45
Council
25th November 2011
MINUTES OF THE PROCEEDINGS
at the
Twenty-fourth Meeting of the
COUNCIL
of the
IMPERIAL COLLEGE OF SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY AND MEDICINE
The Twenty-fourth Meeting of the Council was held in the Council Room, 170 Queen's Gate, South
Kensington Campus, Imperial College London, at 9:00 a.m. on Friday, 25th November 2011, when
there were present:
the Baroness Manningham-Buller (Chair), Professor D.K.H. Begg, Mr. I. Conn, Mrs. P. Couttie,
Professor M.J. Dallman, Mr. S. Heath, Professor Dame Julia Higgins, Ms. J.R. Lomax, Professor J.
Magee, Professor Sir Anthony Newman Taylor, Mr. J. Newsum, Mr. S. Newton, Ms. K. Owen,
Professor S.M. Richardson, Mr. M. Sanderson and the Rector and the Clerk to the Court and
Council.
Apologies:
Mr. P. Dilley, Professor J. Kramer and the Lord Tugendhat.
In attendance:
The Assistant Clerk to the Court and Council.
WELCOME
On behalf of the Council, the Chair welcomed the recently appointed Chief Financial Officer, Mr.
Muir Sanderson, to his first Meeting of the Council.
The Chair also reported that Professor Jeff Kramer had now been elected to the Council as the
elected staff member and would therefore be re-joining the Council. Regrettably Professor Kramer
had had to send his apologies for this meeting.
MINUTES
Council – 23rd September 2011
1.
The Minutes of the twenty-third Meeting of the Council, held on Friday, 23rd September
2011 were taken as read, confirmed and signed.
Council
25th November 2011
46
MATTERS ARISING
Francis Crick Institute (Minute 4 refers).
2.
Professor Dallman confirmed that the Accession Agreement with the Francis Crick Institute
had been signed in early October and the College was therefore now a member of the
Institute along with UCL and Kings’ College.
RECTOR’S REPORT
3.
Opening his Report the Rector reminded members that the Lord Darzi had been conducting
a review of the Academic Health Sciences Centre. His review was now nearing completion
and would result in two separate reports; the first was concerned with a proposed
partnership of health providers in north west London, while the second would be concerned
with the AHSC itself and in particular the continuing relationship between the College and
the Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust. This second report would be of particular
interest to the Council and would be presented to it and the NHS Trust in due course. In
contrast, the intention to form a new Academic Health Science Partnership (AHSP) was
being announced publicly today. The AHSP intended to bring together providers of
primary, secondary, tertiary, community and mental healthcare to work with Imperial to
pursue higher quality care for patients. It was hoped that it would be launched formally in
April 2012. The institutions and healthcare providers that had agreed to take part in the
development of the AHSP alongside the College and the Trust included: Central London
Community Healthcare NHS Trust; Central North West London NHS Foundation Trust;
Chelsea and Westminster Hospital NHS Foundation Trust; Ealing Hospital NHS Trust;
Hillingdon Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust; Hounslow and Richmond Community
Healthcare NHS Trust; North West London Hospitals NHS Trust; Royal Brompton &
Harefield NHS Foundation Trust; West London Mental Health Trust; and West Middlesex
University Hospital NHS Trust. One of the significant benefits of this sort of partnership
was that it would provide opportunities to conduct clinical trials at a large and meaningful
scale and to apply research findings to benefit a greater number of patients. The AHSP
could thus improve the health and care of a local population of 1.9 million people.
4.
The Rector acknowledged that there would be risks involved in this initiative, not the least
of which was the proposed use of the College’s name for the partnership, particularly as a
number of hospitals would then be associated with the College, without it having any
influence over how those hospitals were run or managed. However, the development of
partnerships such as this was seen as a crucial way forward for the NHS and it was clear
that UCL and King’s College were also considering the development of similar
arrangements with the other hospitals in their immediate vicinity. The proposal would be
considered in detail by the Council at its next meeting, and the Rector confirmed that the
discussion papers for that meeting would include a full consideration of the risks associated
with the proposal, together with the measures the College could take to protect its name
and reputation.
5.
Turning to Development, the Rector reported that the College had been working with Dr.
John Cash to review its development and fund-raising activities. Dr. Cash had more than
30 years experience in fundraising in the USA and had worked with many of the top HE
47
Council
25th November 2011
institutions there. His report and proposals for professionalising the College’s approach
were likely to be quite radical, at least within the UK context, and would include proposals
for substantial investment. The Rector said it would be important for the College to discuss
these proposals and they too would therefore be included on the agenda for the next
meeting in February.
6.
In addition to the two items noted by the Rector, the Chair said that she also wanted to
provide space at the next meeting to consider the College’s longer term strategy and what
the College would be like in twenty years time. She suggested that the importance of these
three items meant that the next meeting might follow a similar structure to this one, with a
relatively brief meeting to conduct formal business, followed by a discussion session, which
might be either before or after lunch.
CLERK’S BUSINESS
7.
Health and Safety. The Clerk, Dr. Eastwood, said it was his sad duty to inform the Council
of a death in a College laboratory at the Chelsea and Westminster Hospital at the end of
October. The cause of death had still not yet been fully established, but it appeared that a
researcher employed by the Hospital Trust had been using liquid nitrogen in a College lab
on his own in the evening when nitrogen had been released into the enclosed space,
leading to his asphyxiation. The HSE had served on the College, as the managers of the
lab, a prohibition notice for the area and an improvement notice, with identical notices
served on the Trust, as the researcher’s employer and the owners of the building. Although
the College’s improvement notice was concerned with the use and control of liquid nitrogen
in the lab in question, the principles set out in the notice were being applied to the use and
control of liquid nitrogen across the College.
8.
In Memoriam. Dr. Eastwood then reported that Professor Peter Richards had died. As the
Dean of the St. Mary’s Medical School he had been instrumental in, firstly fighting against
its proposed closure by the University of London, and then negotiating its subsequent
merger with Imperial College in 1988. Following the merger, he had served as the
College’s Pro-Rector for Medicine until 1995. As it was this merger with St. Mary’s which
had first introduced medicine to Imperial (prior to that date the College had only offered
science and engineering), Professor Richards had played a crucial role in shaping the
modern College.
NOMINATIONS COMMITTEE REPORT (PAPER A)
9.
The Chair presented Paper A and said that, in advance of establishing the search for the
next Rector, the Nominations Committee had been considering the Rector’s role and
responsibilities. The discussion paper appended to Paper A set out the issues and the
main options being considered by the Committee. The increasing complexity and size of
the College, together with the need for the Rector to spend more time on outward-facing
activities would make it increasingly difficult for the Rector to fulfil both roles simultaneously.
One option considered by the Committee was to adopt the US model and to split the
Rector’s current role, either through the appointment of an externally-facing President, or
through the reconfiguration of the Deputy Rector’s role, with the deputy taking more
responsibility for the academic and operational management of the College. Another
Council
25th November 2011
48
alternative was for the Rector to retain his current duties, but with a newly-appointed
Chancellor undertaking the increasingly important external functions. She said that
Imperial was not the only university facing this issue and suggested that some other of its
peers might also have to consider a similar President/ Provost type split of senior
responsibilities in the future. However, the timing of the search for a new Rector was such
that Imperial could well be the first to make this decision. Before instigating the search, the
Nominations Committee wanted to discuss this important issue with the Council.
10.
The Council was reminded that the 2010 governance review had started to look at the
Rector’s role and had examined some of the other managerial models, including those on
the US. However, as that part of the review had focused on the delegation of powers from
the Council to the Rector, the alternative models noted in the Chair’s introduction had not
been pursued further. It was suggested that some of the review material concerning other
models might still be available and might assist in this consideration of the Rector’s role.
Whatever model was chosen, it was stressed that the respective roles of the President/
Rector or Rector/ Deputy Rector would have to be very clearly defined so that there was no
conflict between them. It would also be important for the people reporting to them, and
indeed, for the rest of the College to have a clear understanding of their respective
responsibilities. Another point in favour of the proposal was that, not only was the total
current workload too great for one person, but the skills required for the external and
internal roles were different and might not always reside in the same person. The future
direction of HE in the UK and the need to increase philanthropic donations to provide
bursaries for students meant that the College would have to be strategic in its global
outlook and excellent in its internal operations. It was suggested that the best way to
ensure this could be through the adoption of the two-tier model now being considered and it
was noted that such a model would also be closer to the disposition of responsibilities in the
corporate sector.
11.
It was suggested that the Council should be cautious before adopting a wholly corporate
management model. In the corporate sector, promotion through the line management
structure was regarded as a positive, with the most talented and ambitious staff rising to the
top. Universities were very different and the aim of the best academics was often to remain
as academics undertaking research rather than to seek promotion into positions where they
would have less time for their research. Finding academics who could provide high quality
academic leadership, while also being excellent managers was challenging.
12.
Although Council members would have a view on the future role and responsibilities of the
Rector, it was suggested that the response of the academic community to these proposals
would also be crucial. If these changes to the role of the Rector were likely to be met with
opposition, the Council should be very careful before agreeing to the changes. It was
suggested that the academic community could be quite conservative and the Council was
reminded that, until relatively recently, the heads of departments had all reported directly to
the Rector. Under these proposals the Faculty Principals might in future report to the
Deputy Rector or to a Rector who in turn reported to a President. One of the College’s
strengths was that the academic community felt it had direct access to senior management.
There was a risk that this change could be perceived as making this direct access more
difficult. For this reason, it was suggested that the Council should adopt an evolutionary
approach, rather than a revolutionary one. If this was accepted, it was suggested that,
even if there was a reconfiguration of their respective roles, the titles of Rector and Deputy
Rector should be retained.
49
Council
25th November 2011
13.
The Faculty Principals recognised that there was an increasing need for the Rector to be
engaged with alumni and fundraising and therefore to spend more time on external
activities. However, they also recognised the key importance for the academic community
of easy access to the Rector and for the College’s senior management to be responsive to
their concerns. The difficult task for the Council was finding a management structure that
could reconcile these apparently conflicting requirements. It was suggested that many of
these issues and concerns would be resolved by the individuals themselves; if it was
decided to reconfigure the Rector’s post, the most important factor in its success would be
appointing the right individuals into both positions, rather than in the precise definitions of
both posts and their reporting lines.
14.
It was further suggested that a discussion of precise reporting lines might be premature. It
was more important at this stage to be clear about what the College required of its Rector
and how to define his role and responsibilities. Once this was done, the discussion about
reporting lines would be much easier as the issues would have been clarified. Looking at
the strategic challenges facing the College, it was suggested that there were two key
strategic questions to be answered. Its academic strategy for the coming decade and
beyond had to be developed and defined by its academics. Its operational strategy, on the
other hand, would have to support this academic strategy, but also had to be based on the
provision of operational excellence. It was noted that the College was currently very well
run by university standards and that this gave it a competitive advantage. The College’s
aim should be to maintain and extend this advantage. In relation to this it was also noted
that the College had always relied on new ideas being generated by academics and on
these ideas rising to the top, rather than having an academic strategy imposed from above.
This had served the College well to date, but might not be the best model for the College in
the future in an increasingly complex world. It was also proposed that a structure that might
split fundraising from the College’s academic mission could be a risk; fund raising had to
serve the College’s academic strategy and therefore the person directing this activity had
also to be intimately involved in the academic work of the College.
15.
The Council was reminded that the President/ Provost model, while new to the UK, was
well established in the US. There was therefore considerable experience in dealing with
these issues that the College could draw on. It was also noted that a move to this
governance model would not in itself address some of the operational matters that had
been raised during the discussion, these would best be addressed by other means,
possibly through the recruitment of a Chief Operating Officer, who could take back some of
the responsibilities that had been devolved to the Deputy Rector following the retirement of
Dr. Martin Knight. In the US both Provost and President were normally highly esteemed
academics who commanded both internal and external respect. While it was felt highly
likely that the College would eventually have to adopt this model, it was suggested that
further discussion was required within the College to test the appetite for the speed with
which Imperial should move in this direction. However, it was acknowledged that the
Council was having this organisational discussion now because of the need to begin the
search for the next Rector. This limited the amount of time available for consideration but
also provided a compelling reason for moving to this model now; delaying a decision until
after the next Rector’s appointment would mean that the College was unlikely to move to
the proposed model for another ten years, by which time it could be too late.
16.
Bringing the discussion to a close, the Chair thanked members for their contributions. It
Council
25th November 2011
50
was clear, she said, that the College had to support and invest in both academic and
administrative excellence if it was to continue to grow and maintain its position as one of
the World’s top universities. It was also clear that the Council should not alienate the
academic community and would have to pay attention to its views in deciding on the future
role and responsibilities of the Rector. However, she had yet to hear of a credible
alternative to the structure being proposed that would address the increasing demands on
the Rector’s time and the need for him to increase his commitment to external activities and
fundraising. Rather than creating a new post, she suspected that a reconfiguration of the
existing posts of Rector and Deputy Rector, with the Rector spending more time outside the
College and the Deputy Rector returning his responsibilities for the support services to a
new Chief Operating Officer, might ultimately be the best answer for the College. However,
she was not seeking a resolution to this question now. She suggested instead that
members should continue to consider this issue and provide any additional comments or
suggestions to her and the Clerk in advance of the next meeting. She also asked that the
Rector’s and Deputy Rector’s job descriptions be reviewed before the Council’s next
meeting so that the Council could see how they might be affected by any proposed
reconfiguration.
17.
Although the Council would return to this issue at its next Meeting, the Chair noted that the
search committee would have to appoint a search agency to assist it in its search for the
next Rector. She saw no need to delay their appointment while the Council deliberated on
the Rector’s job description. The Council concurred and agreed that the firms Heidrich &
Struggles, Perrett Laver and Saxton Bampfylde be asked to submit bids for review by the
Nominations Committee in the New Year.
18.
Moving on, the Chair noted that the Nominations Committee had identified a potential
candidate for appointment to the Council. The Council agreed that the Chair could
approach the candidate to ascertain whether she would be willing to join the Council.
19.
Finally, the Chair reported on the Nominations Committee’s recommendations for
appointments to Council committees, which the Council was asked to consider.
Resolved:
(i)
That Mr. Jeremy Newsum be appointed as a member of the Nominations Committee
and of the Remuneration Committee.
(ii)
That Mr. Muir Sanderson be appointed as a member of the Nominations Committee.
ANNUAL REPORT AND FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR THE YEAR ENDED 31 JULY 2011
(PAPER B)
20.
Presenting Paper B, the Chief Financial Officer, Mr. Muir Sanderson, acknowledged the
work of his predecessor, Dr. Martin Knight, and of the Director of Finance, Mr. Andrew
Murphy, in ensuring the financial health of the College and in preparing the results that
were now being presented. The College’s operational surplus and cash holdings both put
the College in a strong position to face the challenges ahead of it. Mr. Sanderson then
noted that the financial statements and the outturn for the year were in line with the
financial reports that had been made to Council throughout the year and therefore
51
Council
25th November 2011
contained few if any surprises. Rather than presenting the accounts in detail, he therefore
highlighted a number of points arising from the statements, which the Council might wish to
consider in the coming year. Firstly, he noted that, although research income had held up
well overall, research income from UK industry had fallen by 7.1%; this was a concern.
Secondly he noted that there had been a big increase in cash, from £57.9M in 2010 to
£120.1M this year. However, the increase was less dramatic than it appeared as the
previous year’s cash position included the costs of some restructurings and the money
expended on the ultimately abortive SEQ project. Finally, he drew members’ attention to
the College’s off-balance sheet holdings, including those at Woodlands and at Winstanley
Road. Although the College’s interest in the latter had now been sold and so these would
appear on the balance sheet next year, he cautioned that retaining significant holdings offbalance sheet would require careful management as it could give a misleading picture of
the College’s liabilities. It was also not clear if this was a sustainable position in the longer
term as changing accounting standards might well result in these being brought back onto
the balance sheet. He suggested that the Council might want to review these particular
issues in the coming year.
21.
The Chair thanked him for his thought-provoking review of the Financial Statements and
then asked the Council formally to approve the Annual Report.
Resolved:
That the Annual Report and Financial Statements for the year-ended 31 July 2011 be
adopted.
ANNUAL REPORT FROM THE AUDIT COMMITTEE (PAPER C)
22.
The Chair of the Audit Committee, Mrs. Philippa Couttie, presented Paper C and noted that
the Council’s decision to separate risk from audit and to create a new Risk Committee had
been very successful. Both committees understood their respective roles and the cross
membership and reporting between the committees meant that there should be no gaps
between them. She noted that both internal and external audit reports had been entirely
satisfactory with no surprises presented to the Committee. In addition to the matters
covered in the report, she noted that the internal auditors had raised some concerns about
Imperial College Union’s financial management in the previous year. Although there had
been some progress in addressing these concerns, this was less than had been
anticipated. The Union had also suffered a significant loss on its summer ball. However,
the Union had recently appointed a new General Manager and the Committee had been
satisfied that he and the Union President were committed to addressing the remaining
concerns identified by the auditors.
EXTERNAL AUDITORS' REPRESENTATION LETTER (PAPER D)
23.
The Chief Financial Officer presented Paper D and confirmed that the letter had been
reviewed by the Audit Committee, which had confirmed that the statements set out in the
letter were accurate and acceptable to the Committee. He commended the letter to the
Council.
Council
25th November 2011
52
Resolved:
That the Representation Letter for the External Auditors, as set out in Paper D, be approved.
IMPERIAL WEST UPDATE (PAPER E)
24.
The Chair of the Imperial West Syndicate, Mr. Jeremy Newsum, presented Paper E and
updated members on the latest developments with the planning application for Imperial
West. The College’s plans included a 34 floor tower, which was exciting some opposition
from residents in the neighbouring borough, but which was crucial to the completion of the
whole project. He also noted that other developers were proposing to build other tower
blocks to the south of the A40, so the College was not alone in seeking permission for a
tower in this area. Although there were good reasons for seeking to progress the planning
application as speedily as possible, not the least of which was a desire to avoid any
planning issues becoming embroiled in the London Mayoral elections, he reminded
members that the planning consent being sought would not restrict Imperial’s use of these
buildings; the College would still be free to determine what activities to locate at Imperial
West at the appropriate time. Finally he confirmed that the developments set out in Paper
E had the unanimous support of both the College, as represented by the Rector, and the
College Fund, as represented by the Chairman of the College Fund Board, Mr. Newton.
25.
The Chair then asked Mr. Newsum to update members on the proposed purchase of the
BBC/ Landsec site. Mr. Newsum reminded the Council that a weakness with the current
Imperial West strategy had been the lack of private access to the main Tube stations at
Wood Lane and White City from the site. The Council had therefore previously agreed that
the College should try to secure a 2 acre site that would provide controlled access from the
Imperial West site to south of the A40 and had set a limit of £6M for its purchase. He was
pleased to report that the site had now been secured within the cost envelope set by the
Council.
NOMINATIONS
FOR
FELLOWSHIPS,
ASSOCIATESHIPS (PAPER F)
HONORARY
DEGREES,
MEDALS
AND
26.
The Clerk presented Paper F, which set out the Management Board’s recommendations for
the award of Fellowships and the Imperial College Medal. It was also proposed to amend
Ordinance B2, Honorary Degrees, Fellowships and Associateships of the College, to make
it clear that the College would not make awards in return for donations.
27.
The Council agreed with the principle that the College should not confer degrees or elect
Fellows in return for donations, but was concerned that the proposed amendments did not
go far enough in ensuring that this was the case. In particular, it was felt that the
acknowledgement that “substantial philanthropic support” for the College could be
considered as one of the possible criteria for an award and the proposed delay of at least a
year between the receipt of a donation and the consideration of an award were inconsistent
with this principle. It was also suggested that the College should devise an alternative way
of recognising the contribution made by donors, either with a separate benefactors’ medal,
or through automatic election to a Court of Benefactors. The Council asked the Clerk to
revise the proposed amendments to take account of members’ comments on this issue.
53
Council
25th November 2011
Resolved:
That the nominations for the election of Fellows of the College and for the award of the
Imperial College Medal, as set out in Paper F, be approved.
HEFCE FINANCIAL FORECASTS (PAPER G)
28.
The Chief Financial Officer presented Paper G and noted that, for the second year, HEFCE
had decided to defer the submission of forecast financial data relating to future years until
June. Thus the financial forecast to be submitted now covered data relating to 2009/10,
2010/11 and the budget for the 2011/12 financial year only.
Resolved:
That the Financial Forecasts and Commentary, as set out in Paper G, be approved.
DEPARTMENT OF CHEMICAL ENGINEERING NAME CHANGE (PAPER H)
29.
The Principal of the Faculty of Engineering, Professor Jeff Magee, presented Paper H
concerning the Department of Chemical Engineering’s request for a formal change of
name.
Resolved:
That the change of name of the Department of Chemical Engineering and Chemical
Technology to the Department of Chemical Engineering be approved.
ANNUAL MONITORING STATEMENT (PAPER I)
30.
The Clerk presented Paper I, which was received for information.
DEVELOPMENT BOARD UPDATE (PAPER J)
31.
The Rector presented Paper J and reminded members that, as he had already noted,
proposals for reconfiguring the College’s development activities were currently being
considered and would be presented to the Council at its next meeting. For the time being,
he noted that the current fund raising campaigns were progressing well with a significant
increase in the number of alumni now making donations to the College. Although the size
of the College’s Development division was significantly smaller than those of many other
Russell Group universities, it was still performing at a comparable level. He suggested that
this put the College in a good position to respond to the recommendations being prepared
by Dr. Cash.
Council
25th November 2011
54
MAJOR PROJECTS (PAPER K)
32.
Paper F was received for information.
STAFF MATTERS (PAPER L)
33.
Paper G was received for information.
ANY OTHER BUSINESS
34.
There was none.
NEXT MEETING
35.
The Clerk reminded members that the Council’s next Meeting would be held on Friday, 10
February 2012.
55
Council
25th November 2011
PAPER A – FOR DECISION
REPORT FROM NOMINATIONS COMMITTEE
1.
At a meeting on 14 November the Nominations Committee considered a discussion
paper on the future roles of the rector and deputy. The paper from the College Secretary is
attached for Council to take a view on how the issues in it might shape the search for the
rector’s successor. Depending on the outcome, the intention would be for the Nominations
Committee to bring a paper to the February meeting of Council which would formally start
the search, recommend a job description and person specification and propose members of
the search committee.
2.
In the mean time, Council is asked to approve a list of suitable search agencies
to be asked to tender to assist in the process. The Nominations Committee recommends
that Heidrich & Struggles, Perrett Laver and Saxton Bampfylde be asked to submit bids
for review by the Nominations Committee in the New Year and possible interview at the first
meeting of the Search Committee.
3.
The Nominations Committee also considered membership of itself, the Remuneration
Committee and Council and makes the following recommendations:
Mr Jeremy Newsum be appointed a member of the Nominations Committee and the
Remuneration Committee.
Mr Muir Sanderson be appointed a member of the Nominations Committee
The Chair be asked to approach a potential candidate to ascertain whether she might
consider joining the Council as an external member.
EMB
Council
25th November 2011
56
IN CONFIDENCE
THE RECTORSHIP OF IMPERIAL COLLEGE
Discussion Paper by the College Secretary and Clerk to the Council
INTRODUCTION
1.
At a meeting of Council on 23 September 2011, mindful of the present rector’s
retirement in December 2013, the issue of whether the post of rector should be filled in its
current form was raised. Discussion had been prompted by an awareness that the outward
facing duties of the rector were increasing to the extent that to fulfil them adequately would
require a substantial investment in time to the possible detriment of the internal affairs of the
College. Given that public funding pressures were likely to make philanthropic and other
private income to the College more important in the years to come, the Council asked that
thought be given as to how the leadership of the College might be organised to take this into
account.
US MODEL
2.
One successful model to investigate is the US one where a President is the chief
executive of a university but academic and support programmes are supervised by a Provost
responsible to the President. The President, as chief executive, retains oversight of all
functions but spends a large proportion of their time on external responsibilities, building
good relationships with alumni and donors, government, business, international
organisations etc. Although the President is outward facing, the President is much more
than an ambassador. Indeed, presidents cannot perform their outward role properly if they
do not fully understand the university, form and empower a strong senior team and develop
good relationships with staff.
3.
A close relationship between the President and Provost, who also acts as the
President’s deputy, is essential for success. The Provost’s visibility is more internal than
external. He or she should command respect, be empowered to take decisions and make
them work in practice. With higher external visibility, the President needs to have a strong
presence and ambassadorial skills. Both must possess the intellectual depth to lead very
complex organisations whose academic (and some other) members are authorities in their
own fields. Both Presidents and Provosts are usually academics; Provosts invariably so,
Presidents, on occasion, may be appointed from other sectors. Provosts are usually
appointed from the current senior academic staff of the university; presidents are less likely
to come up through the ranks of their own university.
4.
The Provost will not make a major decision without agreeing it with the President
beforehand and likewise the President will consult the Provost on the external positioning of
the university. The heads of the academic faculties are formally appointed by the President
but report to the Provost who is directly involved in the appointment process. They and
57
Council
25th November 2011
other academic staff have access to the President should they wish. The obvious risk that
the Provost’s authority could be undermined is countered by the Provost briefing the
President before academic staff meet the President.
5.
If the College is to invest significantly in fund-raising and alumni relations then the
head of the College has to devote significant time to this. Those with US experience counsel
that the importance of this role is usually underestimated in the UK. It is not only the funds
which are generated but also the influence that well-wishers could bring to bear which is
important. Our alumni form a significant fraction of the world’s leaders in many fields and
mobilising this community would help generate future students and research opportunities as
well as exerting political influence. We should aim to build relationships over the long term.
For this reason, it may be desirable if the head of the College had, say, up to two five year
terms of office. An outside appointee would require about 18 months getting to know and
understand the college with some of the early external engagements principally being in
listening mode.
EXECUTIVE BOARDS
6.
A presidential system in place at the College would have implications for its
management structure and possibly its governance. The senior executive group at leading
US institutions seems to consist of a small number of officers, typically President, Provost,
CFO, and a selection from COO, General Counsel, Secretary, and VPs for Development and
Alumni and Student Affairs. ETH Zurich (at 15th, the one non-UK European institution to
make the top 20 in the Times Higher Education world league table) has an executive Board
of five (President, Rector, VP (Research and Corporate Relations), VP (Finance), and VP
(HR and Infrastructure)). Although not straightforward to discover by web searches, most
US executive Boards seem to be between five and eight in number with the President and
Provost representing the academic ambitions of the institution. The College’s Management
Board at present is 13 strong (Rector, Deputy Rector, four Principals, four Pro-rectors
(research, education, enterprise, and international) CFO, College Secretary, CEO of ICHT)
and meets monthly. A smaller group meets informally weekly – Rector, Deputy Rector,
CFO, and College Secretary. The Principals meet weekly with the Deputy Rector who also
convenes monthly meetings of support division heads.
7.
Allocating resources appropriately between constituent units is fundamental to any
successful academic organisation and can often be contentious, especially in times of
financial stress. As such it can absorb considerable time and energy of senior management.
At the College, a resource allocation committee chaired by the Deputy Rector handles the
task for the academic departments and the process (for recurrent income) has been formula
(performance) based for a generation or more, which helps (though does not eliminate) interFaculty concern over shares of resource. Consequently, the College already benefits from a
Rector who does not usually need to get engaged in the detail of academic resource
allocation or have to resolve disputes. Support departments’ budgets are agreed in a
planning round which may engage the Rector who also chairs the capital allocation
committee.
Council
25th November 2011
58
8.
At both Cambridge and Oxford the US model of a president and provost is perhaps
being introduced gradually over a period of time. A senior Pro-VC or equivalent has been
given responsibilities similar to a provost, so relieving the VC of some internal duties and
freeing up more time for their outward facing role. At Cambridge, the former VC estimated
the time she spent on internal and external work at about 50% on each. At the College, the
Rector considers that he currently spends about 80% of his time on internal affairs and 20%
on external and would find it difficult to spend more time on the latter without detriment to the
former unless the organisation reporting to him were changed. Mechanically calculating how
much time is likely to be spent on meetings, travel, writing and thinking for each of the senior
posts might help define roles and act as a check that they are practicable.
OPTIONS FOR THE COLLEGE
9.
Should the College decide it needs its head to devote more time to external activity
then various options present themselves:
a.
Establish a new post of President (or similar title) who would be the College’s
chief academic and administrative officer accountable to Council; recast the post of
Rector to take responsibility for the academic and support operation of the college (a
provost equivalent) who would report to the President
b.
Maintain the Rector as chief academic and administrative officer accountable
to Council; enlarge the role and responsibility of the Deputy Rector to take
responsibility for the academic and support operation of the college (a provost
equivalent) with the Faculty Principals reporting to the Deputy Rector/Provost
c.
Maintain the Rector as chief academic officer but activate the possibly parttime but executive post of Chancellor (allowed for in the College’s Statutes) to
concentrate almost exclusively on external affairs. Whether the Chancellor or Rector
was the chief executive accountable to the Council would need to be determined.
10.
Option c is unlikely to be successful because of the inherent ambiguity around the
chief executive role and because the Chancellor, even if recruited internally, is unlikely ever
to know sufficient of the College to be credible either externally or internally. It would be an
ambassadorial role.
11.
Options a and b are essentially the same other than for the titles and perceptions of
the posts. Option a carries the advantage that the change of title would signify to all some
change in the duties or priorities of the chief executive. It does, though, suffer from the
significant disadvantage that the College’s Charter and Statutes would both need to be
changed, requiring agreement of the Court, approval by the Privy Council and some
considerable period of time to effect.
12.
Both option a and b would have implications for the management of the College at a
level below its head. If the President/Rector is to devote more of their time to external affairs
but retain oversight of the College, then it seems likely that his or her direct reports should
be reduced in number and limited, for example, to the Deputy Rector/Provost, CFO, College
59
Council
25th November 2011
Secretary, possibly the Pro Rector (Enterprise) and directors of strategy and planning,
communications, and development. The President/Rector might chair a small Executive
Board which would advise on strategy, finance, development, and operations as well as the
overall academic direction. The Deputy Rector/Provost, who would serve as first amongst
equals, would be responsible for operational oversight of all programmes of the College. The
Principals and Pro Rectors (maybe other than the Pro Rector (Enterprise)) would report to
him or her as might any COO post. The Deputy Rector/Provost would chair a group
comprising essentially the current Management Board (normally meeting without the rector)
with slightly narrower terms of reference.
13.
The Deputy Rector/Provost would have budget responsibility for the Faculties
(though they may wish to continue to use the current performance based resource allocation
methodology as advised by an appropriate committee) and support services. As the reason
for considering change is to respond to the increase in senior work load, it would be
important to realise that a re-designation of duties and responsibilities of posts and
committees would not, of itself, provide any additional senior resource. Additional post(s)
may therefore need to be considered, reporting to the President/Rector or Deputy
Rector/Provost.
14.
Given that a small rector’s group already meets weekly on an informal basis and the
deputy rector convenes a weekly meeting of Faculty Principals then the framework for a
change in the senior executive board organisation perhaps already exists.
15.
The executive membership of Council currently comprises the Rector, Deputy
Rector, CFO and the four Principals. Any revised roles for the Rector and Deputy Rector and
reformed senior executive and academic management boards would not, of themselves,
necessitate any change in the membership of Council.
NEXT STEPS
16.
Council is asked by the Nominations Committee to consider these matters and
determine how it should proceed in the commencement of its search for the next rector. It
should be noted that the current opportunity to restructure the role of the chief executive may
not re-present itself for another 10 years or so. If the Council concludes that a
president/provost model was appropriate and that such a structure could be accommodated
in the present Rector/Deputy model (with a revision of responsibilities) then the search could
be commenced with appropriate adjustments to the President/Rector’s job description and
person specification. If it concludes that the next rector should have the same role as
previous ones, then clearly the search can be commenced with no changes. If it concludes
that a President should be appointed with a role that was almost all outward facing and a
Rector retained whose role was almost all internal then a more complicated procedure would
be required and the timing of appointments critical given the current rector’s retirement date
of December 2013. In all bar the status quo case, sufficient time should be found for the
wider college community to comment on any proposal for change.
17.
I am very grateful to the small number of people with whom I have discussed these
ideas in strict confidence, especially, from outside the College, Professor Andrew Hamilton,
Council
25th November 2011
60
Vice-Chancellor of Oxford University and former Provost of Yale University and Professor
Alison Richard, former Vice-Chancellor of Cambridge University and former Provost of Yale
University.
RF Eastwood
14 November 2011
61
Council
25th November 2011
PAPER B – FOR DECISION
ANNUAL REPORT AND
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR THE YEAR ENDED 31 JULY 2011
A Note by the Chief Financial Officer
1.
A copy of the College’s Annual Report and Accounts (the Financial Statements) for
the year ended 31 July 2011 is enclosed with these Papers.1
2.
The Financial Statements have been approved within the College and have been
considered by the Audit Committee, which has recommended that they should be approved
by the Council. The Audit Committee will make its own report to the Council in accordance
with the Audit Code of Practice issued by the Higher Education Funding Council for England.
3.
The Council is invited to consider and, if it sees fit, approve the Financial Statements
for the year ended 31 July 2011.
MS
1.
The Annual Report and Financial Statements are published separately and therefore are not
included with these Minutes
Council
25th November 2011
62
PAPER C
AUDIT COMMITTEE ANNUAL REPORT 2011
A Note by the Chairman of the Audit Committee
INTRODUCTION
1.
This Report covers the Audit Committee’s work for the financial year 2010-11 and is set out
in the format recommended by the Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE) in its
Audit Code of Practice.
TERMS OF REFERENCE AND MEMBERSHIP
2.
The Committee’s terms of reference and membership are attached at Annex A. The terms
of reference were amended in November 2010 to take account of the latest guidance from HEFCE
and as a result of the governance review undertaken by the Council during 2009-10.
3.
Although a number changes were made to the membership, the Committee had a full
complement of members for the entire financial year. The terms of office of two members, Sir
Peter Gershon and Ms Carolyn Griffith expired in September 2010. At its meeting on 24
September 2010, the Council resolved to appoint Mr Stewart Newton and Mr Jeremy Newsum to
the Audit Committee in succession to Sir Peter Gershon and Ms Carolyn Griffiths.
4.
In addition to the external members of the Committee, meetings are attended by the
Rector, Chief Financial Officer, College Secretary, Director of Finance and representatives from
the external and internal auditors.
MEETINGS OF THE AUDIT COMMITTEE IN 2011
5.
Since its last Report to the Council, the Audit Committee has held meetings on 2 March, 8
June and 8 November 2011. Attendance at these meetings was excellent with average
attendance at 93% for the year.
INTERNAL AUDIT
6.
During the financial year 2010-11 Internal Audit services were provided Deloitte & Touche,
who were appointed following a competitive tendering exercise in 2007. Their initial appointment
was for a period of five years from 1 August 2007. At its meeting in November 2011 the
Committee agreed to extend the Internal Auditors appointment for a further two years, provided
there was no change in the auditors’ senior team for the remainder of the term. The Internal
Auditors will therefore now be subject to another competitive tender exercise in 2014.
7.
The Internal Audit Strategy for 2010-11 was approved by the Audit Committee at its
meeting 10 November 2010 and included a full programme of 29 audits. Of those completed, 20
were systems audits for which an assurance opinion has been provided and the rest were nonsystems based. Two of the planned audits have been deferred to 2011-12 and one was removed
63
Council
25th November 2011
from the Plan after discussion with the Director of Finance. The released days were allocated to
other specific audit areas or to contingency. Of the 20 systems audits completed, all provided
either ‘full’ or ‘substantial’ assurance. Three audit reports remain at a draft stage at the time of this
report and discussions are in progress with management to finalise the reports in due course.
However, based on the conclusion of work at the draft stage, Internal Audit has confirmed that
these reports, once completed, will not have an impact on the overall opinion.
8.
A copy of each internal audit report is passed to the College Secretary for information and
discussion, as appropriate, at monthly management meetings. A further copy is issued to the
Director of Finance so that he is aware of any control issues and/ or recommendations impacting
upon the central finance function. The Audit Committee also receives regular updates on
completed internal audit reports, including a summary of specific issues arising from the audits.
Recommendations are categorised as priority one, two or three. No priority one recommendations
have been made during the year (these are “major issues for the attention of senior management
and the audit committee”).
9.
At its meeting on 8 June 2010, the Audit Committee considered the Internal Audit Strategy
for 2011-12. In line with the suggestion made by the Committee in the previous year, the Strategy
had been considered and endorsed by the College's Management Board prior to its presentation to
the Committee. The Plan includes 25 audits covering the whole College as well as a number of
days set aside for pro-active fraud work.
10.
The Audit Committee is satisfied with the level of management engagement with internal
audit; management responses to recommendations have been appropriate and timely and follow
up work conducted by the auditors shows that, in the majority of cases, these recommendations
have been fully implemented. Overall, substantial and/ or full assurance was achieved for 100% of
the systems audited. The Committee believes that this represents a very strong performance by
the College.
11.
The HEFCE Audit Code requires the Internal Auditors to provide the governing body, the
accountable officer and the other managers of the College with assurance on the adequacy and
effectiveness of risk management, control and governance arrangements.
12.
Opinion. The Internal Auditors’ opinion is based on the audits completed and the follow up
work undertaken, covering the period 1 August 2010 to 31 July 2011, as approved by the Audit
Committee and limited to the audit scopes. On this basis, the Internal Auditors have confirmed that
they are able to provide "reasonable assurance that the College has an adequate and effective
system of internal controls for the year ended 31 July 2011. The control issues identified during
[their] work do not materially impact upon the opinion to be provided in respect of the adequacy
and effectiveness for the University’s arrangements for corporate governance, risk management,
internal control and value for money."
EXTERNAL AUDIT
13.
External audit services are provided by PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC), who have been
re-appointed as the College’s External Auditors for a period of five years from 1 August 2011
following a tendering process conducted by the College (see below).
14.
The Committee has previously approved a policy on the provision and pre-approval of all
non-audit services by the external auditors. The policy is intended to ensure that any non-audit
Council
25th November 2011
64
services provided by the external auditor do not impair, or appear to impair, the auditor’s
independence or objectivity. In accordance with this policy, the external auditors will carry out their
statutory audit duties, may carry out other work as auditors or reporting accountants and may also
provide tax advisory services. There may also be other occasions when the external auditor is
best placed to undertake other accounting, investigatory, advisory and consultancy work on behalf
of the College, because of the auditor’s in-depth knowledge of the College or other specialist skills
or knowledge, although several areas of work are specifically prohibited by the policy. The
provision of non-audit services by the external auditor must be pre-approved and reported to the
Audit Committee at its next scheduled meeting. The external auditor must also include in its annual
report to the Audit Committee a report on all non-audit services provided during the year. The
extent of any non-audit work conducted by the external auditor must also be disclosed in the
College’s annual financial statements.
15.
The following list provides details of all additional non-audit work undertaken by the external
auditors during the year 2010-11. The external auditors have confirmed their view that they are not
aware of any relationship or non-audit services that would impair their independence for the
purposes of expressing an opinion on the financial statements. In their professional judgement,
they are independent accounts with respect to the College, its subsidiaries and associates and the
objectivity of the audit engagement leader has not been impaired. The Audit Committee concurs
with this view on the independence of the auditors.







US Department of Education Loans audit;
College Fund agreed-upon-procedures;
PwC Inform subscription;
Liquidation work – Singapore;
Accounting paper in respect of Woodland development;
Imperial Innovations plc – Tax and VAT advice; and
Imperial Innovations plc – assessment of working capital projects in respect of rights
issue.
16.
At its meeting in June 2011 the Committee considered the External Audit Strategy for the
preparation of the Financial Statements for the year ended 31 July 2011. The Committee noted
that the Auditors would be concentrating on a number of risks including:
a.
Imperial Innovations rights issue.
c.
Consort decommissioning.
d.
Pensions.
e.
Partnerships/ Alliances.
f.
Capital Developments.
g.
IT initiatives.
h.
The College Fund.
17.
The Audit Committee meets with the External Auditors in private (i.e. with no College
Officers present) at its November meeting following the completion of the external audit.
65
Council
25th November 2011
Accordingly, the Committee held a private meeting with the external auditors on 8 November to
discuss the conduct of the external audit and any other matters that the Committee or the auditors
wished to raise.
18.
Opinion. The formal opinion of the Auditors is given in the Financial Statements for the
Year Ended 31 July 2011 and in the External Auditors’ Report to the Audit Committee, but they
have confirmed their intention to issue an unqualified audit opinion on the College’s Financial
Statements.
The external auditors have also confirmed that there were no unadjusted
misstatements in the accounts which needed to be brought to the attention of the Audit Committee
or the Council. Finally, on corporate governance and risk management, the external auditors have
confirmed that that there is nothing in the College’s corporate governance statement in the Annual
Report and Financial Statements “which contradicts [their] understanding of the College’s risk
management processes. During the year internal audit undertook a full review of the College’s risk
management processes and have confirmed management’s view that the College was fully
compliant with the HEFCE requirements in 2010/11”.
APPOINTMENT OF EXTERNAL AUDITORS
19.
As noted above, the Audit Committee conducted a tendering process for the appointment of
external auditors during the year. The process was carried out by a Tender Evaluation Committee
operating in accordance with the College’s Financial Regulations and in particular its purchasing
regulations. In June, the Committee received the Tender Evaluation Committee’s Report and
agreed that PricewaterhouseCoopers (PWC) should be re-appointed as the College’s external
auditors for a period of five years from 1 August 2011.
COPORATE GOVERNANCE
20.
In 2010-11 the Council undertook a review of the College’s governance arrangements. The
recommendations from the review, which took into account best practice at other leading
universities, as well as the views of stakeholders and of those knowledgeable in governance
matters, were accepted by the Council in July 2010. The majority of these recommendations were
implemented at the same meeting. The only outstanding issues were the implementation of
changes to the membership of the Council, which required Privy Council approval, and the role and
status of the Court. On 16 March 2011 the Privy Council approved the revisions to the Statutes
required to implement the proposed changes to the membership of the Council and the
appointment processes for senior staff at the College. In February 2011 the Council, after further
consultation with the Court, agreed to reconfigure the Court as a stakeholder body to include
representatives from associated NHS Trusts, funding agencies, alumni and companies, public
sector bodies and charities which fund research and employ graduates from the College. The
reconfigured Court came into effect on 1 October 2011.
21.
One of the significant changes arising from the governance review was the introduction of a
new Risk Committee with responsibility for reviewing the College's strategic risks. Following the
creation of the Risk Committee, the Audit Committee's terms of reference were amended to ensure
that there was no overlap in responsibilities between the two committees. A briefing note was also
prepared for both committees setting out how the relationship between the two would be managed
to ensure that there was no duplication of effort between the two and equally to ensure that there
were no gaps in the consideration of particular risk areas.
Council
25th November 2011
66
22.
In June 2010 the HEFCE Audit Service conducted an Assurance Review of the College,
with the intention of examining how Imperial exercised accountability for the public funding it
receives. In conducting the review, the HEFCE Auditor met with the Chairman of Council, the
Rector and the Chairman of the Audit Committee, in addition to several members of the College's
senior staff. The overall conclusion of the review was that HEFCE was "able to place reliance on
the accountability information". The resulting report, which was received in November 2010,
included just one recommendation for improvement – that "the TRAC return should be reviewed by
a committee of Council prior to its submission to HEFCE". This has now been implemented.
23.
Opinion. The College's corporate governance arrangements have been considered by
both the Internal and External Auditors and have also recently been subject to an in-depth review
by the Council. The College's arrangements for approving its accountability returns have also
been audited by the HEFCE Audit Service. Each of the audits and reviews has concluded that the
College's arrangements for corporate governance are satisfactory and compliant with the HEFCE
requirements in 2010-11. In the light of these reviews, the Audit Committee is able to provide the
Council with a reasonable assurance on the adequacy and effectiveness of the College’s
arrangements for corporate governance.
VALUE FOR MONEY (VfM)
24.
The Committee has previously agreed that the responsibility for considering VfM initiatives
lies with the College’s Management Board and that it will base its opinion on VfM on the annual
report considered by the Management Board and subsequently presented to the Audit Committee.
25
The Annual Report on VfM initiatives was presented to, and endorsed by, the Management
Board in October 2011. The Report was then considered by the Audit Committee at its Meeting on
8 November 2011.
26.
The Management Board is assisted by the VfM Steering Group. The Steering Group has
responsibility to direct and monitor Imperial’s VfM programme so that it aligns with its strategic
themes and objectives. In this context the VfM Steering Group helps to promote a culture of
efficiency, effectiveness, and economy so that the College can compete successfully at an
international level, earning respect and influence nationally and internationally. In line with HEFCE
guidance, in preparing its report the VfM Steering Group draws on various sources of evidence and
information, including quantitative, qualitative and subjective evidence to assess the VfM
performance for the year. Its assessment is a composite of both numerical data and qualitative
judgements including an evaluation of trends and comparisons with peers. All of the VfM activities
and performance data are linked as far as possible to the College’s five year strategic plan and the
most appropriate strategic themes and objectives, these being Research, Education, Translation,
Resources and Organisation. VfM performance in each area is assessed using the traffic light
system. This year all areas were assessed as Green (Good; on track, low risk) or Amber-Green
(Satisfactory; broadly on track with some concerns which need to be addressed).
27.
Opinion. In the light of this Report and the review of VfM arrangements conducted by
Internal Audit, the Committee can confirm that appropriate management systems are in place for
the evaluation and monitoring of the College’s VfM strategy.
67
Council
25th November 2011
RISK MANAGEMENT
28.
Since 2003 the HEFCE has required higher education institutions to comply with the
Turnbull and UK Corporate Governance Code Recommendations on Corporate Governance. This
means that, when the governing body of a higher education institution approves that organisation’s
annual accounts each year, it should state whether or not it is satisfied that all material risks facing
the institution have been identified. To meet this requirement the College’s Risk Management
Policy stipulates that the Management Board will carry out an annual review of the College’s Risk
Register and Action Plan. The Management Board’s recommendations are then to be passed to
the Audit Committee for consideration so that the Committee can, in turn, make its report to the
Council. The Management Board conducted its review of the College’s Risk Register in October
2011 when a revised Risk Register and Action Plan was approved.
29.
In addition to the Management Board’s review of the College’s operational risks, this year
the new Risk Committee has been considering the strategic and long-term risks facing the College.
It too has produced an annual report of its activities to assist the Audit Committee in forming an
opinion on risk management at the College. In its report, the Risk Committee confirmed that it had
no concerns about the effectiveness of the College’s overall risk management arrangements or the
substantive and strategic risk items it had considered in the course of the year ended 31 July 2011.
30.
The internal auditors also conducted a review of Risk Management in 2010-11. The review
classified the assurance obtained as ’substantial’. In addition, risk management was included as
an area of scope within the departmental audits conducted by the internal auditors, the aim being
to assess the extent to which risk management was being effectively operated at that level. A key
element of the recommendations arising from these audits was the need to further promote and
enforce the ongoing review of risk registers during the course of the year across departments.
However, it was acknowledged that the need for further work in this area was not unexpected
given the ongoing nature of effective risk management.
31.
Opinion. In the light of the Management Board’s Review of Risk Management, the work of
the Risk Committee and the Internal Audit Report, the Committee is satisfied that the College has
an effective risk management process in place and that the College’s risks have been
appropriately identified and managed and the College is operating in accordance with the Turnbull
and Corporate Governance Code recommendations, and is in compliance with the HEFCE’s
current Accounts Direction.
DATA QUALITY
32.
In August 2008 HEFCE introduced a new requirement that audit committees provide an
opinion on the management and quality assurance of data submitted to HESA and to HEFCE and
other funding bodies. This opinion can be in the form of an Assurance Framework, elements of
which can be provided by Internal Audit. At its meeting in November 2011 the Committee once
again reviewed HEFCE’s guidance for audit committees on providing data assurance to funding
bodies and noted in particular that “the audit committee is not expected to review data or data
returns itself. Nor are committee members expected to be expert in data issues”. In this context,
the Committee noted that its opinion on the management and quality assurance of data submitted
to funding bodies relied on a framework of evidence provided by management and the auditors
and as such could only provide a reasonable assurance that these systems were effective.
Council
25th November 2011
68
33.
In 2007, the Audit Commission issued ‘Improving information to support decision making:
standards for better quality data’. The HEFCE guidance for Audit Committees on data
management and quality, issued in 2008, refers to this document and suggests that the standards
could be used to gather information for the Audit Committee, to help inform its opinion on the
management and quality of data. In this context, ‘data’ is defined as ‘any data submitted to funding
bodies’. The Audit Commission document notes that ‘The Audit Commission developed the
Standards for Better Data Quality for use by public bodies to support improvement in data quality.
The standards define a framework of management arrangements that bodies can put in place to
secure the quality of the data they use to manage and report on their activities. The standards
distil the principles and practices identified in existing guidance, advice and good practice.
34.
Within Imperial College, there are a number of key data categories which are submitted to
funding bodies, relating to students, staff, finance and research. The College has a Data Quality
Policy, approved by the Management Board, and has established a Data Quality and Management
Group, which is chaired by the College Secretary. The Group exists to share best practice and
assess progress against the data quality objectives. Each year the Group completes a selfassessment exercise in order to evaluate College practice using the Audit Commission document
on Standards for Better Quality Data. This aims to gather information on data management and
quality from across the College. The Group includes representatives from finance, TRAC, HR,
research, planning and registry. The report generated by the self-assessment demonstrates the
approach to data quality and management across the College, and provides a benchmark against
which the College will measure its performance in future.
35.
The 2010-11 Internal Audit programme included a number of audits which included aspects
of data quality management. These included a systems audit in respect of TRAC, which provided
‘full’ assurance and two audits of research services, which both provided ‘substantial’ assurance.
As has already been noted the HEFCE Assurance Service visited the College in 2010 to undertake
a HEFCE assurance review. Only one recommendation for improvement was made, that the
College’s TRAC return should be reviewed by Audit Committee. This return was considered by the
Audit Committee in March 2011. As the TRAC return had to be submitted by the end of January,
the Committee’s reviewed the return retrospectively. In addition, in January 2011 the College was
audited as part of the Research Councils UK Assurance Programme. It received an overall
assurance outcome of ‘satisfactory’ for the administration and management of grant funding and
‘substantial’ for compliance with TRAC methodology.
36.
Opinion. Based upon the results of these internal and external assessments of data
management and quality and the framework of arrangements in place to secure data quality across
the College, the Audit Committee is satisfied that systems are in place to provide reasonable
assurance as to quality and accuracy of the data submitted to HESA and to HEFCE and other
funding bodies and that these systems are effective.
FRAUD
37.
It is generally recognised that there is an increased risk of fraud during an economic
downturn. In order to ameliorate this risk, the internal auditors provided a programme of fraud
awareness during the year and conducted a number of unannounced spot checks across the
College. The possibility of such checks were publicised to ensure that staff were aware that the
College would take action against fraud. During the year four instances of potential fraud were
reported and investigated. In two of these cases no evidence of fraud was found. One case is still
being investigated, but is below the value level required to report to HEFCE. In the fourth case, the
69
Council
25th November 2011
police have made an arrest, but the potential value of this fraud is still being estimated, in part to
determine if it should be reported to HEFCE.
38.
In addition to their work in countering fraud, the internal auditors have also provided a
briefing on the Bribery Act 2010 and its potential impact on the College. A bribery risk assessment
is being prepared and will be brought before the Audit Committee in due course.
CHARITY REGULATION
39.
On 1 June 2010 HEFCE became the principal regulator of those higher education
institutions (HEIs) in England that are exempt charities, including the College. This new
responsibility results from the Charities Act 2006, and stems from a government decision that all
charities should be subject to regulation. Although expected to comply with charity law, exempt
charities such as the College were previously outside the scope of the Charity Commission's
regulatory powers. From 1 June 2010, the exempt charity regulation provisions of the 2006 Act
came into effect for universities, and they are now subject to the Charity Commission's powers. In
the Financial Memorandum HEFCE has set out the additional reporting requirements necessary to
meet its obligations as the Charity Regulator. These include the publication of information about
the College's charitable status on its own website and the inclusion of a public benefit statement in
the College's annual accounts. In addition, since 1 June 2010, institutions have had a duty to
report serious incidents to HEFCE at the time when they are identified. Institutions are also
required to confirm in their annual assurance returns that any serious incidents have been
appropriately reported to HEFCE. Serious incidents are defined as follows:
a.
The loss of assets through fraud, theft or other cause where the value of the loss is
in excess of £25,000.
b.
The receipt of donations of more than £25,000 from unknown donors, or where the
source cannot be verified.
c.
HEI.
The abuse or mistreatment of a charitable beneficiary involved in activities of the
d.
The disqualification of a Trustee.
e.
Known or alleged links (other than for bona fide academic reason) with proscribed
organisations or terrorism; this applies to trustees, staff, students, or anyone else
associated with the HEI.
40.
The Public Benefit Statement is included in the Annual Report and Financial Statements. It
confirms that the Council has had due regard to the Charity Commission’s guidance on the
reporting of public benefit and in particular to its supplementary public benefit guidance on the
advancement of education and on fee charging. Due regard has also been paid to the additional
guidance issued by HEFCE in its role as principal regulator on behalf of the Commission. A
statement on the College’s charitable status was published on its web pages before the deadline of
31 January 2011. Finally, the Audit Committee is able to confirm that there have been no serious
incidents at the College in the period since 1 June 2010 that would need to be reported to HEFCE
as the Charity Regulator.
Council
25th November 2011
70
OTHER WORK
41.
Scheduled System Upgrades. At its meeting in June 2011, the Committee received a
presentation on the proposed upgrade of the Oracle systems used by the College. The major
upgrade to Oracle Release 12 would cover the College’s finance, payroll, HR, grants and labour
distribution IT systems and therefore presents a potential risk to the operation of these important
systems. The presentation to the Committee set out the schedule for the upgrade, the College’s
previous experience in managing similar upgrades and the governance and risk management
processes that were being put in place for this upgrade. The Committee was assured that
disruption would be minimised through the use of a comprehensive testing regime and that the
upgrade would not be released until it had been fully tested. Furthermore, the upgrade had been
discussed with both the internal and external auditors and additional risk-based work undertaken in
recognition of the additional system risks presented by this upgrade.
42.
Contingent Liabilities. In 2009 the Committee agreed that it should be updated on a
regular basis on the College's contingent liabilities. Accordingly, a report on contingent liabilities
was provided for the Committee at each of its meetings in 2010-11.
OPINION
43.
In the Committee’s terms of reference (attached at Annex A to this Report) the Council has
given the Audit Committee the responsibility to report to the Council at least annually on its activity
for the year and to give its opinion on the adequacy and effectiveness of the University’s risk
management control and governance arrangements; its arrangements for promoting economy,
efficiency and effectiveness; and the arrangements for the management and quality assurance of
data submitted to the Higher Education Statistics Agency (HESA), HEFC and other funding bodies.
44.
Given the assurances contained in the reports made to the Audit Committee during the
year by the Internal and External Auditors, and in the summaries of their annual reports to the
Audit Committee contained in this Report, together with those received from the College’s
management, the Audit Committee is able to provide the Council with a reasonable assurance on
the adequacy and effectiveness of the College’s arrangements for risk management, control and
governance and value for money. It is also able to provide a reasonable assurance that systems
are in place to ensure the quality and accuracy of the data submitted to HESA and to HEFCE and
other funding bodies.
Mrs Philippa Couttie
Chairman, Audit Committee
71
Council
25th November 2011
Annex A
AUDIT COMMITTEE
TERMS OF REFERENCE
1.
To keep under review the effectiveness of internal control systems, risk management and
corporate governance arrangements, and in particular to review the external auditors’ management
letter, the internal auditors' annual report, and management responses.
2.
To consider the Annual Financial Statements in the presence of the external auditors,
including the auditors’ formal opinion, the statement of members’ responsibilities and the statement
of internal control, in accordance with the funding council’s accounts direction.
3.
To monitor the implementation of agreed recommendations arising from internal and
external audit reports.
4.
To advise the Council on the appointment of the external auditors, the audit fee, the
provision of any non-audit services by the external auditors and any questions of resignation or
dismissal of the external auditors.
5.
To discuss with the external auditors, before the audit begins, the nature and scope of the
audit.
6.
To discuss with the external auditors problems and reservations arising from the interim and
final audits, including a review of the management letter, incorporating management responses, and
any other matters the external auditors may wish to discuss (in the absence of management where
necessary).
7.
To consider and advise the governing body on the appointment and terms of engagement of
the internal audit service (and the head of internal audit if applicable), the audit fee, the provision of
any non-audit services by the internal auditors, and any questions of resignation or dismissal of the
internal auditors.
8.
To review the internal auditors’ audit needs assessment, strategy and programme; to
consider major findings of internal audit investigations and management's response; and promote
co-ordination between the internal and external auditors. The Committee will ensure that the
resources made available for internal audit are sufficient to meet the University’s needs.
9.
To satisfy itself that suitable arrangements are in place to promote economy, efficiency and
effectiveness.
10.
To ensure that all significant losses have been properly investigated and that the internal and
external auditors, and where appropriate the funding council’s accounting officer, have been
informed
11.
To oversee the University’s policy on fraud and irregularity, including being notified of any
action taken under that policy
Council
25th November 2011
72
12.
To receive any relevant reports from the National Audit Office, the HEFCE and other
organisations.
13.
To monitor annually the performance and effectiveness of external and internal auditors,
including any matters affecting their objectivity.
14.
To report to the Council at least annually on its activity for the year and to give its opinion
on the adequacy and effectiveness of the University’s risk management control and governance
arrangements; its arrangements for promoting economy, efficiency and effectiveness; and the
arrangements for the management and quality assurance of data submitted to the Higher Education
Statistics Agency (HESA), HEFC and other funding bodies.
15.
In the event of the merger or dissolution of the University, to ensure that the necessary
actions are completed, including arranging for a final set of financial statements to be completed
and signed.
16.
The Committee shall have the authority to call for any information from College officers,
external and internal auditors and others which it considers necessary to discharge its
responsibilities effectively.
CONSTITUTION
17.
The Committee and its Chairman shall be appointed by the Council from among its own
members and must consist of members with no executive responsibility for the management of the
University. No member of the Audit Committee may also serve on the University’s Finance
Committee or its equivalent.
18.
Members
a.
A Chairman to be appointed by the Council from among the external members of the
Council.
b.
Three members, at least one of whom shall have recent and relevant expertise and
experience in finance, accounting or auditing, to be appointed by the Council from among
the external members of the Council.
c.
The Committee shall have the power to co-opt up to two additional external
members, if it sees fit.
19.
In Attendance
The Rector
The Deputy Rector
The College Secretary
The Chief Finance Officer
The Director of Finance
Representatives of the internal and external auditors
20.
Secretary
The Head of Central Secretariat and Assistant Clerk to the Court and Council
73
Council
25th November 2011
MEETINGS AND REPORTING
21.
The Committee shall meet not less than three times a year. The external auditors and
internal auditors may request that additional meetings be held if they consider it necessary.
22.
The minutes of meetings of the Committee will be circulated to all members of the Council.
23.
The Committee will prepare an annual report covering the University’s financial year and
any significant issues up to the date of preparing the Report. The Report will be addressed to the
Rector and to the Council and will summarise the activity for the year. It will give the Committee’s
opinion on the adequacy and effectiveness of the University’s arrangements for:
a.
Risk Management, control and governance arrangements.
b.
Arrangements for promoting economy, efficiency and effectiveness (value for
money).
c.
The arrangements for the management and quality assurance of data submitted to the
Higher Education Statistics Agency (HESA), HEFC and other funding bodies
24.
This Report will be presented to the Council before the members’ responsibility statement in
the Annual Financial Statements is signed.
25.
The Committee will also provide an annual statement on the University’s Accounts to the
Court at its annual meeting.
QUORUM
26.
The quorum shall be the Chairman and one other member.
PRESENT MEMBERSHIP:
Mrs. P. Couttie (Chair)
Sir Peter Gershon (to 30 September 2010)
Ms. C. Griffiths (to 30 September 2010)
Ms. R. Lomax
Mr. J. Newsum (from 1 October 2010)
Mr. S. Newton (from 1 October 2010)
Ms. K. Kantor (co-opted)
Council
25th November 2011
74
PAPER D – FOR DECISION
EXTERNAL AUDITORS’ REPRESENTATION LETTER
A Note by the Chief Financial Officer
1.
As part of the audit of the College’s annual accounts, the Council is required to provide
the External Auditors, PricewaterhouseCoopers, with a Representation Letter, which
acknowledges the Council’s responsibilities under the Financial Memorandum with the
Higher Education Funding Council, and sets out a series of representations concerning the
documentation and information on which the Annual Report and Accounts are based.
2.
The draft Representation Letter has been considered and endorsed by the Audit
Committee.
3.
The Council is now asked to consider and, if it sees fit, approve the Representation
Letter, a copy of which is attached at Annex A.
MS
75
Council
25th November 2011
Annex A
Imperial College London
Faculty Building
South Kensington Campus
London SW7 2AZ
Tel: +44 (0)20 7594 8699
Fax: +44 (0)20 7594 8720
www.imperial.ac.uk
For attention of: Clive Everest
PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
7 More London Riverside
London
SE1 2RT
Dear Sirs
This representation letter is provided in connection with your audit of the financial statements of
Imperial College London (the “College”) and the consolidated financial statements of the College
and its subsidiaries and associates(together the “group”) for the year ended 31 July 2011 for the
purpose of expressing an opinion as to whether the financial statements of the College and the
consolidated financial statements of the group give a true and fair view, have been properly
prepared in accordance with United Kingdom Generally Accepted Accounting Practice (UK GAAP),
and have been prepared in accordance with the Statement of Recommended Practice (SORP) on
Accounting for Further and Higher Education 2007 and the Charities Act 1993 (as amended by the
Charities Act 2006). Subsequent references in this letter to “financial statements” refer to both the
financial statements of the College and the consolidated financial statements of the group.
We confirm that the following representations are made on the basis of enquiries of management
and staff of the College and the group with relevant knowledge and experience and, where
appropriate, of inspection of supporting documentation sufficient to satisfy ourselves that we can
properly make each of the following representations to you.
We confirm, for all members of the Council (who are also directors for the purposes of the
company law) directors’ report is approved, to the best of our knowledge and belief, and having
made the appropriate enquiries, the following representations:
Financial Statements
 We have fulfilled our responsibilities, as set out in the terms of the audit engagement letter, for
the preparation of the financial statements in accordance with UK GAAP and the Statement of
Recommended Practice (SORP) on Accounting for Further and Higher Education 2007, the
Accounts Direction issued by the Funding Council and the Charities Act 1993 (as amended by
the Charities Act 2006).; in particular the financial statements give a true and fair view in
accordance therewith.

All transactions have been recorded in the accounting records and are reflected in the financial
statements. All grants, donations and other income have been notified to you and where
donations are subject to specific terms or conditions, we confirm that they have been accounted
for as restricted donations. There have been no breaches of terms or conditions during the
period in the application of such income.
Council
25th November 2011
76
 We are not aware of any instances where we have not provided in the financial statements for
grants repayable to the funding council(s). We have made all correspondence relating to
funding from the funding council(s) available to you
 Significant assumptions used by us in making accounting estimates, including those
surrounding measurement at fair value, are reasonable.
 All events subsequent to the date of the financial statements for which UK GAAP requires
adjustment or disclosure have been adjusted or disclosed.
Information Provided
 Each member of the Council has taken all the steps that he or she ought to have taken as a
charity trustee in order to make himself or herself aware of any relevant audit information and to
establish that you (the College’s auditors) are aware of that information.
 We have provided you with:
- Access to all information of which we are aware that is relevant to the preparation of the
financial statements such as records, documentation and other matters;
- Additional information that you have requested from us for the purpose of the audit; and
- Unrestricted access to persons within the group from whom you determined it necessary to
obtain audit evidence.
 So far as each member of the Council is aware, there is no relevant audit information of which
you are unaware.
Fraud and non-compliance with laws and regulations
 We acknowledge our responsibility for the design, implementation and maintenance of internal
control to prevent and detect fraud.
 We also acknowledge our other responsibilities under the Financial Memorandum with the
Funding Council, including, in particular, our responsibilities to conduct the business of the
institution in accordance with the Further and Higher Education Act 1992, the conditions set out
in the Financial Memorandum and any other conditions that the Funding Council may from time
to time prescribe.
 We have disclosed to you the results of our assessment of the risk that the financial statements
may be materially misstated as a result of fraud.
 We have disclosed to you all information in relation to fraud or suspected fraud that we are
aware of and that affects the group and involves:
- Management;
- Employees who have significant roles in internal control; or
- Others where the fraud could have a material effect on the financial statements.
 We have disclosed to you all information in relation to allegations of significant fraud, or
suspected fraud, affecting the College and group’s financial statements communicated by
employees, former employees, analysts, regulators or others.
 We have disclosed to you all known significant instances of non-compliance or suspected noncompliance with laws and regulations whose effects should be considered when preparing
financial statements.
77
Council
25th November 2011
Regularity
We confirm that there are no instances where the business of the institution has not been
conducted in accordance with the Further and Higher Education Act 1992, the conditions set out in
the Financial Memorandum and other conditions that the Funding Council from time to time
prescribe.
Application of funds
We confirm that funds, from whatever source, administered by the institution for specific purposes,
have been properly applied to those purposes and, where relevant, managed in accordance with
appropriate legislation, and that all funds provided by the Funding Council(s) have been applied in
accordance with the relevant Financial Memorandum and any other terms and conditions applied
to them.
Related party transactions
We have disclosed to you the identity of the College and group’s related parties and all the related
party relationships and transactions of which we are aware.
Related party relationships and transactions have been appropriately accounted for and disclosed
in accordance with the requirements of FRS 8, the Statement of Recommended Practice (SORP)
on Accounting for Further and Higher Education 2007 or other requirements, for example, the
Charities Act 1993 (as amended by the Charities Act 2006).
We confirm that we have identified to you all employees with emoluments over £100,000 per
annum and all senior employees receiving compensation for loss of office, as defined by Funding
Council guidance, and that we have disclosed emoluments and compensation for loss of office in
accordance with the Financial Memorandum and the Accounts Direction.
We confirm that no member of the Council other than the Rector and staff members received any
payment from the College, other than the reimbursement of travel and subsistence incurred in the
course of their duties.
Employee Benefits
 We confirm that we have made you aware of all employee benefit schemes in which employees
of the College and the group participate.
 We confirm that the College’s share of the underlying assets and liabilities of the Universities
Superannuation Scheme (USS), the Superannuation Arrangements of the University of London
(SAUL) and the NHS Pension Scheme cannot be identified and a consequence the schemes
have been accounted for as a defined contribution scheme.
Specialist Engineering facility decommissioning
Regarding the provision for decommissioning of the specialist engineering facility, an accounting
estimate that was recognised in the financial statements:
 We used appropriate measurement processes, including related assumptions and models, in
determining the accounting estimate in the context of UK GAAP.
 Measurement processes were consistently applied from year to year.
 The assumptions appropriately reflect our intent and ability to carry out specific courses of
action on behalf of the College, where relevant to the accounting estimates and disclosures.
Council
25th November 2011
78
 Disclosures related to accounting estimates are complete and appropriate under UK GAAP.
 No subsequent event requires adjustment to the accounting estimates and disclosures included
in the financial statements.
Contractual arrangements/agreements
All contractual arrangements (including side-letters to agreements) entered into by the College and
the group have been properly reflected in the accounting records or, where material (or potentially
material) to the financial statements, have been disclosed to you.
Litigation and claims
We have disclosed to you all known actual or possible litigation and claims whose effects should
be considered when preparing the financial statements and such matters have been appropriately
accounted for and disclosed in accordance with UK GAAP.
Taxation
We have complied with the taxation requirements of all countries within which we operate and
have brought to account all liabilities for taxation due to the relevant tax authorities whether in
respect of any corporation or other direct tax or any indirect taxes. We are not aware of any noncompliance that would give rise to additional liabilities by way of penalty or interest and we have
made full disclosure regarding any Revenue Authority queries or investigations that we are aware
of or that are ongoing.
In managing the tax affairs of the institution and the group, we have taken into account any special
provisions such as transfer pricing, debt cap, tax avoidance disclosure and controlled foreign
companies legislation as applied in different tax jurisdictions.
We confirm that to the best of our knowledge, throughout the year, the College has acted within its
charitable objectives and that where we exposed to direct taxes we have disclosed and accounted
for correctly in the financial statements.
As minuted by the Council at its meeting on 25 November 2011.
.................................................................... ..........................................................................
(Chair)
(Rector)
For and on behalf of …………………………………………………………..........................
Date…………………………………………………
79
Council
25th November 2011
PAPER E
IMPERIAL WEST – PLANNING UPDATE
A Note from the Chairman of the Syndicate
SUMMARY
1.
The Syndicate has recently reviewed and unanimously approved the approach being taken
to achieve planning permission for Imperial West. We now look to Council to endorse that
approval ahead of the submission deadline of 9th December 2011. The proposals meet the
development brief and would deliver a significant uplift in land value assuming that consent is
achieved. The College’s financial exposure is limited to 50% of the planning costs and the College
retains full flexibility over the delivery of all elements of the site. The scheme has been well
received by the local planning authority and the Greater London Authority, though there has been
some local opposition. The scheme is fully compliant with planning regulations and is consistent
with emerging policy for the White City Opportunity Area.
MASTERPLAN
2.
The proposed scheme delivers 1 million square foot of built space on seven development
sites around a large garden square.
The development includes the phase 1 student
accommodation buildings and extends to include: in detail a multi-use academic building, a
commercial laboratory and office building, and a residential tower; and in outline two further flexible
academic buildings and a hotel.
Council
25th November 2011
80
BENEFITS
3.
The scheme has the flexibility to deliver either future academic buildings or profitable
development sites. The development brief for 2/3 academic use and 1/3 commercial use delivers
an indicative post planning land value of £58m vs the £28m cost – a net uplift of £24m after
planning costs of £6m.
RISKS
4.
The current financial risk is that the planning budget will be spent without delivering a
successful consent. The College has committed £2.75m to this project, defraying the risk through
joint venturing. If no consent is achieved, this expenditure would be written off. However, £12m of
land gain has already been secured through Phase 1, and the planning work undertaken will
remain valuable for any future schemes for the site.
5.
The scheme also presents a reputational risk as there is an increase in development
density from 300,000 sq ft to 1 million sq ft; and an increase in height with the tower rising to 110m
(34 stories). The College has received broad support for the scheme within Hammersmith and
Fulham, but strong opposition has emerged from the St Helen’s Residents Association which
represents some homeowners in the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea Conservation
Area to the east of the site. The opposition is focused on a desire to have no visible development
from the Conservation Area. This cannot be achieved without a major reduction of the
development brief.
6.
The prominence of the scheme presents an additional political risk as it could become a
specific point of debate for the upcoming mayoral elections (May 2012). The planning timetable
recognises this risk and targets submission in December of this year so that determination can be
achieved before the election is in full swing. A submission date of 9th December is the latest
acceptable point to minimise this risk.
CONCLUSION AND ACTION
7.
The scheme delivers the development brief, is consistent with emerging policy, and meets
the technical demands of the location. It provides full flexibility to the College to develop out the
site for core or non-core purposes at its absolute discretion. It also delivers a significant increase
in land value. It has political and officer support at the local authority and GLA, but is subject to
vocal opposition from the local Conservation Area.
8.
The syndicate unanimously support the proposed masterplan. Council are therefore asked
to take note of the nature of the scheme, along with the financial and reputational risks, and to
endorse the scheme for formal submission on or before the 9th December 2011.
JN
Nov 11
Also attached to this Planning Update are a briefing paper on Centre House and the approved
terms of reference of the Syndicate.
81
Council
25th November 2011
W12 PROPERTY OPPORTUNITY – CENTRE HOUSE
A Briefing Paper by the Chief Executive of the College Fund
SUMMARY
1.
Imperial has the opportunity to secure control over land from the tube stations at White City
all the way to Imperial West through a leasehold interest in property owned by the BBC. The cost
is small even in the event that the property itself is never fully let; in addition there is a robust
business case that delivers an acceptable return on investment. There are clear mitigating actions
to manage the inherent risks, and the worst case scenario would not have a material impact on the
ongoing operations of the College Fund or the College. The scheme falls within the parameters of
existing delegated authorities and in addition has been approved by the Rector and Chief Finance
Officer. This note outlines the terms for Council’s information.
STRATEGIC CONTEXT
2.
A weakness with the current Imperial West strategy has been the lack of a private access
to the main Tube stations at Wood Lane and White City given the White City environment. We
have already secured a 2 acre site that brings controlled access from the Imperial West site to
south of the A40. This lease completes the connection so that the College can create a safe and
secure route from the Tube stations to the new campus.
3.
The scheme also enables high quality space at the South Kensington campus to be
released back to the academic mission, provides a pilot site for Imperial’s translation activities in
White City and visibly demonstrates to the local authority the College’s commitment to the location.
STRUCTURE AND BUSINESS CASE
4.
The College will take control of the site, Building C of Centre House, through its 100%
owned subsidiary Imperial BioIncubator Limited which will take a leasehold interest with a term of
10 years subject to a mutual break in December 2018. This provides sufficient time to recover the
capital outlay involved, but also ensures that the College’s ultimate liabilities are limited.
5.
The building will then be refurbished to provide commercially viable laboratory and office
space for technology driven start-up companies.
6.
A pre-let for c.40% of the building is agreed with DNA Electronics Limited, an established
and profitable technology transfer company, on commercial terms. The balance of the space will
be made available for letting with a prudent assumption on the market rent and the void rate.
FINANCIAL SUMMARY
7.
The scheme has been assessed on a cash flow basis and assumes a worst case scenario
of the lease break being triggered in December 2018. A top level summary of the expected
performance is set out in the table below:
Council
25th November 2011
82
2013
£m
(0.52)
0.29
2014
£m
2015
£m
Capital Expenditure
Capital Receipts
2012
£m
(1.57)
0.36
0.29
0.29
Operating Expenditure
Operating Income
(0.37)
0.32
(0.51)
0.64
(0.53)
0.77
(£1.26)
(£0.16)
£0.48
Total Cash Flow
2016
£m
2017
£m
2018
£m
(0.54)
0.80
(0.54)
0.82
(0.55)
0.85
(0.56)
0.87
£0.50
£0.28
£0.30
£0.31
8.
This cash flow delivers a positive Net Present Value of £34k applying a discount rate of 7%,
and indicates an Internal Rate of Return of 8%: meeting the Fund’s Investment Objective of RPI
+4% assuming inflation does not average above 4% over the term. In the event that the potential
break is not triggered, the position improves dramatically to an 18% IRR.
RISKS
9.
The main risk is that DNA Electronics default on their commitments. They are currently
paying rent in excess of £300k p.a. in the Bessemer Building and have not missed any rental
payments. The company is cash-flow positive, with an operational profit of just over £1m on sales
of £3.7m for the last financial year and held £5.5m in cash as the end of the last calendar year.
Moreover, the reputational damage for this company breaching its terms on College property would
be severe. The risk of default is therefore remote, but would have a £2.4m negative impact on the
NPV assuming that no alternative tenant was ever found.
10.
The second order risk is that additional tenants cannot be found. Discussions to date with
potential tenants have been positive, and it is notable that Imperial’s Incubator at South Kensington
has consistently enjoyed occupancy levels of over 95% at much higher rents. The assumed void
rate ensures that the cash flow is sufficiently robust to withstand an initial marketing period. Again,
the risk of no further tenants being attracted is unlikely, but would create a further £1.3m negative
impact on the NPV.
CONCLUSION AND ACTIONS
11.
The head-lease and sub-lease terms have been negotiated and agreed; a guaranteed
maximum price contract is in approved form with Brennan’s Construction Limited to deliver for April
2012; the scope of works and capital repayment schedule with DNA Electronics is agreed and an
operational budget and framework is in place using the College’s existing subsidiary Imperial
BioIncubator Limited. The financial risk for the scheme rests within the College Fund and
responsibility for the delivery of the capital project and the operational activity rests with the Chief
Executive of the Fund. Final arrangements will be made with the BBC, as the ultimate freeholder,
to secure the connection between this site and Imperial West.
JRA
Nov 11
83
Council
25th November 2011
GOVERNANCE OF THE IMPERIAL WEST SYNDICATE
Terms of Reference
(i)
To agree the vision and development plan for Imperial West.
(ii)
To agree the responsibility for elements of Imperial West.
(iii)
To agree resource requirements for the programme.
(iv)
To create partnerships (where necessary) with others other institutions and bodies.
(v)
To report on Imperial West to Management Board, College Fund and Council.
The Syndicate would have flexibility to evolve the vision and develop Imperial West over the next
five to ten years.
Constitution
External member of the Council (Chairman)
The Rector
The Deputy Rector
The Chief Financial Officer
The Chair of the College Fund
The Chief Executive Officer of the College Fund
Other members are to be co-opted as and when necessary.
Present Membership:
Chairman
Jeremy Newsum (External Council member)
Members
Keith O’Nions (Rector)
Stephen Richardson (Deputy Rector)
Muir Sanderson (CFO)
Stewart Newton (External Council member)
John Anderson (Chief Executive of the College Fund)
Zoë Mulholland (Secretary)
Meetings and Reporting
The Syndicate shall meet no less than on a quarterly basis and more frequently if required.
The Syndicate will report to Council through Management Board and also through College Fund
members.
Council
25th November 2011
84
Decision-making and dispute resolution
The Syndicate will operate on the basis of consensus decision-making. The Syndicate Chair,
Rector and the College Fund Chair will have a veto on any issue. Any dispute will be resolved by
Council.
Delegations from Council
Existing delegations to the Rector and College Fund are adequate to ensure the operation of the
Syndicate. The Syndicate does not need a legal status of its own. Lines of accountability to the
Council, the College Management Board and the College Fund are clear.
85
Council
25th November 2011
PAPER F – FOR DECISION
FELLOWSHIPS, HONORARY DEGREES AND THE IMPERIAL COLLEGE MEDAL
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR 2012
A Note by the Rector
1.
The Management Board met on 28 October 2010 to consider, in accordance with
Ordinance B2 (a copy of Ordinance B2, including some proposed revisions, is attached at
Annex A), nominations for the conferment of Honorary Degrees, for the election of Fellows of
the College and for the award of Imperial College Medals. The Lord Tugendhat joined the
Board for the discussion of the nominations.
PROPOSED REVISIONS TO THE PROCEDURES
2.
The Bribery Act 2010 was passed in April 2010 and came into effect on 1st July 2011.
Its purpose is to strengthen prosecutions for bribery in the public and private sector, which
for these purposes includes universities. The Ministry of Justice guidelines define bribery as
“giving someone a financial or other advantage to encourage that person to perform their
functions or activities improperly or to reward that person for having already done so”. Since
the Act was passed and came into effect, the College has been considering how it can
strengthen its procedures in a number of areas to ensure that these are robust and support
its commitment to carrying out its operations fairly, honestly, and openly
3.
One area of possible concern is the granting of honorary degrees and fellowships to
donors or potential donors to the College, where there is a risk that the award may be
perceived as having been ‘promised’ to the donor in return for their making a substantial
donation. Although the College may wish to recognise the support provided by its donors,
there should not be an explicit link between the receipt of a donation and an honorary award.
Furthermore, any recipient of an honorary award should be a person of outstanding
distinction quite apart from any donation they may have made to the College.
4.
To clarify that Imperial College does not confer degrees or elect Fellows in return for
donations, it is proposed to amend Ordinance B2 to include a specific prohibition to this
effect. In addition, it is proposed that any awards made to a person who has made a
substantial philanthropic donation to the College should not be considered until at least a
year has passed after the receipt of their donation. The proposed amendment was agreed
by the Management Board and is set out in Annex A to this paper.
FELLOWSHIPS
5.
The Management Board agreed to make the following three recommendations to the
Council for the election of Fellows during 2011:
1
Council
25th November 2011
a.
86
The Lord Kerr of Kinlochard GCMG
Lord Kerr was Chairman of Imperial College from 2005 to 2011and presided over
several momentous developments in the College’s history including the College’s
centenary celebrations in 2007 and its withdrawal from the University of London, the
establishment of the country’s first AHSC, the rebuilding of the Southside and
Eastside halls of residence and the purchase of the Woodlands site .
Lord Kerr will be remembered not only as a most distinguished and dedicated
Chairman of the Governing body, but also for his astute judgement and keen
understanding and for his generosity and willingness to give so much to the staff and
students of Imperial College.
Citation:
The Board recommends the election of the Lord Kerr of Kinlochard as a Fellow
of Imperial College in recognition of the outstanding contribution he made to
the life and work of Imperial College during his period as Chairman of the
Council.
b.
Dr Martin Knight
Dr Martin Knight was an external member of Council for 10 years before he joined
the staff in 2004. During his time as an external member of Council, he was
Chairman of the Investment Committee and then, between 2001 and 2004, Honorary
Treasurer and Chairman of the Finance Committee. He joined the executive as
Chief Financial Officer from 2004-6 becoming Chief Operating Officer from 2006 to
2010, leaving the College in December 2010. In addition, he continues to serve as
the Chairman of Imperial Innovation.
Martin Knight’s innovative strategic financial vision has been instrumental in
strengthening the financial base of the College. His entrepreneurial approach
coupled with sound judgement resulted in real gains in asset values for the College
and an efficient, high quality, organisation supporting the academic work.
Citation:
The Board recommends the election of Dr Martin Knight as a Fellow of Imperial
College in recognition of the outstanding contribution he has made to the life
and work of Imperial College.
c.
Professor David Lloyd Smith
Professor David Lloyd Smith is a distinguished research fellow at Imperial, having
2
87
Council
25th November 2011
previously been Professor of Structural Mechanics, a College Tutor and the first Dean of
Students until his retirement in 2009. His academic career at Imperial College focused
very heavily on the needs of students and the creation of an environment to enable
them to develop their full potential. It included teaching and teaching-related
administration as well as the support and development of young academics. He was
considered to be one of the most diligent, meticulous and devoted of tutors and his work
on behalf of a generation of undergraduate and postgraduate students. As the first
Dean of Students he took the lead in managerial, strategic and long term planning
aspects of the learning and welfare experiences of the entire student body. In particular
he played a lead role in the review of the College’s procedures for dealing with student
complaints, appeals and disciplinaries, in effect streamlining the processes and
ensuring that they were both transparent and fair. During his career his interest in these
student-related issues extended beyond Imperial to the University of London, EUCEET
(an EU consortium of 80 civil engineering departments) and the JBM (the UK
accreditation body for civil engineering), where he has played many roles, formal and
informal, as mentor, adviser and policy leader in many developments in teaching,
learning and the student environment.
Citation:
The Board recommends the election of Professor David Lloyd Smith as a Fellow
of Imperial College in recognition of the outstanding contribution he has made
to the development of the ‘student experience’ at Imperial College.
HONORARY DEGREES
6.
The Management Board makes no recommendations to the Council for the award of
Honorary Degrees of the College at this stage.
IMPERIAL COLLEGE MEDAL
7.
The Management Board makes the following recommendation to the Council for the
award of the Imperial College Medal during 2011:
a.
Mr Jonathan Spatz
Mr Jonathan Spatz has served as Vice President of the Imperial College Foundation
Inc. for over a decade. He is an alumnus and donor to the College.
The Imperial College Foundation, Inc. is a US corporation chartered in the state of
Georgia. The Foundation was established in the United States in 1988 with the object
of supporting Imperial College London and other educational endeavours. It is
recognized by the IRS as a public charitable foundation. Annual donations from
alumni and friends of Imperial usually total around $40,000 each year, and are the
backbone of the Foundation, but it also receives occasional large donations as well
3
Council
25th November 2011
88
as ‘Exceptional Donations’. As Vice President of the Foundation, Jonathan Spatz
has kept the College’s US foundation operational and this has been key to providing
a vehicle to bring significant US sums through to the College on a tax efficient basis.
In the last five years alone the Foundation has disbursed £1.8m to the College.
Citation:
The Board recommends the award of the Imperial College Medal to Mr
Jonathan Spatz in recognition of his outstanding service to Imperial College.
OTHER AWARDS
8.
The Management Board is recommending just four awards at this stage. Although
there are two outstanding awards previously approved by the Council that will also be
presented in 2012, the Board recognises that more candidates are still required for the
award of Fellowships, Honorary Degrees and the Imperial College Medal in 2012. It is
therefore proposed that further nominations will be sought in the New Year with additional
recommendations to be presented to the Council at its next Meeting.
RECOMMENDATIONS
9.
The Council is invited to consider and, if it sees fit, approve the proposed
amendments to Ordinance B2 and to approve the nominations for the election of Fellows of
the College and for the award of the Imperial College Medal.
K.O.N.
4
89
Council
25th November 2011
IMPERIAL COLLEGE LONDON
ORDINANCE B2
HONORARY DEGREES, FELLOWSHIPS AND ASSOCIATESHIPS OF THE
COLLEGE
HONORARY DEGREES, FELLOWS AND ASSOCIATES
1.
The Council may confer any degree of the College on any person honoris causa
(hereinafter referred to as 'honorary degrees') (1) and may elect as Fellows of the College
persons of distinction and persons who have, in the opinion of the Council, rendered
significant services to the College or to the community. The Council may also award the
Imperial College Medal to such persons or organisations who have, in the opinion of the
Council, rendered exceptional service to the College and may elect as Associates of the
College persons who have, in the opinion of the Council, rendered meritorious services to the
College.
2.
Although substantial philanthropic support to the College may be considered as one
of the possible criteria for an award, Imperial College does not confer degrees or elect
Fellows in return for donations. For this reason, a person who has made a substantial
philanthropic donation to the College must also satisfy the other criteria for an award and
should not be considered for an award until at least one calendar year has elapsed since a
substantial donation was received by the College.
ELECTION AS A FELLOW OF IMPERIAL COLLEGE
23.
Election as a Fellow of Imperial College is the highest honour that may be awarded
by the College. It is intended to recognise persons who are of outstanding distinction in their
own fields and have rendered exceptional service to the College. The Fellowship of Imperial
College may be awarded:
a.
To members or former members of the Council, the Court or of the previous
Governing Body, to former members of staff or to former students of the Imperial
College of Science, Technology and Medicine, who may be deemed eligible by
reason of their outstanding achievements and exceptional services rendered to the
College;
b.
To other persons not members of the College who are of outstanding
distinction in appropriate fields and have rendered exceptional services to the College.
4.
A person who on his retirement was a member of the staff of the College should not
be considered for election as a Fellow until one calendar year has elapsed since his retirement
from full-time employment or since his appointment as a Senior Research Fellow or
1.
See Ordinance B1, Paragraph 1 for the list of degrees.
5
Council
25th November 2011
90
equivalent of the College.
5.
Once elected, Fellows of Imperial College may use the postnominal FIC after their
name,
CONFERMENT OF DEGREES HONORIS CAUSA
6.
An honorary degree may be conferred on persons of conspicuous merit, who are
outstanding in their field.
7.
An honorary degree shall not, save in exceptional circumstances, be conferred in
absentia.
8.
An honorary degree shall not be conferred posthumously. However, where the
Council has formally resolved to confer an honorary degree on a person, and the death of that
person occurs before the conferment takes place, the honorary degree shall be deemed to
have been conferred, the date of the conferment being deemed to be the day preceding the
date of death.
9.
An honorary degree conferred by the College shall be cited in the following form:
Title of degree (Imperial College London) honoris causa, e.g. DSc (Imperial College
London) honoris causa.
10.
The Council shall prescribe the form of the diploma for those upon whom an honorary
degree has been conferred and shall determine the procedures for inviting and considering
nominations and the arrangements for conferring the degrees. It may also develop the criteria
for the conferment of honorary degrees more fully, if it sees fit.
11.
The Higher Doctorates that may be awarded are as follows:
Doctor of Literature (DLit)
Doctor of Literature (Education) (DLit(Ed))
Doctor of Science (DSc)
Doctor of Science (Economics) (DSc(Econ))
Doctor of Science (Engineering) (DSc(Eng))
Doctor of Science (Medicine) (DSc(Med))
AWARD OF THE IMPERIAL COLLEGE MEDAL
12.
The Imperial College Medal may be awarded to such persons or organisations,
whether members of the College or not, as may be deemed eligible by reason of their having
rendered exceptional or outstanding service to Imperial College or having otherwise acted
over a period of time to enhance its reputation, mission and/ or objectives.
ELECTION AS AN ASSOCIATE OF IMPERIAL COLLEGE
6
91
Council
25th November 2011
13.
Associateships of the Imperial College of Science, Technology and Medicine may be
awarded:
a.
To persons who have been members of the staff for a substantial period or
who have retired from membership of the staff in any grade or category.
b.
To such persons who have been or are members of the staff or to such former
students as may be deemed eligible by reason of their having rendered meritorious or
praiseworthy service to Imperial College or having otherwise acted to enhance its
reputation.
c.
Once elected, Associates of Imperial College may use the postnominal AIC
after their name.
REVOCATION
13.
The Council may revoke any degree, diploma, certificate or other award, qualification
or distinction granted by the College and all privileges connected therewith, if it shall at any
time be discovered and proved to the satisfaction of the Council that there was any
irregularity in the events or circumstances leading to the grant of that degree, diploma,
certificate, or other award, qualification or distinction and, in the case of degrees and other
distinctions conferred honoris causa, for such reasons as shall satisfy the Council.
Approved by the Council 23 March 2007
Effective from 8 July 2007
Revised by the Council 23 November 2007
Revised by the Council 20 November 2009
Revised by the Council 26 November 2010
7
Council
25th November 2011
92
PAPER G – FOR DECISION
HEFCE FORECAST
A Report by the Chief Financial Officer
FINANCIAL FORECASTS (FF) AND FINANCIAL COMMENTARY (FC)1
1.
Although these are normally required to be submitted by 1 December, HEFCE have once
again recognised that, because of the continuing uncertainty over future funding including HEFCE
funding beyond 2012 and student recruitment in the new fee regime, institutions may not have firm
enough indications of future income to enable them to complete their financial forecasts
meaningfully at this time.
2.
Hence HEFCE have decided to defer the submission of forecast financial data (relating to
the years 2012-13 to 2014-15) until 20 June 2012. Whilst not eliminating all of the uncertainty,
HEFCE recognise that deferral should enable institutions to produce more reliable forecasts as the
outcomes of the HEFCE grant and the potential implications of the teaching funding changes will
be known to them.
3.
Thus the financial forecast to be submitted in December 2011 covers data relating to
2009/10, 2010/11 and the budget for the 2011/12 financial year, as well as a short commentary
outlining assumptions and movement.
4.
The Financial Forecasts and Commentary must be approved by Council before they are
submitted to HEFCE. At its meeting on 28 October 2011, the Management Board agreed the
attached Financial Forecasts and Commentary. The Council is therefore asked to consider, and if
its sees fit, approve the Financial Forecasts and Commentary for submission to HEFCE.
1.
The Financial Forecasts and Commentary are commercially sensitive and confidential. For this
reason, they are not included with these published Minutes.
93
Council
25th November 2011
PAPER H – FOR DECISION
CHANGE OF NAME OF DEPARTMENT
A Note by the Clerk
1.
Statute 5 of the College’s Statutes defines the Powers and Functions of the Council.
These include the power (in Statute (5)(i)):
“(i)
to define such academic structure of the University, comprising departments,
divisions, centres and other units which may be associated to form faculties, schools
or other groupings within the University, as the Council, on the recommendation of
the Rector, after consultation with the Senate, considers expedient;”
2.
The Faculty of Engineering wishes to change the name of the Department of
Chemical Engineering and Chemical Technology to Chemical Engineering. The term
"Chemical Technology" is a pre-WWII term used to describe the then-nascent discipline of
what became Chemical Engineering, and has remained appended to the Department’s
name since then. The rationale for now amending the Department’s name is that over the
years, the additional term Technology has become redundant and the shortened title is now
the de facto title used in everything but official College documents. In essence, Chemical
Engineering is the more accurate and definitely concise description of the Department’s
activities.
3.
The Management Board gave approval to this name change at its meeting on 28
October 2011, and the Senate endorsed the proposal at its meeting on 2 November 2011.
4.
The Council is asked to approve the change of name of the Department in
accordance with its powers under Statute (5)(i).
RFE
Council
25th November 2011
94
PAPER I – FOR REPORT
SUBMISSION OF THE ANNUAL MONITORING STATEMENT TO HEFCE
A Note from the Clerk
BACKGROUND
1.
The College’s Annual Monitoring Statement (AMS) was approved by the Management
Board at its meeting on 16 November and is now presented to the Council for information. The
College is required to submit the AMS to HEFCE by Wednesday 1 December 2011.
2.
As background, HEFCE requires higher education institutions to submit an Annual
Monitoring Statement (AMS) each year. An annual Corporate Planning Statement is no longer
required by HEFCE.
ANNUAL MONITORING STATEMENT (AMS)
3.
In the AMS, the College is required to report and provide assurance on the following
activities;
a.
Higher Education Innovation Fund (HEIF) round four: the College is asked to report
on achievements in 2010-2011 and to provide assurances on associated funding, including
the details of any underspend (of which there is none for the College in 2010-2011).
b.
Equality and Diversity: the College is asked to report on the delivery of objectives
and achievements for 2010-11. A brief description of the College’s key equality objectives
and/or actions for 2011-12 is also required.
4.
In preparing the AMS, those with responsibility for these areas/activities were consulted
and asked to provide status reports. The proposed AMS was circulated to them for review and all
comments have been incorporated, as appropriate.
95
Council
25th November 2011
ANNUAL MONITORING STATEMENT 2011
1.
Please provide a summary (400 words maximum) of the key achievements of the year
linked to HEIF 4 formula funding, referring to flagship projects identified in your
institutional strategy.
In 2010-2011, the College secured £36.9M research income from UK and global industrial sources.
Major investors included RioTinto, Qatar Petroleum, Pfizer, GlaxoSmithKline, BP, Rolls-Royce,
Shell, and Statoil. Significant awards included a new five-year partnership with Laing O’Rourke to
fund the creation of a Centre for Systems Engineering and Innovation. HEIF funding for the
Corporate Partnerships team enabled it to continue to provide relationship management to major
industrial partners, to join up the College’s offer across research, education and consultancy and to
manage new opportunities through a formal pipeline management system. Income from overseas
industrial sources has increased by 6% since 2009-2010, reflecting the College’s ambition for
international impact and consequent attraction of inward investment. To further this ambition, the
College has implemented a large corporate award tracking system, with a view to better
understanding the global scene of industrial engagement with universities.
The College’s portfolio of spin-out companies raised £87.8M in cash and investment commitments
during the year, with external contributions totalling £56.9M. Companies in the incubator facility
continue to perform well. For example, Cortexica, which is developing a visual search platform for
mobile applications, raised investment funding during the year as well as hiring a new executive
team including Iain McCready, formerly CEO of NeoMedia, and Malcolm Bird, a founding technical
director at ARM.
HEIF funding enabled the Entrepreneur in Residence (EiR) programme to remain strong, with Paul
May and Mark Routh helping to review portfolios of inventions from the College. EiR-led company
Indigix, which formed last year following engagement with Robert Feldmann, raised £1M in venture
funding during the year and commenced pre-clinical testing of its product.
Increasingly effective use of HEIF-funding enabled the Business School to continue to develop,
through its entrepreneurial education activities in its Innovation, Entrepreneurship and Design
(IE&D) programme. The IE&D Projects module enables participants to develop innovative ideas
into commercially viable business cases. Nine teams subsequently entered the IE&D Business
Plan Competition, which was won by the Solaris team, for its solar mobile charger for developing
nations based on an external inventor’s idea. Solaris also won the ShellLiveWIRE Grand Ideas
award. The Smart Entrepreneur is a published outcome of the programme and is on the
recommended reading list of several European universities as a guide to creating start-ups. The
external-engagement programme ‘Best Practice in Innovation, Entrepreneurship and Design’ also
continued, with increasing turnout, engagement and satisfaction of attendees from London.
Equality and diversity monitoring
2.
Have you made progress or met your objectives from last year as set out in your 201011 equality action plan?
Yes
Council
25th November 2011
96
3.
Please describe, in no more than 250 words, what progress you have made in meeting
those objectives.
The equality action plan is championed by the Management Board and Council, and supported
throughout the College with effective staff and student networks. The College continues to develop
and extend the role of diversity advisory and focus groups (i.e. Imperial as One (race), Imperial 600
(the College’s advisory group on LGBT) and the Disability Staff and Student forums), and act on
the recommendations of the groups. The College continues to develop existing practices in line
with legislative expectations, and has introduced a range of tailored training programmes in
response to the Equality Act 2010.
Following the success of the Stellar positive action leadership programme for diverse leaders last
year, positive engagement with equality advisors across the sector continues. Significant links with
Russell Group institutions and the public sector have been established. Equality networks have
been extended and strengthened introducing formal mentoring networks, a developed example
being the ongoing development mentoring scheme to be introduced for BAME (Black and Asian
minority ethnic) academics. A leadership programme for disabled staff will launch and be rolled out
in early 2012, and the iLead positive action leadership programme (for BAME employees)
continues, which includes participants from other institutions.
Working closely with student clubs and societies, a scheme has been established whereby BAME
undergraduates mentor state school sixth form students, host mock interviews and encourage
BAME students to apply for STEM subjects and successfully enter Russell Group Universities.
4.
If you have encountered any difficulty in meeting those objectives, please give further
details including any barriers to implementation.
More generally, the sector is experiencing difficulty in meeting objectives due to financial
uncertainty and constraints (e.g. increased competition for grant funding applications). Additionally,
the end of European funding has reduced the ability to maintain international networks, as
European HEIs have experienced cuts to positive action leadership programmes.
Disclosure rates for disabled students remain below the sector average (-1.5%), despite increased
efforts to ensure that disabled students feel comfortable in disclosing. Additionally, further work is
needed to increase the current disclosure rate of staff (2.15% compared to the sector average of
3.0%). Hence, the College continue to sustain, and build on its efforts in this area.
Since 2004, the proportion of female academic staff has increased from 19% to 20.9%.
Encouragingly, since 2007 the proportion of female research staff has increased by 2.2%,
indicating steady growth in the pipeline population and therefore further increases in the proportion
of female academic staff. In addition, 50% of participants in the Female Academics’ Development
Programme have been promoted, and the number of female Heads of Academic Departments has
increased from 10% to 20% in the last academic year. Nevertheless, activities to attract and retain
female academic staff remain a priority in order to achieve our stated target of 23% female
representation amongst academic staff.
The College’s known BAME staff representation has increased, from 21.6% in 2009 to 22.4% in
2010, with growth occurring primarily from an increase amongst academic staff. The College is
working to increase the percentage of BAME support staff to match the percentage of working age
ethnic minority people in Greater London, a target of 35.5%. The focus of the Diversity Champions’
initiative has changed; such that our diversity networks will be invited to nominate ‘Diversity
Champions’, allowing the College to maintain its bottom-up approach whilst ensuring effective
advocacy for the networks.
97
5.
Council
25th November 2011
Please highlight any particular achievements.
Most recently, the College ran a successful Equality, Practice and Innovation Symposium, hosting
leading scientists and specialists from a broad range of sectors. The College received recognition
for its achievements, securing a ninth Athena SWAN Award, with the Department of Life Sciences
obtaining bronze status. The College increased the number of points scored in the Stonewall Top
100 Employers Index, placed at 87. Imperial was also recognised in the GayByDegree Stonewall
Guide, achieving 10/10; one of only four institutions to do so.
The College’s Staff survey, undertaken in January 2011 (response rate 59%) has provided a key
indication of issues in the working environment and the experiences of staff and will provide a
framework upon which to focus activities and measure progress.
The College’s work with Russell Group HEIs, such as Glasgow and Oxford, has replicated the
success of the iLead and Stellar programmes across the HE sector, and further collaborative work
with the NHS and the public sector has increased the reach of these programmes even further. In
strengthening our networks, we continue to measure our performance in the context of the sector
as a whole.
6.
Please briefly describe your key equality objectives and/or actions for 2011-12.
The College’s core equality objective is to ensure that staff and students do not encounter barriers.
The key specific objectives for 2011-12 are to:
1. Increase the number of equality briefings and training as a method to help effect change,
focusing initially on further sessions on harassment and bullying;
2. Invite our diversity networks to decide if they would wish for a ‘Diversity Champion’ to act as an
executive sponsor;
3.Continue to provide multicultural retention, mentoring and positive action programmes e.g. iLead,
Creative Futures, Development Centres for Female Academics, Springboard and specialist
development activities for disabled staff as methods of helping to widen the talent pool;
4. Establish two working groups under the auspices of the Equalities & Diversity Committee – one
for staff and one for students – to identify two priorities each and highlight what actions would
make the most difference to strengthen equality and inclusion;
5. Continue to respond to the requirements of the Equality Act 2010 as a significant driver for
change;
6. Respond to the key equality issues arising from staff and student surveys;
7. Continue to support the valuable equality work of our student groups and officers;
8. Implement Imperial Expectations for those with managerial responsibilities – these underscore
the behaviour required of our staff and include expectations in relation to inclusivity and equality;
9. Continue the work to improve provision for disabled staff and students;
10. Continue the work to ensure we are a Stonewall Top 100 employer;
11. Continue to benchmark and improving data capture for monitoring purposes.
Council
25th November 2011
98
PAPER J
DEVELOPMENT REPORT
A Report by the Director of Communications and Development
Paper J contains information which is commercially sensitive and confidential and is therefore not
included with these Minutes.
99
Council
25th November 2011
PAPER K – FOR INFORMATION
MAJOR PROJECTS REPORT
A note by the Director of Capital Planning
HEALTH, SAFETY AND ENVIRONMENT
1.
No major accidents or safety incidents to report. Meetings are being held with the Imperial
West development team regarding the energy strategy for the site. The aim is to ensure the
College achieves high levels of carbon reduction in its own developments and cost effective energy
solutions. We also need to guard against taking on undue risks for supplying power to non-College
developments.
PROJECTS APPROVED AND UNDER CONSTRUCTION
SOUTH EAST QUADRANT 1ST PHASE (£76M)
2.
Mechanical Engineering Levels 0 & 1. Acoustic enhancements have been made to
engine test cells and further retrofit works are due to be largely completed within the next month.
Specialist works are underway to ensure the hydraulic ring main to the heavy test lab does not
resonate through the building on full load. This is being resolved with collaborative work between
the department and highly specialised consultants.
BLOCK ‘L’ (£74M)
3.
The building has now been officially handed over and is under the control of Facilities and
Property Management Division. The contractor is clearing snags whilst the Faculty of Medicine is
installing fixtures and fittings. Also building services modification tenders are being processed to
accommodate a change of predicted occupation to allow Cancer Imaging department to re-locate
from the Cyclotron Building; Occupation is planned for the beginning of 2012. Work is continuing
on the design for a potential Biobank facility in the basement. Final cost reconciliation for the whole
project is outstanding but currently the project is projected to be over £2m under the latest revised
budget through unspent contingency.
MPAC MATERIALS FOR ENERGY (£3.04M)
4.
This project was completed on time and budget and is in use for the new academic year.
ICT DATA CENTRE WORKS (£1.45M)
5.
Planning officers have asked for further details. Determination is due in December for this
additional works to aid air circulation to the Data Centre chillers.
Council
25th November 2011
100
ACE LEVEL 5 EXTENSION (£5.5M)
6.
Enabling works for escape stairs are now complete and planning permission granted.
Preparatory works have commenced on site L5 but slightly delayed to allow for additional asbestos
surveys. This project will provide an additional lecture theatre and post graduate space for the
Business School to utilise commencing in Autumn 2012.
PROJECTS IN PRE CONSTRUCTION
MECHANICAL ENGINEERING ANNEX OVER CLADDING (1.2M)
7.
Planning permission has been granted for the over cladding to the annexe and an order
has now been placed with the contractor to enable commencement on site in January 2012 and
completion before the Olympic Festival.
ACE EXTENSION OVER CLADDING (£1.7M)
8.
This also has now received planning permission and an order will shortly be placed to allow
commencement on site in February 2012.
ACE EXTENSION ENTRANCE WORKS (0.75M)
9.
Design is progressing towards Stage E. Planning determination is due by mid-November.
AERONAUTICAL AND MECHANICAL ENGINEERING PROJECT (AMP)
10.
Phase 1 (£11.4m). Stage C design for this first phase is due to be completed by 18th
November. Stage B (briefing) for Phases 2-4 is due for completion by 16th December 2011.
Options for relocating the Centre for Environmental Policy are still undergoing review and this will
be key to vacating the annexe and allowing the project to proceed.
COLLEGE FUND PROJECTS
PEMBRIDGE GARDENS (£3.7M)
11.
This is still awaiting planning approval.
WYE CAMPUS PROJECTS – VARIOUS (£1.3M)
12.
Awaiting planning approval for Wolfson house, but this is receiving opposition from local
residents.
101
Council
25th November 2011
IMPERIAL WEST POST GRAD ACCOMMODATION
13.
Blocks B-D have reached roof level and the tower cranes will be dismantled in December.
The Contractor, ISG is erecting a waterproof shell to allow internal fitting out to run on programme.
To this end the bathroom/kitchen pods are being installed and will peak at 50-60 per week. The
cladding is behind programme so overall ISG is 2-3 weeks behind their target programme but the
main area at risk of delay at the end of the programme is likely to be landscaping. ISG and the
project manager, Meedhurst is confident that they will complete on time for the intake of students
next autumn. A bedroom has been completed as a benchmark and the quality is excellent.
PLANNING AND THIRD PARTIES
14.
The step free access proposals for South Kensington Station made by TfL last month
received a frosty response from neighbours at the public consultation meeting. We await further
news.
15.
Savills are continuing to market the Wye campus and we have agreed to extend the
campaign to February 2012 to ensure that it is given a thorough marketing campaign.
16.
We still await a decision by QPR regarding their intentions with regard to the pavilion and
portacabins at Harlington.
17.
The master-planning of Imperial West continues with a revised target submission date of
the 9th December. The academic building ’C’ is going through a series of technical reviews to
ensure that the planning application for the master-plan allows the College sufficient flexibility to
ensure normal College standards and user requirements can be met. The design of this building
will not progress beyond this stage until funding has been approved.
Stephen Richardson
Steve Howe
Council
25th November 2011
102
PAPER L – FOR INFORMATION
STAFF MATTERS
A Note by the Rector
DEPUTY PRINCIPAL (RESEARCH)
Professor Neil ALFORD, has been appointed to the post of Deputy Principal (Research), with
effect from 1 April 2011. He continues as Head of the Department of Materials, Faculty of
Engineering.
DEPUTY PRINCIPAL (TEACHING)
Professor Peter CHEUNG, has been appointed to the post of Deputy Principal (Teaching), with
effect from 1 September 2011. He continues as Head of the Department of Electrical and
Electronic Engineering, Faculty of Engineering.
DEPUTY PRINCIPAL OF THE FACULTY OF NATURAL SCIENCES
Professor Steven ROSE, currently Head of Plasma Physics and Director of the Institute of Shock
Physics, has been appointed to the post of Deputy Principal of the Faculty of Natural Sciences,
with effect from 1 October 2011 in succession to Professor Donal Bradley on his appointment as
Pro Rector (Research).
DIRECTOR OF ICT
Dr John SHEMILT, currently Head of Technology Operations and Deputy Director of ICT, has
been appointed to the post of Director of ICT, with effect from 1 October 2011 in succession to Mr
Arthur Spirling MBE on his retirement.
PROFESSORS
Professor Mark Herbert Ainsworth DAVIS, formerly Professor of Mathematics, Department of
Mathematics, Faculty of Natural Sciences, has been appointed to the post of Interim Head of the
Mathematical Finance Section, Department of Mathematics, Faculty of Natural Sciences, with
effect from 1 October 2011 for a period of 6 months.
Professor Alan Francis HEAVENS, currently Professor of Theoretical Astrophysics and Director
of Research, University of Edinburgh, has been appointed to the post of Chair in Astrostatistics,
Department of Physics, Faculty of Natural Sciences.
Dr Matthew David JACKSON, currently Senior Lecturer in Petroleum Reservoir Engineering and
Geological Fluid Mechanics, Department of Earth Science and Engineering, Faculty of
103
Council
25th November 2011
Engineering, has been appointed to the post of Total Chair in Petroleum Engineering, Department
of Earth Science and Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, with effect from 1 October 2011.
Professor Sebastian Lennox JOHNSTON, previously Professor of Respiratory Medicine, Division
of Respiratory Sciences, National Heart and Lung Institute, Faculty of Medicine, has been
appointed to the post of Asthma UK Clinical Chair, Division of Respiratory Sciences, National Heart
and Lung Institute, Faculty of Medicine, with effect from 8 August 2011.
Dr Ann Helen MUGGERIDGE, currently Reader in Reservoir Physics, Department of Earth
Science and Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, has been appointed to the post of Total Chair in
Petroleum Engineering, Department of Earth Science and Engineering, Faculty of Engineering,
with effect from 1 October 2011.
Professor Marco PAGNO, currently Full Professor of Economics, Universita' di Napoli Federico II
(University of Naples Federico II), has been appointed to the post of Professor of Finance,
Business School, Support Services, with effect from 1 September 2011.
Professor Douglas Michael (Mike) WRIGHT, formerly Professor of Financial Studies, University
of Nottingham, has been appointed to the post of Professor of Entrepreneurship, Business School,
Support Services, with effect from 1 September 2011.
VISITING PROFESSORS
Professor Carlos DE SILVA, has accepted an association with the College as Visiting Professor
in the Department of Physics, Faculty of Natural Sciences, with effect from 17 September 2011.
Professor Wladyslaw Michal Witold GEDROYC, has been offered an association with the
College as Visiting Professor in the Department of Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, with effect from
28 August 2011.
Dr Michael OJOVAN, formerly Reader, Immobilisation Science Laboratory, Department of
Materials, Science and Engineering, Sheffield University, has been offered an association with the
College as Visiting Professor in the Department of Materials, Faculty of Engineering, with effect
from 1 October 2011.
Professor Paolo VOLPIN, currently Associate Professor of Finance, London Business School,
has been offered an association with the College as Visiting Professor in the Business School,
Support Services, with effect from 1 September 2011 for a period of 3 months.
RETIREMENTS
Professor John Nigel Berridge (Nigel) BELL, Professor of Environmental Pollution, Centre for
Environmental Policy, Faculty of Natural Sciences, retired on 7 October 2011.
Professor Nancy Ann CURTIN, Professor of Muscle Physiology, National Heart and Lung
Institute, Faculty of Medicine, retired on 30 September 2011. Following retirement she will
continue her association with the College as Emeritus Professor of Muscle Physiology.
Council
25th November 2011
104
Professor John DARLINGTON, Professor and Director of London e-Science Centre, Department
of Computing, Faculty of Engineering, retired on 30 September 2011. Following retirement he will
continue his association with the College as Professor on a part time basis, with effect from 1
November 2011 for a period of two years.
Professor John David GIBBON, Professor of Applied Mathematics, Department of Mathematics,
Faculty of Natural Sciences, retired on 30 September 2011. Following retirement he will continue
his association with the College as Senior Research Investigator for a period of one year.
Professor David Arthur NETHERCOT OBE FREng, Chair in Civil Engineering, Department of
Civil and Environmental Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, retired on 30 September 2011.
Following retirement he will continue his association with the College as Senior Research
Investigator for a period of three years.
Dr Daniel Richmond (Dan) MOORE, Reader in Computational Applied Mathematics, Department
of Mathematics, Faculty of Natural Sciences, retired on 31 July 2011. Following retirement he will
continue his association with the College as Reader in Computational Applied Mathematics on a
part time basis with effect from 1 October 2011 for a period of one year.
Dr Richard Stanley SAYLES, Reader, Department of Mechanical Engineering, Faculty of
Engineering, retired on 30 September 2011.
Mr Arthur George SPIRLING, Director of ICT, Support Services, retired on 30 September 2011.
Following retirement he will continue his association with the College as Senior Advisor – Solutions
and Projects, Information and Communications Technologies, Support Services, with effect from 1
October 2011.
Professor Hugh Alexander SPIKES, Professor of Lubrication, Department of Mechanical
Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, retired on 30 September 2011. Following retirement he will
continue his association with the College as Professor on a part time basis with effect from 1
October 2011 for a period of one year.
RESIGNATIONS
Dr Francois Didier BALLOUX, Reader in Infectious Disease Epidemiology, School of Public
Health, Faculty of Medicine, resigned with effect from 30 September 2011, to take up an
appointment at University College London.
Professor Julian J BOMMER, Professor of Earthquake Risk Assessment, Department of Civil and
Environmental Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, resigned with effect from 30 September 2011.
Following his resignation he will continue his association with the College as Visiting Professor in
the Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, with effect from 1
October 2011 for a period of three years.
Professor Peter P CHEREPANOV, Professor of Molecular Virology, Department of Medicine,
Faculty of Medicine, resigned with effect from 31 August 2011.
105
Council
25th November 2011
Dr Paul Charles EVANS, Reader in Endothelial Physiology, National Heart and Lung Institute,
Faculty of Medicine, resigned with effect from 2 October 2011. Following his resignation he will
continue his association with the College as Honorary Senior Lecturer for a period of five years.
Professor David John HAND FBA, Professor of Statistics, Department of Mathematics, Faculty of
Natural Sciences, resigned with effect from 30 September 2011. Following his resignation he will
continue his association with the College as Senior Research Investigator for a period of one year.
Dr Stefano LUZZATTO, Reader in Applied Mathematics, Department of Mathematics, Faculty of
Natural Sciences, resigned with effect from 30 September 2011, to take up a post at the
International Centre for Theoretical Physics, Italy.
Professor David William MCCOMBE, Professor of Nanomaterials, Department of Materials,
Faculty of Engineering, resigned with effect from 1 October 2011.
Ms Edna MURPHY, Executive Director of Research Services (Medicine), Faculty of Medicine
Centre, resigned with effect from 30 September 2011.
Professor Marin VAN HEEL, Professor, Division of Molecular Biosciences, Faculty of Natural
Sciences, resigned with effect from 31 August 2011. Following his resignation he will continue his
association with the College as Professor of Structural Biology, Division of Molecular Biosciences,
Faculty of Natural Sciences, with effect from 4 October 2011.