NEWCASTLE UNIVERSITY
COURT
12 October 2010
Present:
The Chancellor (in the Chair), Chairman of Council and Pro-Chancellor, ViceChancellor, Mrs L Braiden, Sir Peter Carr, Ms M Coyle, Professor EGN Cross, Sir
Michael Darrington, Mr T Delamere, Mr A Fenwick, Professor E V Haimes, Dr V
A Hammond, Professor C Harvey, Mr A E Jones, Lord Judd of Portsea, Miss F M
Kirkby, Dr H Loebl, The Rt Rev the Lord Bishop of Newcastle, Dr M Ridley,
Professor E Ritchie, Sir George Russell, Mr N Sherlock, Professor A C
Stevenson, Lord Walton of Detchant, Professor M J Whitaker and Professor N G
Wright.
In attendance:
1.
Mr R C Dale (Executive Director of Finance), Dr J V Hogan (Registrar),
Miss E M Niven (Administrative Officer), Mrs V Johnston (Executive
Director of Human Resources) and Professor P L Younger (for item 5).
MINUTES
The Minutes of the meeting held on 16 April 2010 were approved as a correct record
and signed.
2.
MEMBERSHIP
Received:
(i)
The membership of Court for 2010/2011.
(ii)
A document detailing the profiles of members of Court.
[Circulated with the agenda as Documents B and C]
Noted:
(a) That Mr Neil Braithwaite had been appointed a member of Council and had
therefore stepped down from his Court membership.
(b) That with regard to member profiles Court Steering Committee had suggested
that a recent photograph, in addition to biographical details, should be published
on the Court website. Members were asked to review their current profile and to
send any proposed amendments together with a recent JPEG image to
Yvonne.Lee@ncl.ac.uk . Members who did not wish to have their photograph
published online were asked to inform Yvonne.
Page 1 of 5
3.
VICE-CHANCELLOR’S BUSINESS
Received a report from the Vice-Chancellor on current issues within the University.
[Circulated with the agenda as Document D]
Noted that:
1.
The Browne Review recommended the removal of the fee cap allowing
universities to set their own fee level. If a University chose to apply fees in
excess of £6000, they would be required to pay an increasing proportion of
the excess (between 40% and 75%) to the Government.
2.
Students would be able to apply for loans which would cover the full fee at
whatever level it was fixed but no fees would be payable at the point of
access. The threshold for income leading to repayment would be increased
from £15,000 to £21,000. A real rate of interest would be applied but any
outstanding loan would be wiped out after 30 years (currently 25 years).
Repayments would be 9% of the amount over £21,000.
3.
The requirement for universities to provide bursaries would be scrapped and
would be replaced by a requirement for institutions to spend money on
outreach activities.
4.
Admission policies would come under increased scrutiny. Institutions would
be expected to publish a Student Charter and to produce an employability
statement.
5.
The Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE) would merge
with the Quality Assurance Agency (QAA), the Office for Fair Access (OFFA)
and the Office of the Independent Adjudicator (OIA) to form the Higher
Education Council.
6.
Teacher training qualifications would be required for teaching staff. It was
thought that there would be some exemptions for certain categories of staff.
7.
The increased fee income which would be received as a result of the removal
of the cap would be unlikely to cover the cuts to the teaching grant from
HEFCE which were expected as a result of the Comprehensive Spending
Review. The teaching grant was expected to be cut by 78% and, if this was to
occur, it was estimated that across the sector, universities would need to
charge approximately £7000 in order to maintain their current financial
position.
8.
The proposed changes could result in changes within the sector, with more
private providers and further education colleges offering higher education
degrees. Organisations representing students would also play an increasingly
important role in decision making bodies.
9.
Concern was expressed over the implications for the UK Higher Education
sector’s international reputation as a result of the significant reduction in
Government funding that was anticipated.
10.
No reference was made to the financial support for training medical and
dental students received from the Department of Health. It would be
Page 2 of 5
necessary to wait for the outcome of the Comprehensive Spending Review to
determine whether or not this support would remain.
11.
The recommendations in the Browne Review were considered to represent
significant changes for the sector yet no public debate had taken place
regarding the purpose of higher education. It was suggested that the
proposals in the Browne Review represented a confusion of citizenship with
consumerism.
12.
It was likely that amendments would be made to the proposals before they
became policy. Once the policy was implemented it would be important for
the University to remain committed to the ideals of higher education and Court
should seek to support the University in this.
13.
It was suggested that a debate should take place as to whether it was more
important to improve the quality of education provided rather than increase
the number of graduates.
14.
The University should seek to establish a reputation for providing a quality
education whilst also charging fees which were considered acceptable to
students.
Resolved that:
4.
(i)
The University Executive should continue to keep Court members informed of
the actions taken as a result of the Browne Review.
(ii)
Any member of Court wishing to express their views on the Browne Review
and the University’s subsequent actions should contact the Chairman of
Council or the Vice-Chancellor.
VICE-CHANCELLOR’S QUESTIONS
Received from Sir Mike Darrington:
“There is an argument that the UK is educating too many graduates and that this has
been at the expense of quality. There could be a good discussion on whether it
would be a better strategy for the UK [or Newcastle University] to educate fewer
graduates to a higher standard.”
Received from Lord Judd:
What is the Vice-Chancellor’s assessment of the impact on access of government
policies towards Higher Education?
Received:
A briefing paper as background to the above.
[Circulated with the agenda as Document E]
Noted that these questions were considered as part of the discussion under item 3.
Page 3 of 5
5.
SUSTAINABILITY
Reported that, whilst the Changing Age Societal Challenge Theme was ongoing,
Sustainability was to be launched as the University’s second Societal Challenge
Theme.
Received:
(i)
A briefing paper prepared by Professor Younger, summarising the main aims
of the Sustainability Societal Challenge Theme and the proposed work of the
Newcastle Institute for Research on Sustainability (NIRES).
[Circulated with the agenda as Document F]
(ii)
A presentation from Professor Paul Younger on the above.
Noted that:
1.
Sustainability had been chosen as the second Societal Challenge Theme.
The Faculty of Science, Agriculture and Engineering (SAgE) would lead the
theme but activities would also be undertaken in the Faculties of Humanities
and Social Sciences (HaSS) and Medical Sciences.
2.
‘Enough, for all, forever’ had been adopted by the University as the definition
of sustainability but it was suggested that the inclusion of the word ‘enough’
could imply a limited acceptance of the idea of development and change. In
response to this point it was noted that society needed to become better at
doing more with less and innovation was integral to the development of a
sustainable future. It was important to challenge excess since it was not
possible to sustain current levels of social activity using renewable sources of
energy alone.
3.
The University could demonstrate a number of areas where it was leading the
field in sustainability research. Nafferton Farm, home to one of the largest
sustained projects in Europe which sought to make long-term comparison
between conventional and organic agriculture, was cited as one example.
4.
The Newcastle Institute for Research on Sustainability, which was to be
launched on 15 October, had been established to coordinate and provide a
focus for the sustainability research that was underway across the University.
The theme of Sustainability would be launched during 2011 but, as with all the
Societal Challenge Themes, it would continue beyond the launch year.
5.
An External Advisory Board was to be set up which would include lay
members. Members of Court who were interested in participating in the
Advisory Board were invited to contact Professor Younger.
Resolved that Professor Younger be thanked for his informative presentation.
Page 4 of 5
6.
UNIVERSITY STATUTES
Reported :
(a) That, following a lengthy consultation process which included consideration at
two meetings each of Senate, Council and Convocation, Council, at its
meeting on 12th July 2010, considered proposed amendments to the
University Statutes and resolved that the proposed changes to the University
Statutes be approved for submission to Court.
(b) That Court Steering Committee had considered the proposed changes on
behalf of Court and recommended approval.
Considered the proposed changes to the Statutes.
[Circulated with the agenda as Document G]
Resolved that the proposed changes to the Statutes be approved, subject to such
amendments as the Privy Council may require.
7.
MEMBER CONSULTATION ON THE FORMAT AND CONTENT OF COURT
MEETINGS AND HONORARY FELLOWSHIPS DINNER
Reported that Court Steering Committee was grateful for the responses received to
the Questionnaire which was circulated earlier in the year and would be considering
the feedback in detail at its meeting in March 2011.
8.
MEMBERSHIP OF COURT STEERING COMMITTEE
Reported that the membership of Court Steering Committee for 2010-11 was as
follows:
Members
Sir Peter Carr
Ms C Galley
Mr J Jeffery (Chairman)
9.
Observers
Professor C Brink
Mrs O Grant
Professor E Ritchie
DATE OF NEXT MEETING
Reported that the next meeting of Court would take place at 10.30am on Friday 13
May 2011 in King’s Gate, Level 5, Room L513&15.
Page 5 of 5