the allocation of public funds to this university and should do so, indeed, in the context of the funding objectives of its higher education policy. The questions put to us have been substantial both in terms of general principles and of the level of detailed information required. Working through them in search of a viable settlement has required a series of meetings with ministers at the DfEE and with the Chief Executive of HEFCE. These have been joint meetings with Cambridge in which Oxford has been represented by the Vice-Chancellor, the Chairman of Conference of Colleges (the Warden of New College) and the Chairman of the College Fees Committee (the Provost of Worcester), together with the Registrar (both past and present). The management of our arguments and evidence has been conducted by the weekly meetings of a steering group, chaired by myself and comprising the Principal of Jesus (my predecessor), the Chairman of the General Board, the Wardens of Wadham and New College (past and present chairmen of the Conference of Colleges), Dr Martineau of Wadham and Mr Honeyman of St Hugh's (from the Estates Bursars Committee), Mr Smith of Magdalen and Dr Heal of Jesus (from the Senior Tutors' Committee), the Provost of Worcester and Mr Van Noorden of Hertford (from the College Fees Committee) and the Principal of Linacre representing the graduate colleges. Finally, I have reported directly to a meeting of Heads of House after each of our meetings with ministers or the Funding Council.
Although there has necessarily been a degree of confidentiality about the proceedings (not least because of the intensity of media interest), I believe that this structure has ensured that all interests have been represented and that this has been a negotiation conducted properly on behalf of the collegiate university. The members of the steering group and officers have worked together on these issues with clear-sighted and effective cooperation throughout this year and they deserve our gratitude. Cooperation between Oxford and Cambridge has been harmonious.
The prolonged uncertainty over the outcome has had a deleterious effect. No enterprise can think properly about the future when it is left for so long unable to project its income. Moreover, this has been unfortunate in that it has coincided with a crucial period for the preparation of the next RAE. Council and the General Board did make special provisions last Michaelmas Term to support colleges in the commitments required for joint appointments. Nonetheless, the uncertainty has made decisions difficult for colleges. It must be a matter of satisfaction that the vacancies allocated by the General Board have been filled. I should more particularly express gratitude towards those colleges which have been willing to take on an additional new appointment.
Nonetheless, irrespective of the length of the process, we have been able to convince the Secretary of State for Education and Employment that Oxford and its colleges are the home of definable excellence in teaching as well as research. We have demonstrated the international standing of our University, the national importance of that, the solid foundations upon which that reputation is built and the centrality of the collegiate system to it. We have shown that colleges do use the income from their assets for academic purposes in a way that, in other contexts, might have been called "partnership funding". We have shown that they have been attending to questions of efficiency in their management for a number of years and certainly that there are no idle "pots of gold" in Oxford. We have provided evidence that we do meet the Dearing criteria.
In his announcement of 17 March, the Secretary of State showed that he had been convinced on these particular matters. Though he announced the consolidation of the public funding of teaching in Oxford (and in Cambridge) in a single payment through HEFCE, he set this decision quite explicitly in the context of a recognition of the excellence of Oxford and Cambridge and of the importance of the "role that the collegiate system plays in this". Furthermore, both Vice-Chancellors received the assurance (repeated elsewhere subsequently) that the net premium representing undergraduate and graduate college fees (which, taking Oxford and Cambridge together, currently stands at approximately £35m) would not drop below approximately £23m in current prices. This does of course still represent a serious cut of one-third over a period of time yet to be settled. Finally, the matter was referred a second time to HEFCE for advice, but under the clear condition that "a satisfactory mechanism" be developed in the context of the considerations set out in the Secretary's letter to the two Vice-Chancellors.
It is important to stress here that Mr Blunkett has approached these issues in a fair and open-minded way throughout. Once convinced of Oxford's excellence and significance for the higher education system in this country, he has not hesitated to say so clearly and repeatedly. He has sought not to call us into question but to encourage young people of talent to aspire to Oxford and Oxford to seek them out. I may illustrate this point by saying that he agreed to be filmed giving just such encouragement to sixth-formers as an introduction to our Admissions video. "Oxford is one of our world-renowned universities", Mr Blunkett tells them; "raise your horizons and expectations, and [do] not ... be put off by preconceptions about what that might mean".
Our discussions with HEFCE since March have concentrated on identifying a method for delivering additional funding which represents the college fee in a way that is both sustainable for the future and paces the reductions in the least damaging way during the initial years. The Oration is ill-timed for me to be able to announce a conclusion. Detailed figures need to be produced to verify proposals, some matters remain as yet unclear, colleges need to consider this information. What is certain, however, is that the conclusion will require a mechanism for further support of the poorer colleges, presumably through the College Contributions Scheme. The colleges have been actively working on that issue.
The routing of the sum representing college fees through HEFCE to the University is a major innovation. Quite understandably, fears have been expressed about a resultant dependency of the colleges on the central University. Let me be quite explicit on this point. The colleges are one of the most distinctive features of this University and they are integral to its reputation and its future. Colleges must remain real academic communities, bringing together undergraduates, postgraduates and senior members. They must continue to be intellectually alert and creative, a considerable focus of teaching and academic exchange. They must endure as guardians of our tradition of education that reaches beyond mere instruction to the firing of intellectual independence and creativity in very able young people. The future for Oxford does not lie in colleges becoming historic halls of residence and objects of tourism. Clearly, this year's events do raise a number of issues that require careful and reasoned discussion. To that end, I have set up a working party which represents the various interests in the University and which I shall chair.
One principal theme in the general discussion about Oxbridge during the past year has been access. Whatever the crass stereotypes trotted out with such relish in some public comment, it is absurd to think that those who teach and research in Oxford do not desire to see the excellence of this university as a ladder of opportunity to talented young people whatever their background. Indeed, many of us have benefited in that way: why should we wish to deny it to others ? The nature and composition of the University's undergraduate recruitment have been a matter of concern here for a long time. A whole series of initiatives has been designed to address perceived imbalances -- some undertaken collectively (for example, the abolition of the entrance examination or the development of summer schools generously supported by Peter Lampl), some by individual colleges (for example, special regional schemes or subject courses), and some by the students (Target Schools and the Access Scheme). While minimizing the effect of the movement of schools from the state to the independent sector and of the assisted places scheme on the composition of our undergraduate body, these initiatives have not moved it closer to the general profile of the educational backgrounds of those young people whose A-Level scores identify them as potential students of ours.
These are serious issues, not amenable to quick-fix showy formulae designed to respond to pressure of the moment. A working party has been established under my chairmanship with the purpose of gaining a close understanding of student choice and the processes of selection. It has assembled considerable statistical data; it has issued and analysed questionnaires to colleges and departments; it has processed questionnaires issued to candidates by OUSU; it has received presentations from researchers in this area; it has talked with teachers. Most important, in collaboration with Cambridge it has commissioned a substantial attitude survey in schools among potential candidates and among teachers. The purpose is to gain a better understanding of the perceptions of Oxbridge among those capable of making a serious application and among those most likely to influence their choices. It is evident that one significant feature of our situation is that so many of those who could apply from the state sector choose not to do so.
The enquiry of the working party must be grounded in two principles. There must be no lowering of standards. The quality of academic excellence to which we hold and by which we stand must not be insidiously eroded by the manipulation of standards at entry. The objective must be to provide wider access for those who have the talent to succeed with us. Second, there can be nothing resembling quotas in order to attain some particular balance, since children are essentially innocent in the matter of where they go to school.
During the year, the issue of college fees has provided the occasion for considerable public comment about Oxford, some of it framed in terms of an alleged decline of this university. Let me just dwell for a moment upon the evidence to the contrary. I have to repeat yet again that Oxford has the largest number of academics working in 5* and 5 rated departments (the highest scores in the Research Assessment Exercise) of any university in the United Kingdom. I have to repeat that, for three years now, we have received annually well over £100m in research income in grants from all sources , larger than any university in the United Kingdom. We have this year had more colleagues elected as Fellows of the Royal Society and of the British Academy than any other university in the United Kingdom. Our colleagues continue to be appointed to high responsibilities outside the University. I may mention among others Professor Paul Langford who has become Chief Executive of the new Arts and Humanities Research Board, Professor Susan Greenfield who will be Director of the Royal Institution from next year, Professor Roger Cashmore who will be Research Director at CERN from 1 January 1999, and Professor John Vickers who has been appointed Executive Director and Chief Economist of the Bank of England.
Beyond that, I can perforce select here only a few illustrations of the many initiatives under way. Thus, we have begun to build the new Sackler Library and the first phase of the major development of the Ashmolean area. The Ashmolean itself has received a major gift for a new gallery for Chinese painting and also lottery funding for a new twentieth-century gallery. We have broken ground for the new American Institute which will be a major centre for interdisciplinary and international study. We continue to make progress towards the realisation of the new building for the Said Business School. Indeed, the first MBAs, who graduated this year, had the highest entry qualifications of any business school cohort in Europe. Numerous donors have joined the University in funding the essential renovation and upgrade of the most historic parts of the Bodleian Library and work will take place this coming year. Paul Allen, co-founder of Microsoft, has given a substantial initial grant to carry further forward the ambitious distance-learning project of the Department for Continuing Education.
Turning to the sciences, I should say that our departments received the largest proportion of funds under the 1997/98 Joint Research Equipment Initiative. One result is that we now have the largest and most powerful supercomputer in use within the UK academic community. I may mention, among many other significant projects, the success of the Oxford Cardiovascular Initiative in being one of only two programmes in the UK to gain major funding from the Wellcome Trust for the development of gene therapies in clinical medicine. This is but one example of the active interaction that exists between clinical medicine and basic science in Oxford in such areas as genetics, the heart and the brain. Indeed, this year the President of the Board of Trade opened the Oxford Centre for Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging which, in turn, collaborates with the Medical Image Analysis Group in the Department of Engineering. And I hve to leave aside major work this year on cancer, Alzheimer's, AIDS, diabetes, autism, the nutritional yield of potatoes, climatic forecasting, etc.
Beyond that, let me draw attention to our record in the formation of spin-out companies. This year, the University has significantly increased its support for Isis Innovation. We believe that Oxford now has a better record in spinning out successful companies than any other UK university. A recent study of a range of indicators shows that hi-tech industry in Oxfordshire is closely comparable to that of Cambridgeshire. While the University certainly cannot claim to be directly responsible for the whole of this profile, there is no doubt that its presence has been and remains a powerful engine for such development and underscores the University's importance to the local economy.
Finally, let me not forget our students. Although it is as invidious to make choices here for mention as it is among colleagues, I refer to just two as exemplars of their diversity and talent. In one of our colleges, a young Amerindian man from the Amazonian rainforest has been studying for a degree; in another, a young woman won a gold medal in the Commonwealth Games within literally a few days of completing successfully her arduous postgraduate examinations.
It seems to me that this quick portrait demonstrates that Oxford stands high on the mountain of international university excellence. We are not staring over the edge of some precipice.
Beyond the local concerns of funding in Oxford there has also been the much wider issue of the sector-wide funding gap identified by the Dearing Report. Three elements have been clarified during the year. First, legislation has now put in place provision for the payment of £1000 fee by undergraduate students moderated by a means-tested sliding scale. Second, the projected (or so-called "efficiency gain") of at least 3% for the sector has been reduced to 1% for next year. Third, the long-awaited outcome of the Comprehensive Spending Review has committed about £1.1bn to research over the next three years through the OST and HEFCE, including a £600m Joint Infrastructure Fund financed jointly by the Treasury and the Wellcome Trust. Let me add, in parenthesis, how much we appreciate Wellcome's energetic commitment to resolving the infrastructural issues in the biomedical research area.
This surge of investment in research infrastructure shows that the Government has taken account of the alarm calls issued by Vice-Chancellors and employers. We should recognise that. We should also recognise that these initiatives do represent a vindication of the science base in universities and thus an acknowledgement of the role of research universities in national wealth creation. Over the next three years, research universities including this one ought to draw significant benefit from this outcome from the CSR.
Nonetheless, this year's funding initiatives are not wholly positive. Although it is not yet entirely clear how and upon what guidelines the Joint Infrastructure Initiative will operate, there may well be an emphasis on the biological sciences, albeit very broadly defined (evidently, this must be the case for the Wellcome Trust's half of the funding). Certainly, this Fund does not appear to be destined for the social sciences and the humanities. There is here no investment in teaching infrastructure, for example IT. Moreover, it is important for us to understand that this is non-recurrent money: it is a single effort over three years to repair infrastructural damage. Universities need therefore to remain vigilant to prevent the recurrence in the future of the situation in which this area found itself in the mid-nineties. Furthermore, although the Research Councils appear to have received significant extra funds, it seems likely that an important part of them will be absorbed by inflation. The new money in the AHRB's dowry is more significant for us since the Funding Councils of Scotland and Wales have been unwilling to participate. All in all, although this is a reasonably good settlement for research, it is probable that one should not expect a large expansion of research council funding (in constant money terms, at least).
Beyond that, within the constrained general funding targets adopted by the Government the reduction of the sector cut to 1% for next year must certainly be seen as a significant and most welcome step. Nonetheless, in reality the cut is likely to be closer to 2% since the deflator employed in the calculation is wholly optimistic and does not correspond to the real basket of costs for universities. As for the self-paying undergraduate fee, my predecessor made the point that if the public purse is unable to sustain the higher education system adequately (and the outcome of the CSR confirms that that is the case), then some element of self-payment is a necessity in order to sustain the university system against continued downward drift. It remains the essential justification of this fee that it should serve as a direct enhancement of the sector's income and not turn effectively into a Treasury saving. Such an outcome is not yet clear.
In my view, therefore, while acknowledging this year's funding initiatives, we must consider that the public funding future of universities in general remains insecure. Major issues have not been addressed. One of the most serious among these, in this university as elsewhere, is the funding of salaries.
It is important that we in Oxford should understand how much the higher education context in this country is changing under the twin impulse of the Dearing Report and emerging government policy. Both Dearing and the Government believe that a globalising economy and the rapid development of the technology of communication pose challenges that can only be met by a compact between higher education and the world of work. Policy aims to engage higher education in developing skills (implictly, skills appropriate to the new economy) among as broad a segment of the population as possible. This encounters the Government's concern with social exclusion so that the general good of skilling matches the general good of bringing into mainstream society those previously marginalised. Finally, in accepting the Dearing Report, the Government has adopted the provisions designed to make higher education transparent to those now known as "stakeholders" -- principally by means of programme specification, a Quality Assurance Agency and the training of university teachers through accreditation by an Institute for Learning and Teaching in Higher Education.
At present two currents appear to be in tension with each other. On the one hand, the Dearing Report did emphasize the necessity and virtue of diversity within the higher education sector, even though the general impression left with the reader at the end was that this was a rather minor theme -- certainly, the virtues of diversity were never properly spelled out within the generally regulatory framework of the Report. Equally, both DfEE and HEFCE acknowledge diversity within the system and do, in some initiatives, explicitly disclaim an intention to homogenise. Indeed, the college fees episode this year can be seen as a clear and practical acceptance of diversity and of the excellence that results from it.
On the other hand, rather as with the reading of the Dearing Report, one cannot help feeling that the tone of current policy is elsewhere. There are, I think, two separate issues here. In the first place, like my predecessors in their Orations, I must draw attention to the continuing interventionism and regulation. The demands still increase for detailed information with which government and funding agencies may monitor the impact of their policies and our compliance with them; the volume of data required for a multitude of purposes ranging from funding models to research grants and beyond mounts and can only be supplied at significant cost in terms of time, energy and money.
In the second place, however, I perceive a new and troubling extension of prescription through the mechanism of the audit code of practice, most particularly in such domains as the requirement for corporate plans, detailed guides to governing bodies, instructions on effective financial management, etc. The definition of specific outcomes is within the legitimate concerns of the funders of higher education, but the prescription of how those outcomes are achieved must be a cause for anxiety. Moreover, there is here an implication of the homogenisation of the higher education sector. Such an implication is also evident in the funding model with its assumption that the same groups of subjects can be costed the same wherever they are taught. Furthermore, there is a troubling potential in the most recent funding initiatives which assign top-sliced sums for objectives of government policy. These must be viewed in conjunction, first, with statements that establish links between future funding and the achievement of those objectives now required in corporate strategies and, second, with the now-established mechanism of increases in student numbers being allocated on a basis of government policy targets. Do such developments presage a progressive contraction of the T element of the block grant in favour of an array of pots, each attached to a different object, from among which universities will have to assemble their teaching funding ? One might argue that this would provide the basis for sustaining diversity in the sector. One could equally well see here the potential for close government regulation of higher education.
Let me be quite clear. I do not mean to say that Government has no legitimate interest in what we do. Very much to the contrary, it is certain that all universities must be clearly accountable for the way in which they use public funds, and that the Government, like others (not least the students), ought to know what they are getting for the investment they put in. I do not mean to suggest that the ministers or the Funding Council have an agenda aimed at reducing independence of action in the universities. One can understand the situation of ministers driving a vision for higher education in constrained financial circumstances (indeed, one is rather glad to have a government that does have a vision for higher education). However, there is a limit to what is reasonable and, at a certain point, acceptable intervention and regulation. Universities themselves do need to make that clear. Indeed, during this year, the universities have together done so over the QAA.
Let me not stray far from my purpose, which is the context in which Oxford now finds itself. There is tension around a unitary policy and funding model because present trends point towards an increasingly differentiated higher education sector. The sector now deals with a much larger student population, which is likely to grow further over time. Students are coming with a great variety of educational and other backgrounds. The pattern of participation is changing with part-time study and interrupted study. The age of students is increasingly diverse. Those who did not participate earlier are now entering, while the sector will move increasingly to provide for the multiple returns to higher education required for the reskilling implied by lifetime learning in a world of technological change. New types of courses and new methods of delivery are developing to meet these needs. A single national structure of qualifications and portable credits are hull-up over the horizon. As they respond to these needs and opportunities, different sorts of university increasingly do not resemble each other in functional terms. The traditional university, which Oxford exemplifies, is now one model among several.
Other significant changes are becoming apparent. For example, some larger universities are absorbing small higher education institutions; multi-campus universities are becoming more numerous; associations of universities (including some research universities) are appearing for the purpose of exchange of students, shared courses, collaborative funding initiatives, etc. Furthermore, we see the emergence of new providers which sometimes call themselves universities. For the moment, these are essentially corporate operations -- principally, Unipart U and British Aerospace Virtual University.
As a great international university, we should be aware also that comparable shifts are taking place internationally, not least among those with whom we most relate. For brevity's sake, I will mention but three phenomena. First, we are witnessing the growth of a variety of collaborations which range from the simple exchange agreements for students and staff based upon preferential financial arrangements through to the establishment of remote campuses in another university (such as some major American universities are doing in China). Second, a number of universities are creating firm networks based upon formal associations of collaboration at all levels. I mention as one example the international association formed around the University of Melbourne which includes some British universities. Third, there are the mega-virtual universities offering degrees globally through distance-learning. Of these, the most successful and the most reputable is certainly the University of Phoenix, but Stanford University is entering this domain. If these sorts of arrangements (particularly international preference agreements) develop and consolidate further, there are clear implications ultimately in terms of distortion in the flows of students and academics and in access to large-scale research projects whose cost and manpower is contained through the conjugation of resource.
None of these national and international developments necessarily threatens Oxford directly. We are a very strong university with a pre-eminent and justified reputation in research and teaching. We have tremendous resources, both human and academic. We have high principles of scholarship which underwrite values of excellence which we must preserve. Moreover, we do have associations and collaborations at individual, group and college level, as well as some broader agreements. At the same time, a number of the initiatives going on around us are clearly ill-conceived or impermanent or irrelevant to us. Nonetheless, it is clear that these experiments betoken a search for new forms in a higher education world that is irrevocably in a state of flux. In these terms, our changing context does challenge us. Indeed, one may say that in the debate over college fees and access we have been asked what our function is in British higher education and how we relate to that increasingly complex sector. The same question confronts us in our international dimension.
We need to think carefully, intelligently and deliberately about the future. We need to develop broader strategies by which we can both preserve and promote what we believe essential in ourselves and develop the relationships and opportunities that sustain us. We need to reflect whether we have the necessary tools to operate in this changing world such as, for example, the graduate studentships which the General Board has allocated for the next five years (though I feel that we will have to do much more in this area). We need to grow other revenue streams with which to support strategic investment required by agreed academic plans, otherwise vulnerable to the uncertainties of future public funding which I have described. Among other possible avenues I look, for example, to the potential of spin-out companies and to the OUP with whom I am currently in conversation. Finally, we need to be sure that we have instruments to create strategy effectively and to operate our affairs in a manner that is both appropriate and timely. In an important step, Congregation this year accepted a broad site strategy and the University is now acting in accordance with that.
It is here that I come to the Report of the Commission of Inquiry, which we received at the beginning of this calendar year. I do not come to it so late in my Oration because I deem it of little importance -- indeed, to the contrary. I come to it here because the Report addresses itself precisely to the questions raised by the background I have been discussing. I should, first of all, express publicly the University's gratitude to the members of the Commission of Inquiry: my predecessor, Sir Peter North, who chaired the Commission, and Professor Hudson, Mr Nicholls, The Principal of Newnham College (Cambridge), The Rector of Imperial College (London), Professor Radda, The Provost of Worcester College, and Dr Woodhouse. We are all very conscious of the amount of time they devoted from busy lives to serve the interests of this University and we do thank them for the breadth of compass, the clarity of view, and the patience of intelligence which they brought to the task. The Report is the first comprehensive review of the objectives and functioning of the University since the Franks Commission reported just over thirty years ago. It is as broad, searching and unblinking as its predecessor. Since Franks, the changes in the character of the University and in the nature of the higher education environment have been as substantial as the changes which his Commission addressed. The change in context is real indeed and I have described some of its recent symptoms; the internal issues examined by the Commission are also real indeed, and pressing. The Commission has offered us a well-signposted framework for tackling these issues. It would be perilous for the University not to take its conclusions very seriously.
The University is taking them seriously. The fact that there has not yet been a large public debate is, I think, entirely understandable. On the one hand, the Report was delivered at the beginning of Hilary Term which is a time in this busy university when colleagues are particularly preoccupied by teaching and research. On the other, this Commission did not follow its predecessor (wisely, perhaps) in providing draft new statutes directly for Congregation to debate. Above all, however, the Report arrived at a time when uncertainty about the future of college fees was very high and this did not encourage immediate action.
In fact, the form of the Report and its recommendations have suggested a different way of proceeding. The Commission has clearly identified two principal issues that must be addressed first. The recommendations on other matters will either be facilitated by the resolution of these two or can be dealt with in its wake. The two central themes are governance and the terms and conditions of appointments. We have therefore established two working parties to prepare proposals that elaborate on or reach out from the analyses and recommendations in the Report. The working party on governance is drawn from Council, the General Board and the colleges and is chaired by the Vice-Chancellor; the working party on appointments is drawn from the General Board and the colleges and is chaired by the Chairman of the General Board. On governance, we expect to have a document ready for broad consultation throughout the University during the whole of Michaelmas Term. I hope that, taking account of the responses, we shall be in a position to bring legislation to Congregation during Hilary Term 1999. As for appointments, I hope that a similar process will not be far behind.
In conclusion, I am glad to be able to welcome three new Heads of House who have joined us in mid-year. My predecessor already announced in his last Oration that Lord Butler would succeed John Albery as Master of University College and that Sir John Hanson would succeed Sir Crispin Tickell as Warden of Green College. To these I must add Sir David Rowland, elected President of Templeton College in succession to Michael von Clemm whose death at an early age we record with sadness. Otherwise, Sir Stephen Tumim, Principal of St Edmund Hall, is the only departure among the Heads of Colleges this year. However, in the Permanent Private Halls, we welcome the Revd F.G. Kerr as Regent of Blackfriars in succession to the Revd P M Parvis and the Revd Gerard Hughes as Master of Campion Hall in succession to the Revd J.A. Munitz.
This past year has also seen the retirement of colleagues who have given distinguished service to the University. I should begin most especially with Sir Richard Southwood, Professor of Zoology and former Vice-Chancellor, whose support and wise advice both my predecessor and I have valuied enormously. I think also in particular of Professor B.J. Birch, Professor of Arithmetic; Professor R.M. Dworkin, Professor of Jurisprudence; Professor R.M. Goode, Norton Rose Professor of English Law; Professor I.P. Grant, Professor of Mathematical Physics; Professor J.E.S. Hayward, Director of the European Studies Institute; Professor E.L. Jones, Goldsmith's Professor of English Literature; Professor W.F. Madelung, Laudian Professor of Arabic; Professor J.M. Newsom-Davis, Professor of Clinical Neurology; Professor Sir Roger Penrose, Rouse Ball Professor of Mathematics.
Many others have retired from their academic posts after long service to the University: Dr J.M. Baker, Mrs M. Godden, Dr M.J. Kearsley, Dr B.M. Levick, Mr P.S. Lewis, Dr J.L. Lloyd, Mrs J. Parker, Dr H. Shukman and Dr D.B. Tayler. Others who have retired from professional and other posts include Mr C.W. Band, Mr R.A. Hunt, Mrs V. Magyar, Mr K.A. Moulden, Mr J.B.P. O'Sullivan and Mrs B.J. Williamson.
I wish to record our gratitude for the lives and service of our colleagues who have died in office during the past year. We hold in our memory Dr M.C. O'Brien, Dr J.P. Jakubovics, Dr R.L. Hutchings and Dr K.G. Cox. We have also lost former colleagues who have died in retirement. I have in mind such distinguished scholars Sir Isaiah Berlin, Professor C.J.F. Dowset, Professor W.G.G. Forrest, Professor Cecil Grayson, Professor Kenneth Kirkwood, Mr A.G. Antill, Mr D. Barrett, Dr R.P. Beckinsale, Miss T.C. Cooper, Mr J.D. Harris, Dr A.J. Honour, Mr R.A. May, Miss C.L. Morrison, Mr J.A. Morton, Mr R.G. Opie and Dr J.M. Walker.
In his first year, a new Vice-Chancellor accumulates many debts to colleagues who have advised and helped him. I should thank most particularly Sir Peter North, the Principal of Jesus and my predecessor, for having taken on the role of President of the Development Programme immediately after demitting office. I am also grateful to my Pro-Vice-Chancellors for their generous support and activity. There are two people, however, with whom the Vice-Chancellor is more especially in frequent contact. I am grateful indeed to Dr Glenn Black, who begins his third year as Chairman of the General Board. His experience and skills are a very considerable asset to the University in the increasing complexity of business.
The other person is the Registrar. I omitted Dr Dorey from the list of those retiring so that I might speak more directly about him here. The University has of course properly honoured him at Encaenia this summer. However, I do want to express quite clearly how much I personally owe him for all the support (tinged with a superbly delicate rectification on occasion) with which he guided my early steps as Vice-Chancellor. He retired in March after nineteen years steering a growing, changing university and it owes him a great deal. I am indebted to Mr Peter Jones for his most able work as Acting Registrar during the three months before the arrival of our new Registrar. Let me end, therefore, by welcoming our new Registrar, Mr David Holmes, who brings a considerable reputation with him from the University of Birmingham. I am sure that with Mr Holmes the University remains in the most capable hands and we all look forward to working with him.