You may have seen the large advertisements in the press this week advertising new academic positions at Sussex. Because of the timing of the launch of our new 'visual identity', the advertisements make subtle references to the new identity, rather than using it explicitly. But the message that is conveyed about the University is clear and optimistic: we are confidently investing in the future of the University, and the University is confident that it will continue to be a pioneering, creative, international and excellent institution.

The decision to advertise a substantial number of new positions has of course been based on a judgement about our financial future. As I wrote in my last column (Bulletin 16 January), our current finances are quite strained, and it is the expectation of additional fee income from 2006 onwards that allows us to invest in new jobs now. If the Higher Education Bill had not passed its Second Reading, we could not have placed this advertisement. If the Higher Education Bill does not successfully complete its passage through Parliament this spring, we will face very difficult decisions.

The decisions about where to invest are not easy, or at least not all easy. The areas of strongest student demand, such as Psychology, English and International Relations, are obvious candidates for new appointments. But the overall growth of student demand and the need for investment in academic development in advance of the next Research Assessment Exercise (RAE) means that there are many more legitimate claims for new appointments than we could afford. I hope that next year we can address those strong claims which were not addressed this year.

It has been confirmed this week that the next RAE will take place in 2008, 19 months later than originally planned, and seven months later than envisaged before the Roberts review took place. The change in timetable should not result in any relaxation - at this point in the RAE cycle it is imperative that we maintain the pressure to deliver the best possible results in 2008. I think that the changes in methodology that are proposed will be good for us, but we also need to be aware that the competition gets more intense each time round. Whatever we are aiming to do, other universities will be aiming to do better. We also need to be aware of the threat posed by the current fashion for concentration of research funding; and ensure that we are among those on whom funding is concentrated.

By the time, this column appears, the outcome of the AUT's ballot on industrial action will be known. Of course, I hope that there will not be industrial action. I strongly support one of the AUT's objectives, and strongly oppose another.

There is overwhelming evidence that the pay of academic staff has fallen behind that of comparable jobs elsewhere over the past 20 years. We can all agree that a solution to this problem requires more money - complex comparisons of different incremental pay systems are a secondary issue. So I strongly support the case for higher pay (and I see the HE Bill as the only proposal on the table for getting the additional funding for universities that will allow them to meet this need).

But apart from pay, the AUT is arguing for the maintenance of a status differential between different categories of support staff. The other unions - the TGWU, Unison, and Amicus - support the proposed new unified pay structure for higher education staff, and oppose the AUT's wish to maintain status differentials. In this dispute I am on the side of the majority.