The following supplementary questions were asked:
Professor James Lewis, Wolfson and Oriental Studies:
'Given that the University is carrying extraordinarily low levels of debt compared to the sector generally and that the sector-average operational surplus lies at 3.7% or less, and that reportedly 90% of donations to the Oxford Thinking campaign come from Humanities and Social Science graduates, why is an operational surplus of 5% or more given absolute priority in the University strategic plan, when this policy results in small savings but irreparable damage to research infrastructure, to the University’s reputation and would cripple efforts to obtain endowments?'
The following reply to the above question has been approved by Council:
‘HEFCE requires higher education institutions to adopt a financial strategy appropriate to their strategic plan. This must encompass how resources will be used and how activities and infrastructure will be financed. On the recommendation of its Finance Committee, which assessed the appropriate figure to provide long term financial sustainability for the University in meeting its strategic objectives, Council adopted a 5% EBITDA target. This target is intended to enable a sufficient surplus to be generated, after covering operational costs, to enable the University’s estate to be replaced on a rolling basis and to contribute to the cost of new capital projects, thereby supporting and sustaining the University’s teaching and research activities. The University’s estate includes buildings, IT infrastructure and research equipment.
Strong financial management and evidence of fiscal responsibility are also key to securing debt finance and attracting funding from donors and funding bodies, who seek assurance that the University is able to manage and spend its income effectively. This is especially important given our efforts to increase funding to the libraries from external sources, such as industry, grants and philanthropy. These efforts are part of a wider attempt by the University to diversify its funding streams, in order to mitigate the impact of anticipated reductions in public funding.
On the Oxford Thinking campaign, of the £1.065bn given to the University to date, 15% has come from individual alumni. The remainder of the funds contributed have come from non-alumni (25%), trusts and foundations (50%), and corporations and other organisations (10%). As previously stated, efforts will continue to maximise philanthropic giving and so grow the Bodleian Libraries’ endowment fund further. The value of that fund has increased from £27m to £45.5m over the last five years.
The sustainability of the Bodleian Libraries and their delivery of effective service provision are a key priority. As universities across the UK consider how to respond in the face of reductions in public funding, Council seeks to safeguard the reputation and success of the University in its academic endeavours, not least through its library provision. As Council stated in its initial reply, Council is clear about the importance of the Bodleian Libraries to the University, its students and its staff.’
Professor John Ma, Corpus Christi and Faculty of Classics:
'Given that, for Humanities and Social Sciences, libraries are the equivalent of laboratories and other equipment, could Council explain why capital investment in new projects is prioritised over the running costs of existing world-class research library infrastructure?'
The following reply to the above question has been approved by Council:
‘In adopting a financial strategy appropriate to the strategic plan, Council seeks to achieve a balance between competing priorities, including between capital investment in new projects and the maintenance of existing infrastructure. An example of the former is the redevelopment of the Weston Library. The New Bodleian was in urgent need of upgrading to modern standards required for one of the largest and most important repositories of historical and legal deposit materials in the world. A recent example of the latter is the replacement of IT infrastructure to provide resilient support for library services.
In order to understand the potential impacts of proposed changes to library provision on teaching and research, the views and experiences of library users are vitally important. Consultation processes provide a mechanism by which views on specific proposals can be canvassed, such as the recent consultation on the Sackler Library, following which the proposals were rejected. Alongside specific consultation processes, the Bodleian Libraries are committed to creating regular opportunities for dialogue with library users.’