NEWCASTLE UNIVERSITY
COURT
5 May 2006
Present:
The Chancellor (in the Chair), Mrs MO Grant (Pro-Chancellor and Chairman
of Council), the Vice-Chancellor, Professor JB Goddard (Deputy ViceChancellor), Professor OR Hinton, Professor CB Riordan and Professor E
Ritchie (Pro-Vice-Chancellors), The Rt Hon Alan Beith MP, Mr NE
Braithwaite, Mr PD Carr, Professor DR Charles, Ms M Coyle, Dr EGN Cross,
Mr J Edwards, Councillor D Faulkner, Mr A Fenwick, Mr AAE Glenton, Mrs
CM Harvey, Dr R Hawley, Councillor M Henry, Mr PM Johnson, Lord Judd
of Portsea, Miss FM Kirkby, Dr H Loebl, Mr RH Maudslay, Judge Mithani,
Mrs S Murray, Lord Bishop of Newcastle, Professor PJW Olive, Mr A Robson
(Communications Officer), Sir George Russell, Mr P Shaw, Mr N Sherlock,
Mr HM Shukla, Mr I Stratford, Mr R Taylor, Sir Mark Waller, Lord Walton of
Detchant, Professor MJ Whitaker and Sir John Willis.
In attendance:
Dr JV Hogan (Registrar) and Mr HB Farnhill (Bursar).
Professor TBL Kirkwood and Professor PL Younger were present for item 2
on the Agenda.
Apologies for absence: Sir Thomas Allen, Professor T Anderson, Mr AG Balls, Mr A
Bergshaven, Sir Patrick Brown, Ms C Galley, Dr GP Greener, Dr VA
Hammond, His Honour Judge David Hodson, Lady Irvine, Professor
OFW James, Mr J Jeffery, Lord Joicey, Mr PJ Kellner, Mr JW Leng,
Professor TF Page, Mr S Pleydell, Professor AC Stevenson and
Professor MP Young.
MINUTES
1.
WELCOME
The Chancellor welcomed new members to the meeting of Court. He noted that this was
the last meeting for Sir John Willis, Vice-Chairman of Council and Mr Ally Robson,
Communications Officer of the Union Society and he thanked both of them for their work
on behalf of the University.
2.
DEATH OF MR DK WILSON
Reported the death of Mr DK Wilson, lay member of Court and Honorary Treasurer of
the University from 1993-2004, on 9 February 2006. Mr Wilson had contributed
significantly to the development of the University and was one of the initial recipients
of an Honorary Fellowship of the University.
3.
AUT INDUSTRIAL ACTION
Noted:
1.
That there was a national pay dispute which was beginning to have serious
consequences for the higher education sector. The Chancellor invited the
Vice-Chancellor to comment on the situation in Newcastle.
2.
That the issue was a national one, with a complicated background to the pay
claim. Alan Johnson, when he was Minister responsible for higher education,
had indicated in a House of Commons answer that one third of the additional
income raised from the higher undergraduate fee commencing in 2006 should
be spent on pay. It was recognised that the pay of academic staff had fallen
behind pay of other professional groups and it was necessary for universities to
reward staff appropriately.
3.
That the higher education sector had undertaken a major job evaluation scheme
with the intention of placing all staff employed by institutions on a single pay
spine. It was estimated that at Newcastle this would result in an increase of the
pay bill of approximately 3% for the next financial year.
4.
That the AUT had declared a dispute prior to any serious negotiation and had
staged a one day strike in March. Its members had voted only for action short
of a strike, which included a boycott of student assessment. It was this boycott
that was beginning to create serious difficulties and causing students a good
deal of concern.
5.
That the Universities' and Colleges Employers Association (UCEA) had
offered a two year pay deal to all trade unions of 3+3%. The two academic
trade unions in the higher education sector had dismissed this offer as derisory.
6.
That in Newcastle our university's intention had been to minimise the damage
to students. At the recent meeting of Senate, proposals to allow Board of
Examiners greater discretion on the award of degrees based on the evidence
available were carried overwhelmingly. It was recognised that it was simply
not acceptable to postpone examinations.
7.
That the University had made clear that at the point where the dispute caused
irreparable damage, it would be forced to deduct a portion of pay of staff who
refused to fulfil their normal contractual duties. It was recognised that any
reduction in pay would be inflammatory, but at the point of no return, the
University would be left with very little alternative.
8.
That UCEA and the two trade unions had agreed to a negotiation session on
Monday 8 May at which a revised pay offer would be made.
9.
That the Union Society in Newcastle had made clear its strong opposition to
the tactics being employed by the AUT.
4.
10.
That the University would receive approximately £7 million more funding as a
result of the higher home undergraduate tuition fee for the next financial year,
but 40% of this additional money had already been earmarked under the terms
of the University's Access Agreement to support widening participation
activities.
11.
That once the costs of the implementation of the single pay spine for salaries
and likely cost of the pay increase were taken into account, the University was
already committed to paying more than a third of the additional funds received
in higher salaries.
12.
That the course of action being taken by the University was very similar to
other universities. Some other universities had already decided to withhold a
proportion of pay from those undertaking action. Other universities had
decided to withhold all of the pay from the individuals concerned.
13.
That in Scotland, two universities had recently reached a local settlement with
their academic trade unions. It was recognised that one possible consequence
of a very serious industrial dispute would be an increase in local bargaining.
14.
That Clinical Academic staff were largely unaffected by the action.
15.
That the University was particularly concerned about the stress caused for
students. It was recognised that there was also a threat of litigation if the
University failed to fulfil its normal academic duties. The Vice-Chancellor
had communicated directly with all students and would do so again, following
the outcome of the meeting between the Employers' Association and the trade
unions on 8 May.
16.
That the media would take an increased interest in the dispute if it continued
into the examination period which, in the case of Newcastle, commences on 22
May for undergraduate students.
17.
That the University had a number of commitments it needed to make use of the
additional fee. The Communications Officer for the Union Society noted in
particular that new students entering the University in September 2006 would
be paying almost three times as much as the students in other years. It was
reasonable to suspect that facilities and staff/student ratios would improve as a
result of the increased fee payment.
SCIENCE CITY - TWO EXAMPLES
Received:
(i)
An oral report from the Vice-Chancellor on the development of Science City.
(ii)
A presentation from Professor P L Younger, on work that led to the award of
the Queen’s Anniversary Prize and energy environment.
(iii)
A presentation from Professor T B L Kirkwood, on ageing and vitality.
Noted:
1.
That the Vice-Chancellor had made a previous presentation to Court on
Science City. Newcastle was one of six Science Cities designated by the
Chancellor of the Exchequer as part of an economic regeneration strategy. The
University was working in very close partnership with the Regional
Development Agency and the City. It had purchased a 14.4 acre site with its
two partners with the intention of producing a unique environment for the
harnessing of scientific expertise for economic and social benefit.
2.
That the University itself continued to make a major direct economic
contribution. Over the last five years it had sustained a 10% compound growth
and its income would break £300 million for the next financial year.
3.
That there were four main themes in Science City : Energy and the
Environment, Molecular Engineering, Stem Cells and Ageing & Vitality. The
University had particular strengths in all four areas, but still lacked critical
mass. One of the aims of Science City would be to develop the critical mass
for the University.
4.
That the leadership group of Science City was chaired by Paul Walker, Chief
Executive of The Sage Group.
5.
That it was recognised that funding was a vital element to the success of
Science City. The plans included a need for funding of up to £600 million, but
it appeared that the Government had intended for this to come from a redistribution of existing funding streams available to the Regional Development
Agency. This was a little disappointing and there were hopes that this view
might change.
6.
That Science City provided some excellent opportunities for the development
of interest in science amongst young people. It would build upon the Science
Learning Centre based at Framwellgate Moor in Durham and the Outreach
work at the International Centre for Life.
7.
That the University intended to work in partnership with the University of
Durham and Northumbria University which has particular strengths in design
in taking forward its Science City ambitions.
8.
That the Science City initiative had helped secure a grant of £9.6 million from
the Regional Development Agency for the Stem Cell initiative.
9.
That the Regional Development Agency had given an indication that it would
be willing to fund up to £200 million for the Science City project. It would be
necessary for the University to use its own borrowing capacity and to secure
funding from the private sector.
10.
That no other city had made as much progress as Newcastle in developing the
Science City proposals and the University had been praised recently by Alan
Johnson, the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry.
11.
That the development of new technology was key to the University's Science
City initiative.
12.
That the presentation from Professor Younger explained the background to his
group's research work which led to the award of the Queen's Anniversary
Prize. The group's research work had been conducted over a 12 year period
and had made a very significant contribution to identifying and addressing the
problem of mine water pollution arising from the closure of coal mines, both in
the North East of England and elsewhere. His group's research work had
resulted in a change of government policy towards the ceasation of pumping
water from disused mines and practical applications in ways of alleviating the
worst consequences of mine water pollution. The work had resulted in
publications on guidance on best practice in cleaning up mine water pollution
adopted by the European Community and on new regulations on the
management of mine water waste.
13.
That Professor Younger's Chair was sponsored by HSBC and the company had
supported a major initiative in addressing mine water pollution in India.
Professor Younger's work also involved studies in Latin America.
14.
That further information was available on Professor Younger's research group
from the Institute for Research and Environment Sustainability website :
www.ncl.ac.uk/environment .
15.
That Professor Younger's research interests now included geothermal energy
which potentially was a very important sustainable energy source, but so far
had not been widely adopted in the UK. This was based partly on the mistaken
belief that it was still an experimental technology, whereas in fact well over a
million units were in use worldwide.
16.
That Professor TBL Kirkwood was the Director of the Institute for Ageing and
Health. Newcastle had an outstanding reputation for its work on extending
healthy life.
17.
That life expectancy had increased at the rate of 5 hours a day for each day for
the last 200 years and a graph could be plotted from 1840 showing a linear
increase in life expectancy. In the most advanced countries levels of ill health
were falling amongst the elderly. The work conducted by the Institute had
identified a number of factors that contributed to ageing and ill health. Genetic
factors contributed to about a quarter of the factors that determined the length
of life, but other factors included nutrition, the environment, social and
economic factors, lifestyle and chance.
18.
That there was no genetic programme for ageing, instead we aged because of
damage to our cells. Errors crept into our DNA during the process of cells
copying themselves which led to our DNA acquiring mutations.
5.
19.
That the Institute's work had increased our understanding of the ageing
process.
20.
That the Science City initiative would present opportunities for further
understanding of the ageing process and the steps that could be taken to extend
a healthy lifestyle.
21.
That Professor Kirkwood predicted that our life expectancy in the UK would
continue to increase and probably plateau by about the middle of the current
century. However, it was possible that the adverse consequences of obesity
and a sedentary lifestyle might send the current gains into reverse.
22.
That a great deal of work had been carried out in Newcastle on the cause of
Alzheimer's disease and there was recognised to be a major overlap between
the causes of Alzheimer's disease and the causes of ageing.
23.
That there were opportunities to link into the Aspire Project to communicate
some of the key messages from Science City.
24.
That the development of an inter-disciplinary approach to the various scientific
issues raised was recognised as being critical and in particular in showing that
there was an engagement from the social sciences in the development of public
policy and other social aspects of the scientific work. The University's
research institutes were multi-disciplinary.
25.
That as part of Professor Younger's work on geothermal energy, he would wish
to encourage school new building projects to install geothermal heating
systems. However, the public procurement rules focused on the capital costs
and not necessarily on the full life cycle costs of energy systems and it was
recognised that this was a problem. In the United States over the last few years
approximately 50% of new schools had installed geothermal heating.
26.
That the University's own proposed work in promoting geothermal energy
included the establishment of the Geothermal Institute at Easington, which
faced particular economic and social difficulties.
27.
That Professor Kirkwood would welcome approaches from local authorities
and other interested in developing approaches to ageing and health.
MINUTES
The Minutes of the meeting held on 11 October 2005 were approved as a correct record
and signed.
6.
MATTER ARISING FROM THE MINUTES
Role of Court
(Minute 1, 11.10.2005)
Reported that at its meeting on 11 October 2005, Court had resolved that, for the next
meeting, the Registrar be requested to prepare a brief statement on the statutory role of
Court by way of having a discussion of the overall contribution of Court to the work
of the University.
Received a paper prepared by Dr Hogan on the role of Court.
7.
REPORTS FROM COURT STEERING COMMITTEE
Considered:
(a)
First Report from Court Steering Committee.
(b)
Second Report from Court Steering Committee.
Approved:
(i)
That the following persons be re-appointed to serve on Court from 1 August
2006 until 31 July 2009:
Mr AG Balls
Dr R Hawley
Judge David Hodson
Miss FM Kirkby
Dr H Loebl
Judge Mithani
Mrs S Murray
The Bishop of Newcastle
Mr P Shaw
Mr N Sherlock
Mr HM Shukla
Lord Walton
That the following be appointed to serve on Court from 1 August 2006 until 31
July 2009:
Dr Matt Ridley
(ii)
That Honorary Fellowships of the University should be conferred on:
Miss ED Barraclough
Sir John Willis
8.
Dr Miriam Stoppard
Mr N Richardson
MEMBERSHIP OF COURT STEERING COMMITTEE
Reported that:
(a)
The term of appointment of Mr Nigel Sherlock, Mr J Jeffery and Mrs Sylvia
Murray on Court Steering Committee will end on 31 July 2006.
(b)
Mr Sherlock, Mr Jeffery and Mrs Murray had indicated their willingness to be
re-appointed on the Committee.
Considered a recommendation that the following be re-appointed as members of Court
Steering Committee from 1 August 2006 until 31 July of the year shown:
Mr J Jeffery (2009)
Mrs S Murray (2008)
Mr N Sherlock (2007)
Approved the recommendation that the above be re-appointed.
9.
CORPORATE VISUAL IDENTITY
Reported that:
10.
(a)
Council, in February 2006, endorsed a proposal to adopt 'Newcastle
University' as the University's working title in the context of the development
and future use of the University's corporate visual identity, whilst retaining the
title 'University of Newcastle upon Tyne' as the full, formal title of the
University.
(b)
There has been a recent consultation exercise concerning the use of the name
as part of the University's corporate visual identity and the result of this
consultation will be available shortly.
LAY MEMBERS OF COUNCIL
Members of Court are invited to suggest candidates for consideration for appointment
to the lay category of membership of the University Council. Members in this
category shall not be members of staff or salaried officers of the University. Since the
number of vacancies in any one year is limited, suggestions should be submitted in
confidence and no communication should be entered into with prospective candidates
at this stage. Nominations should be submitted in writing, in an envelope marked
‘Confidential – Council nomination’, to Dr JV Hogan, Registrar, by not later than
noon on Monday, 8 May 2006.
The current lay members of Council are:
Ex-officio:
Mrs MO Grant (Chairman)
Sir John Willis (Vice-Chairman)
Mr PM Johnson (Treasurer)
Appointed members:
Mr L M Aviss
Mr N Blezard
Mrs B Dennis
Sir Leslie Elton
Mr JC FitzPatrick
Dr F Harvey
Ms J Henderson
Mr CJ Hilton
Mr M I'Anson
Sir Miles Irving
Mr S Lightley
Ms K Priestley
The Hon James Ramsbotham
11.
MEETINGS 2006-07
Reported that meetings of Court in the forthcoming academic year will be held on:
10 October 2006 at 10.30 am
20 April 2007 at 10.30 am
Noted that consideration would be given to the possibility of holding both meetings of
Court on a Friday since it was suggested that this might be an easier day in general for
members to attend.
12.
VICE-CHANCELLORSHIP
Reported that the University was in the process of seeking a successor to Professor
Edwards who was due to retire from the University in September 2007. This process
would result in a candidate being recommended to Senate and Council in June or July.
Members of Court would be informed about the outcome by letter.