Agenda

National Executive Council

Meeting of:

33rd meeting of the National Executive Council of the National Union of Students

Place:

Liverpool Guild of Students, 160 Mount Pleasant, Liverpool, L3 5TR

Date and time:

3 December 2014

Members:
Zones

Toni Pearce (President & Chair)

Joe Vinson & Amy-Victoria Prior (Further Education)
Megan Dunn & Sorana Vieru (Higher Education)
Piers Telemacque & Samayya Afzal (Society & Citizenship)
Raechel Mattey & Laura Jackson (Union Development)
Colum McGuire & Sidonie Bertrand-Shelton (Welfare)

Liberation

Malia Bouattia & Zekarias Negussue (Black Students)

Maddy Kirkman & James Elliott (Disabled Students)
Robbie Young & Fran Cowling (LGBT)
Susuana Antubam & Rochelle Owusu-Antwi (Womens)

Sections

Shreya Paudel & Teodora Teodorescu (International Students)

Kae Smith & Erin Lee (Mature & Part Time Students)
Ste Smith & Sai Englert (Postgraduate Students)

Nations

Beth Button & Grace Burton (NUS Wales)

Gordon Maloney & Kirsty Haigh (NUS Scotland)
Rebecca Hall & Fergal McFerran (NUS-USI)

Block

Abdi-Aziz Suleiman, Zarah Sultana, Miki Vyse, Dario Celaschi, Amy Smith, Poppy
Wilkinson, Charlie Agran, Clifford Fleming, Daniel Cooper, Aaron Kiely, Shakira Martin,
Hannah Graham, Vonnie Sandlan, Edmund Schluessel.

Apologies:

Michael Rubin

In attendance:

Meg Evans

No

Item

Action

Paper

Lead

Verbal

TP

1. Introduction, administration and governance

1.1

Welcome and Presidents opening remarks

1.2

Apologies, quorum count and notice of meeting

Note

Verbal

TP

1.3

Disclosure of potential conflicts of interest from the agenda

Note

Verbal

TP

1.4

Minutes of the last meeting September 16 2014

Approve

1.4

TP

1.5

Actions and matter arising from the last meeting September 16

2014

Discuss

1.5

TP

1.6

Note new members elected to NEC positions

Note

Verbal

TP

2. Accountability and NEC Member Priorities

2.1

National President Priorities and questions

Approve

2.1

TP

2.2

Zone reports and questions

Approve

2.2

VPs

2.3

Liberation reports and questions

Note

2.3

2.4

Sections reports and questions

Note

2.4

2.5

Nations reports and questions

Note

2.5

Note

Verbal

Discuss

4.1

3. Papers
3.1

Update on Estimates 2015/6

LUNCH
4. Motions
4.1

Ordinary motions

5. AOB

Date of Next Meeting

The next NEC meeting will take place on 4 March 2015.

TP

Time

National Executive Council

Meeting of:

32nd meeting of the National Executive Council of the National Union of

Students

Place:

Derbyshire House, St Chad's Street, London WC1H 8AG, UK

Date and time:

11:00, Tuesday 16th September 2014

Members
present:
Zones

Liberation

Toni Pearce (President & Chair)

Joe Vinson & VACANT (Further Education)
Megan Dunn & Tom Flynn (Higher Education)
Raechel Mattey & Nosheen Dad (Union Development)
Colum McGuire (Welfare)
Piers Telemacque (Society and Citizenship)
Malia Bouattia & Zekarias Negussue (Black Students)
Maddy Kirkman & James Elliott (Disabled Students)
Robbie Young & Fran Cowling (LGBT)
Susuana Antubam & Rochelle Owusu-Antwi (Womens)

Sections

Shreya Paudel (International Students)

Kae Smith & Erin Lee (Mature & Part Time Students)
Ste Smith & Sai Englert (Postgraduate Students)

Nations

Gordon Maloney & Kirsty Haigh (NUS Scotland)

Beth Button (NUS Wales)
Rebecca Hall & Fergal McFerran (NUS-USI)

Block

Amy Smith, Michael Rubin, Poppy Wilkinson, Miki Vyse, Dario Celaschi, Shakira
Martin, Daniel Cooper, Aaron Kiely, Clifford Fleming, Abdi-Aziz Suleiman, Zarah
Sultana, Edmund Schluessel, Vonnie Sandlan, Hannah Graham, Charlotte
Agran.

Apologies:

Ste Smith, Grace Burton, Hugh Murdoch, Chantel LeCarpentier,

Absences:

Teodora Teodorescu

In attendance:

Amy Davies, Meg Evans, Graeme Wise, Alex Jones, Kelly Williams, Alison
Chappell, Ebbi Ferguson, Rosie Inman, Azfar Shafi,

1. Introductory & Administration

1.1

Toni Pearce (TP) opened the meeting and welcomed members.

1.2

Apologies were noted as above.

1.3

There were no conflicts of interests declared.

1.4

Minutes of the meeting held on 4th August 2014

1.5

Matters arising from the minutes

There were no matters arising from the minutes.

The minutes were approved.
2. Reports and accountability
2.1 Presidents Priorities
Toni Pearce National President
TP presented her report and opened up discussion to the NEC for questions.
Edmund Schluessel (ES) asked some questions around bias of the chair and transparency of the NEC
to member unions. TP assured ES that she chairs the NEC fairly and will continue to do so and that
with regards to the last NEC meeting did not allow anyone in the compositing session who wasnt
involved in the submission of the motions. In relation to transparency, explained that work is being
done to improve this and will include updates before and after meetings to the membership as well
as NUS tweeting during the meetings. Also there is already availability to download the papers from
NUS Connect for those interested.
Vonnie Sandlan (VS) asked a question about the lad culture work and the involvement of the
womens campaign. TP assured the NEC that the lad culture group was jointly chaired by the
Womens Officer and herself.
Daniel Cooper (DC) asked about plans for the TUC demo, work commission and lobbying Act. TP
explained that NUS would be involved in the demo, outlined the likely recommendations of the work
commission and that out advice to unions on the lobbying act would be robust.
Tom Flynn (TF) asked about the Lead and Change programme. Toni assured NEC that NUS was
reviewing the feedback and that the decision to work with Movement for Change was taken by the
officers and that this wouldnt be repeated in future.
2.2 Zone Convenors presented on priorities for the year ahead.

Joe Vinson Vice President Further Education

JV presented the report on the VPFE work.
Shakira Martin (SM) asked about EMA and what action was being done. Joe explained that the policy
is now live and briefing is on the General Election hub, there is a blog released explaining our costed
proposals up on NUS Connect and that EMA is a part of the wider lobbying work we're doing on
student financial support in FE.
Megan Dunn Vice President Higher Education
MD presented the report on the VPHE work.
DC asked for MDs response on Liam Byrnes most recent proposal. Megan answered that there are
some promising statements around the unsustainability of the current system but its lacking in
concrete policy proposals. Its also really good to see the beginning of a conversation around PG
funding, although again lacking in a proposal. There are also some interesting ideas that are more
FE based that Im sure you can talk to Joe about. ME said she was uneasy about the role the report
is suggesting businesses should play in education running the risk of taking out a market in fees but
introducing a different market at the same time.
Raechel Mattey Vice President Union Development
RM presented the report of the VPUD work and added comments on the apprentice work.
Kirsty Haigh (KH) asked about changes to the fair trade mark and how this affects Epona. RM
reassured NEC that Epona were in dialogue with Fair Trade and are continuing to explore a
legitimate living wage option for factory workers making Epona products. RM will continue to update
NEC with any developments with this and invites anyone interested in this topic to get in touch.
Colum McGuire Vice President
CM presented the report of the VPW work.
CM added that the government consultation came back to commit to introduce a sharia-compliant
student finance system, but that we still had work to do to pressure any outgoing or incoming
government to implement it.
CM talked about the campaign around new students left without university rooms due to increase in
student numbers and poor planning on part of universities and asked for the NECs assistance in
passing on any information they may come across.
CM also added that he and Toni had met with the Student Loans Company where they formally
apologised to us for use of aggressive collection letters and assured us it wouldnt happen again.
They also spoke positively about implementing monthly student loans if government agreed which is
a welcome change.
DC asked a question about what the tenant activist project was and CM clarified this.
Piers Telemacque Vice President Society and Citizenship

PT tabled the report on the VPSC work and circulated copies to everyone.
Miki Vyse (MV) asked a question on why the report was late and why he was pictured in holiday
photos posted on social media in a way that undermined his position of leadership and
responsibility.
PT explained that the report was late due to commitments he had and also that in hindsight should
have asked for support to fill it in. He explained the pictures of him on his personal facebook profile
were interpreted out of context which made it look worse than it was and that he had sorted out the
privacy settings and he apologised for any offense caused.
Abdi-Aziz Suleiman (AS) commended Piers on prioritising work on improving youth services and
funding. PT explained in more detail the work and what his aims were for the year.
2.3 Liberation priorities were outlined to note
Black Students Campaign
Malia Bouattia (MB) presented the Black Students Campaign report.
NEC congratulated Malia on the being awarded the #EightWomen of Media Diversified.
Disabled Students Campaign
Maddy Kirkman (MK) presented the Disabled Students campaign report
LGBT Campaign
Fran Cowling (FC) and Robbie Young (RY) presented the LGBT Campaign report.
Womens campaign
Susuana Antubam (SA) presented the Womens Campaign report.

2.4 Sections report:

International Students Campaign
Shreya Paudel (SP) presented the International Students Campaign report.
SP gave the NEC further update on the tier 4 visa issues.
Mature and Part Time
Kae Smith (KS) & Erin Lee (EL) gave a verbal update on the work of the campaign and explained that the
priority this year would be on child friendly work and ensuring that this MPT is moved up on the agenda for
officers and candidates.
Postgraduate
Sai Englert (SE) gave a verbal update on the work of the campaign and explained that the committee had
recently met and agreed that the priorities this year would be postgraduate funding, workers in university and
supporting the development of postgraduate research.

2.5 Nations report:

NUS Wales

Beth Button (BB) presented the NUS Wales report.

NUS Scotland
Gordon Maloney (GM) presented the NUS Scotland report.
Vonnie Sandlan (VS) gave an update on the recent Womens symposium.
NUS-USI
Rebecca Hall (RH) gave a verbal update on the work in NUS USI

3.1 Campaign Budgets and work plan 2014/15

TP presented the paper on the years budget allocations across the Other campaigns and priority and long
term campaign budgets as approved by National Conference.
TP explained that the overall total of Other Campaigns was reduced to fund the cost of making both LGBT
Officers full time positions.
TP explained that the joint budget was to fund the liberation activist training days.
Following a question on the amount allocated to Mature and Part Time and Postgraduate TP explained that if it
was helpful to the committee and diary permitting she could attend their committee to talk through funding the
work of the sections.
NEC approved the campaign budget allocations.
NEC approved the work plans and on the understanding that the liberation campaigns were able to revise theirs
and take them to their committee for approval.
3.2 NUS Charity remit and activity statement
RM presented the Charity remit and activity statement for approval.
NEC approved the report.

3.3 Note those subject to no platform

NEC noted those subject to no platform as approved by National Conference

Motions
4.1 Ordinary Motions
Procedural Motions
Motion 8 will be discussed first
To remove amendment 6.1 and 4.1
Statements Sai Enlert and Charlotte Agran both gave statements
Motion 8 Stand against National Action
Speech For: Charlotte Agran
Speech against: none
VOTE: PASSED
Motion 1 Shahrokh Zamani and Reza Shahabi Solidarity

Speech For: Daniel Cooper

Speech Against: none
VOTE: PASSED
Motion 2 Iraqi Solidarity
Speech For: Shreya Paudel
Speech Against: Malia Bouattia
VOTE: FELL
Motion 3 Fighting for free education and decent jobs for all
Speech For: Kirsty Haigh
Amendment 3.1
Speech For: Aaron Kiely
Speech Against: none
VOTE: PASSED
Amendment 3.2
Speech For: Edmund Schluessel
Speech Against: none
VOTE: PASSED
Speech Against: Tom Flynn
Speech For: Megan Dunn
Speech Against: Michael Rubin
VOTE: PASSED
Motion 4 Palestine Israel: Building solidarity
Speech For: Daniel Cooper
Speech Against: Miki Vyse
Speech For: Abdi-Aziz Suleiman
Speech Against: Zarah Sultana
VOTE: FELL
Motion 5 Getting out the vote
Speech For: Poppy Wilkinson
Speech Against: none
VOTE: PASSED
Motion 6 Defeating the rise of anti-Semitism
Speech For: Dario Celaschi
Speech Against: none
Parts: Remove Believes 3
Speech For: Daniel Cooper
Speech Against: Dario Celaschi
VOTE: Parts kept
Back to motion
VOTE: PASSED
Recorded vote on Motion 6 (including vote on parts)

Name
AK

Parts Keep/Remove/Abstain
Keep

Motion 6 For/Against/Abstain
For

MV
CA

Keep
Keep

For
For

DCE
HG

Keep
Keep

For
For

CM
RM

Keep
Keep

For
For

ZS
SA

Keep
Keep

For
For

MB
MK

Keep
Abstain

Abstain
For

ZN
PT

Keep
Abstain

For
For

ND
ES

Keep
Keep

For
For

VS
GM

Keep
Keep

For
For

SE
MD

Keep
Keep

For
For

BB
RH

Keep
Keep

For
For

JE
SP

Abstain
Keep

For
For

CF
EL

Keep
Keep

For
For

FC
KH

Keep
Keep

For
For

KS
AS

Keep
Abstain

For
For

TG
RY

Abstain
Keep

For
For

MR
JB

Keep
Keep

For
For

PW
DLC

Keep
Abstain

For
For

Motion 7 Care leavers and education

Speech For: Vonnie Sandlan
Speech Against: None
VOTE: PASSED
NEC further believes 6 second sentence
Speech For: Maddy Kirkman
Speech Against: Vonnie Sandlan
VOTE: Parts removed
Motions 9 Protecting vital hardship funding in Wales
Speech For: Beth Button
Speech Against: none
VOTE: PASSED

The meeting came to a close. TP thanked NEC for the meeting and particularly thanked the 4 members;
Nosheen Dad, Tom Flynn, Hugh Murdoch and Chantel LeCarpentier who would be retiring from the NEC after
the meeting. They were given lifetime membership of NUS.

Motions
Motion 1: Anti-Casualisation and Living Wage
speaking tour
Proposed by:

Edmund Schluessel

Seconded by:

Ste Smith, Sai Englert, Michael Rubin

NEC Believes:
1. NUS Postgraduate Conference 2014 voted to mandate the PG NEC reps to bring a motion to NEC to
organise a speaking tour bringing together living wage campaigners and anti casualisation campaigners
in conjunction with trade unions
2. Industrial action by trade unions in 2013/14 won the living wage in the UK's universities
3. A movement is building throughout the US and UK for living wages & higher minimum wages, as
exemplified by the successful 15 Now campaign in Seattle, Washington, USA and the Fast Food Rights
campaign in the UK.
4. A growing number of trade unions support the demand for 10/hour minimum wage, including GMB,
bakers' union BFAWU and Unite.
5. Disparate sections & campaigns within NUS have policy supporting living wages or better minimum
wages & against casualisation but no consensus position exists.
6. Disparate sections & campaigns within NUS have varying positions on zero hour contracts.
7. Opposing casualisation is in the interest of all NUS members.

NEC Resolves:
1. To authorise NUS Postgraduate Campaign to organise & promote the speaking tour as specified on
behalf of NUS as a whole, on the basis of zero cost to NUS and a broad representation of campaigners
& campaigning groups.
2. As a minimal position we support an end to age banding of the minimum wage & an increase in the
minimum wage to reach the Living Wage Campaign's calculated hourly living wage (7.68 outside
London and 8.80 in London in 2014);
a. we prefer a minimum wage level of 10/hour, as determined by the level needed for a singleincome family with two children to live above the poverty line while in full-time employment;
b. The position outlined in this motion does not override policy set by NUS's sections;
c. We remain committed to an overall goal of a society where all people can contribute & make
best use of their potential without having to fear deprivation, shortage or oppression.
3. We support flexibility in working conditions as long as the benefit from this flexibility is for the worker,
not for the employer.

Motion 2: Standing up for sex workers, supporting

decriminalisation of sex work
Proposed by:

Susuana Antubam

Seconded by:

Vonnie Sandlan, Kae Smith, James Elliott, Gordon Maloney

NEC Believes:
1.

Sex work refers to escorting, lap dancing, stripping, pole dancing, pornography,
webcaming, adult modelling, phone sex, and selling sex (on and off the street)[1].

2.
3.
4.
5.

6.

7.

8.

9.
10.

Selling sex is not illegal in the UK but it is criminalised[2]. Almost everything that sex
workers do to stay safe is illegal[3].
Financial reasons, and any criminal record gain due to the criminalisation of sex work, are
usually cited as the main reason for staying in sex work[4].
There are a disproportionate number of disabled people, migrants, especially
undocumented or semi-documented migrants, LGBT people and single parents (the vast
majority of whom are women) involved in sex work[5].
The financial cost of being disabled, the cost of childcare, the cost of medical transition
and hormones, racism in the workplace, the vulnerability of undocumented migrants to
exploitation in other forms of work and the prejudice faced by LGBT and disabled people
undoubtedly contribute to this overrepresentation.
The criminalisation of sex workers clients, known as the Swedish Model, was recently
passed in the Northern Irish Assembly, despite government-commissioned research
showing that 98% of sex workers working in Northern Ireland did not want this
introduced[6].
Organisations that support the decriminalisation of sex work include the World Health
Organisation[7], UN Women[8], the Global Commission on HIV and the Law[9], Human
Rights Watch, the NUS Disabled Students Campaign[10] and the Royal College of
Nurses[11].
The Global Alliance Against Traffic in Women opposes introducing criminal penalties
against the clients of sex workers. Their research found that criminalising clients does not
reduce sex work or trafficking, but infringes on sex workers rights & obstructs antitrafficking efforts[12].
The decriminalisation of prostitution was introduced in New Zealand in 2003[13] by
Labour MP Tim Barnett, who called the debate on decriminalisation the most significant
debate on a moral issue since the decriminalisation of homosexuality[14].
The criminalisation of sex workers clients has been proven to lead to further distrust of
the police amongst sex workers, a willingness of sex workers to engage in more risky
behaviour/safety procedures out of desperation, and does not reduce overall levels of
prostitution [15].

NEC Further Believes:

1.
2.
3.
4.

5.
6.
7.
8.

9.
10.

Sex work is work. Sex work is the exchange of money for labour, like any other job. It is
different because it is currently criminalised and stigmatised.
People should be free to choose what they do with their time, their labour and their
bodies. If they have fewer choices, our solution should be to expand their choices, not
take options away through further criminalisation.
The right of consenting adults to engage in sexual relations is of no business to anyone
but the people involved.
The moral panic around sex work and prostitution echoes the moral panic that was
present when homosexuality was in the process of being decriminalised. It is no
coincidence that many who argue for harsh anti-prostitution laws under the guise of
feminism also voted against equal marriage and similar civil rights measures.
With the rise in living costs, the increase in tuition fees, and the slashing of benefits for
disabled people, it is highly likely that some students do sex work alongside their studies.
The lack of funding for postgraduate education makes it likely that some students use sex
work as a means to fund their postgraduate degrees.
Stigma against sex work means that sex workers are less likely to seek out help and
support if and when they need it.
Regardless of their reasons for entering into sex work, all sex workers deserve to have
their rights protected and to be able to do their jobs safely. This includes sex workers who
do not find their job empowering. Whether or not you enjoy a job should have no
bearing on the rights you deserve while you do it.
NUS have a proud history of standing for social justice and for the rights of workers
across the world to do their jobs safely and to unionise, regardless of their student status.
The Stonewall Riots, which kick started the LGBT Pride movement NUS proudly champions
today were started by Martha P. Johnson and other trans sex workers of colour.

11.
12.

13.

14.
15.
16.

17.

18.
19.

Tim Barnett was correct in asserting that prostitution is inevitable, and no country has
succeeded in legislating it out of existence[16]. Sweden cannot show a reduction in the
number of sex workers.
Legislation targeted at combatting poverty, austerity, universalising childcare and a living
wage, sufficient social housing, and accessible education funding and living grants, is
more likely to ensure those who do not wish to work in the sex industry do not feel forced
to by economic circumstances.
Decriminalisation would ensure that sex workers feel able to report unsafe clients or
violence at work without the worry of criminal repercussions, that several sex workers can
work together for safety, and that those who wish to leave the sex industry are not left
with criminal records as a result of their job.
The pushes for legislation which would criminalise the purchase of sex are often
spearheaded by anti-choice, anti-LGBT right-wing fundamentalists, working with radical
feminists[17].
Legislation of this kind is often brought forward in the name of anti-trafficking
programmes in reality it is primarily being used to target immigrant sex workers for
raids and deportations.
The ILO estimates that over 75% of trafficking globally is into industries such as fisheries,
agriculture and domestic work - not into sex work[18]. An effective anti-trafficking
strategy would strengthen the rights of all migrant workers in order to crack down on
exploitation by managers. Treating the sex industry as exceptional leaves the majority of
exploited migrant workers out in the cold - and the police arent the allies of migrant
workers, whether theyre sex workers or agricultural workers.
A recent example of how simplistic anti-trafficking policies harm migrant sex workers
was the Soho raids 250 police broke down doors of brothels operating in Soho, dragging
handcuffed immigrant sex workers in their underwear out on the street. No evidence of
trafficking was found and the flats have now been reopened, but women were deported
against their will as trafficking victims.
The Joint Committee on Human Rights report on Human Trafficking confirmed that
victims often find themselves treated as immigration offenders and face detention and
removals[19].
Criminalising the purchase of sex puts sex workers, especially those who work on the
street, in danger. It is impossible to criminalise an aspect of someones job without it
having a negative impact on the person at work[20].

NEC Resolves:
1.
2.
3.

To support and campaign for the full decriminalisation of sex work.

To campaign against any attempt to introduce the Nordic Model into the UK.
To support and be led by sex worker led organisations, such as the English Collective of
Prostitutes, Sex Worker Open University and SCOT-PEP, who work to improve the lives of
sex workers across the UK.

[1] From here on, references are made to sex work in this motion refer to full service sex work
escorting, prostitution, etc. Other strands of sex work are stigmatised, but not criminalised in
the way that full service sex work is criminalised.
[2] Similar laws operate in Scotland, Wales & England. Prostitution (the exchange of sexual
services for money) is not illegal, but associated activities (soliciting in a public place, kerb
crawling, operating a brothel) are. The main laws around sex work in the UK are: the Vagrancy
Act of 1824; the Sexual Offences Act of 1956 and the Street Offences Act of 1959 (England and
Wales); the Burgh Police (Scotland) Act of 1892 and the Sexual Offences (Scotland) Act of 1976,
Sexual Offences Act 2003, Policing and Crime Act 2009, Crime and Disorder Act 1998, AntiSocial Behaviour Act 2002, Proceeds of Crime Act 2002.
[3] See http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/jan/06/prostitutes-criminalised &
http://sabotagetimes.com/people/sheila-farmer-and-the-brothel-that-never-was/. Sheila Farmer
is a disabled sex worker who entered the industry after her disability left her unable to work
working with friends for safety after being raped, she was charged with brothel keeping but the

charges were eventually dropped after she began to campaign publicly about what she had been
put through by attackers, the police and the authorities. Her experiences are not uncommon.
[4] http://www.dojni.gov.uk/index/publications/publication-categories/pubs-criminaljustice/prostitution-report-nov-update.pdf, p.8; http://www.justice.govt.nz/policy/commercialproperty-and-regulatory/prostitution/prostitution-law-review-committee/publications/plrcreport/documents/report.pdf, p.15
[5] Safety First Coalition
[6] http://www.dojni.gov.uk/index/publications/publication-categories/pubs-criminaljustice/prostitution-report-nov-update.pdf, p.11
[7] http://www.who.int/hiv/mediacentre/feature_story/sti_guidelines/en/
[8] http://sexualrightsinitiative.com/2013/sri-partners/sri-welcomes-un-womens-strongposition-on-sex-work-sexual-exploitation-and-trafficking-in-persons/
[9]
http://www.unaids.org/en/resources/presscentre/featurestories/2012/july/20120711lawcommiss
ion
[10] Policy passed 11/11/14
[11] http://www.theguardian.com/society/2005/apr/27/health.crime

[12] http://www.gaatw.org/publications/MovingBeyond_SupplyandDemand_GAATW2011.pdf
[13] Prostitution Reform Act 2003
[14] http://www.parliament.nz/ennz/pb/debates/debates/47HansD_20030625_00001319/prostitution-reform-bill-%E2%80%94procedure-third-reading
[15] http://www.dojni.gov.uk/index/publications/publication-categories/pubs-criminaljustice/prostitution-report-nov-update.pdf; http://www.parliament.nz/ennz/pb/debates/debates/47HansD_20030625_00001319/prostitution-reform-bill-%E2%80%94procedure-third-reading; http://prostitutescollective.net/2014/11/05/victory-amendmentcriminalise-sex-workers-clients-defeated/; http://prostitutescollective.net/2009/02/04/letterfrom-tim-barnett-former-new-zealand-mp-on-the-policing-and-crime-bill-2/;
http://prostitutescollective.net/2014/10/30/urgent-mps-trying-criminalise-clients/; The National
Board of Health & Welfare, 2008
[16] http://prostitutescollective.net/2009/02/04/letter-from-tim-barnett-former-new-zealandmp-on-the-policing-and-crime-bill-2/
[17] E.g. the Democratic Unionist Party, CARE, Ruhama, End Demand.
[18] http://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/---ed_norm/--declaration/documents/publication/wcms_214472.pdf
[19] http://prostitutescollective.net/2014/10/30/urgent-mps-trying-criminalise-clients/; TwentySixth report of session, 2005-6, Vol. 1

[20] Safety First Coalition

Motion 3: International students and the NHS

Proposed by:

Shreya Paudel

Seconded by:

Teodora Teodorescu , Malia Bouattia, Edmund Schluessel, Erin Lee, Aaron Kiely, Abdiaziz Suleiman, Smeyye Ood-Sigma Afzal , Zekarias Negussue , Rochelle Antwi, Zarah
Sultana, Clifford Fleming

NEC Believes:
1. According to the 2014 Immigration Act, from May 2015, students and workers from outside the EU will
have to pay a NHS surcharge of up to 200 per year before they are given a visa. The charges apply
to primary care (GPs) and A&E departments, as well as secondary care.
2. To enforce these surcharges, NHS staff will have to check the immigration status of everyone who uses
the NHS, whenever they register for a GP practice or go into A&E for emergency treatment.
3. The Department of Health is currently writing the secondary legislation which will lay out how the law is
implemented. It will soon begin piloting the new registration database and will start implementing the
visa surcharge and other charges within the next six months.

NEC Further Believes:

1. As immigration checks are forced upon overburdened A&E, GP and hospital staff, mistakes are
inevitable and patients will suffer. The Act states that Trusts will receive financial incentives to recoup
costs. This means pressuring staff to racially profile patients into those deemed eligible for free care,
and those not. This discriminates patients, and goes against every NHS Trust policy on Equality and
Diversity towards patients and staff.
2. The NHS surcharge forces international students and migrants to contribute more than the rest of
society in order to access NHS services. Migrants who come to the UK to work or study already pay
into the system in many ways through taxes, National Insurance, VAT and tuition fees. The
Immigration Act fails to recognise migrants work within NHS itself. While international students
contribute 14 billion to the UK economy every year, they are made the scapegoat of austerity.
3. The NHS has never been a contribution or insurance-based system, and this surcharge is a move away
from the universal principles on which it was founded. Although these changes seem small, it brings us
closer to the American model where people are denied care because of their inability to pay.
4. When immigration enforcement enters the NHS many people will become scared and deterred from
seeking care because their movements will be reported to the Home Office. Health workers shouldnt be
responsible for policing patients immigration status.
5. The patients health conditions will worsen and conditions that could have been more simply treated at
an early stage will bring them to A&E at a much greater cost to the entire system.
6. All people resident in the UK should be treated as humans, not wrongly categorized as vectors of
infection for British citizens. All chronic conditions should be treated equally, regardless of a patient's
national origin.

NEC Resolves:
1. To work with International Students Campaign to campaign against the systemic change in NHS and
fight the anti-immigrant rhetoric in every front.
2.

To send a press release in supporting the rights of international students and migrants to access health
care service.

3. To include the provision for international students health care in NUS general campaigns and briefings
around NHS.

Motion 4: Stand up to racism and fascism

Supporting UN Anti-Racism day 2015
Proposed by:

Aaron Kiely

Seconded by:

Vonnie Sandlan, Sai Englert, Shreya Paudel

NUS NEC believes:

1. Following the success of last years 10,000 strong demonstration, backed by the TUC and
supported by NUS, another international day of action has been called coinciding with United Nations
(UN) Anti-Racism Day. UN Anti-Racism Day commemorates the victims of the Sharpeville massacre
in Apartheid South Africa.
2. Last years event received support from Frances OGrady (TUC General Secretary), Rabbi Lee
Wax, Emily Thornberry MP, Peter Hain MP, Diane Abbott MP, Claude Moraes MEP, Natalie Bennett
(Green Party), Farooq Murad ( Muslim Council of Britain Secretary General), Don Flyn (Director
Migrant Rights Network), Habib Rahman (Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants Chief
Executive), Morris Beckman (43 Group Co-Founder), Leon Silver (East London Central Synagogue
President), Phyllis Opoku-Gyimah (UK Black Pride Executive Director), Gerry Gable (Searchlight
Editor), The Sikh Federation UK, (Sylvia Ingmire Co-Ordinator / CEO Roma Support Group) and 20
General Secretaries of trade unions across Britain.
3. Once again, many organisations have come together to reject racism, Islamophobia and antiSemitism; to celebrate diversity and show that migrants are welcome; to demonstrate our
confidence in a future free of scapegoating, racism and hatred; and to remember Nelson Mandela
and cherish the ideal of a free and democratic society in which all persons live together in harmony
and equal opportunities.

NUS NEC further believes:

1. Far right and fascist organisations are gaining support across Europe including in Britain.
Arguments wrongly blaming immigrants for the fall in standard of living, economic problems and
austerity have provided the cutting edge of support for the far right, fascism and racism.
2. Across the globe the promotion of fear and hatred of Muslims and Islam is continuing, creating a
climate of Islamophobia that is directly leading to violent attacks on Muslim people and Mosques,
and other communities such as Sikhs and Hindus who are wrongly identified by racists as Muslim.
Anti-Semitic attacks have also coincided with the growth in support for fascism. Black African and
Caribbean communities continue to experience racism and hatred as seen with the killing of Michael
Brown in the USA.
3. The political climate is currently dominated by racism, xenophobia, anti-Semitism and the
scapegoating of minorities including Muslims, immigrants, Roma, Black and Asian communities.

NUS NEC resolves:

1.

To re-affirm NUS commitment to the elimination of racism in all its forms.

2.
To join the individuals and organisations signed up to support the Stand Up To Racism rally
and demo on the 21st March.
3.
To encourage students to attend the demonstration in London, Glasgow and Cardiff and hold
activities on their campuses around the day of action.

Motion 5: Kurdish Solidarity

Proposed by:

Malia Bouattia

Seconded by:

Zekarias Negussue, Toni Pearce, Abdi-Aziz Suleiman, Zarah Sultana, Piers Telemacque,
Vonnie Sandlan, Gordon Maloney, Kirsty Haigh, Sai Englert, Colum McGuire, Megan Dunn

Committees:

NEC

NEC Believes:
1. The Kurdish people have been fighting for freedom and democracy throughout the course of history and
are amongst the largest stateless groups in the world.
2. They have experienced mass genocides committed by surrounding states, followed by mass
displacement and millions of refugees.
3. There is a new democratic structure in the 3 cantons of Rojava which has been set up by the people of
the region and enacts womens rights as well as other forms of social justice for all those oppressed.
4. Kurdish women have played a key role by co-leading the resistance in the region, with non patriarchal
and anti-sexist methods which has also been the case throughout history.
5. The Kurdish people in Kobane are restricted in healthcare, food and clothing.
6. The Kurdish struggle aims to protect co-existence between the different ethnic and religious groups.

NEC Further Believes:

1. That all peoples have the right to self-determination.
2. Rojava is entitled to its independent political establishment which is inclusive of all the communities
within the region.
3. That the Kurdish struggle should be recognised and supported by the international community.
4. That the Kurdish people should lead in defining their freedom and making demands of solidarity.
5. That kidnapping sexual abuse and trafficking of Kurdish women and children are crimes against
humanity.
6. That ISIS should be condemned for its atrocities, against the Kurdish people and all others who have
been affected.
7. That aid should not be prevented from reaching the Kurdish people.
8. Provisions should be put in place to cater for the people in the Kurdish region, namely Rojava, Shingal,
Mosul and Sinjar.

NEC Resolves:
1. That Kurdish emancipation will neither be obtained through groups like ISIS nor imperialist endeavours.
2. To meet with and support the UK Kurdish groups and communitys solidarity efforts and the
international Kurdish diasporas.
3. To call on the international community to recognise the Kurdish resistance.
4. To support the international movement to find and bring back all the Kurdish people who have been
captured by ISIS.
5. To raise awareness about the situation and support Kurdish societies within Students Unions to show
solidarity.
6. To pressure the UK government to meet the needs of the Kurdish community in the UK and within the
region.
7. For relevant officers to campaign to support the Kurdish struggle.
8. To condemn the atrocities committed by ISIS and any other complicit forces.
9. To call on the UK government to meet the needs of refugees from the region.
10. To support womens organizations which help young girls and women who have been abducted and
trafficked.

Motion 6: Ayotzinapa
Proposed by:

Gordon Maloney

Seconded by:

Vonnie Sandlan, Sai Englert, Malia Bouattia, Piers Telemacque, Kirsty Haigh,
Shreya Paudel, James Elliott, Clifford Fleming, Dario Celaschi, Rebecca Hall

NEC Believes:
1. Mexico is in the middle of a humanitarian crisis since 2006, at least 22,000 people have disappeared
and in roughly 40% of these cases there was no criminal investigation.
2. One recent disappearance was of 43 students from the Ayotzinapa Teaching School on the 26th of
September 2014. It is clear that the students were abducted by the police and handed to criminal cartel
organisations.
3. The Cartels have confessed that the 43 students are dead. They were taken to a dump, interrogated
about their politics, tortured, shot and burned.
4. HSBC were fined $1.9 Billion for laundering money for cartels and are therefore complicit in the crisis in
Mexico. (http://www.theguardian.com/business/2012/jul/17/hsbc-executive-resigns-senate)
5. It is clear that there is no distinction between big business, the state and cartel organisations in the aid
and abetting of disappearances.
6. The attack on these student teachers were politically motivated and will not go unnoticed.
7. That this incident has acted as the catalyst to nationwide protests against the corruption of the Mexican
government, privatisation and lack of funding in education.
8. That the Argentine forensic team has discarded that the remains found burned in a landfill
corresponded to the 43 disappeared students
9. That just the 15 of November, 2 students were shot by the police in UNAM university at Mexico City
after invading the campus, breaking the law of university autonomy.
10. That the University of Manchester students union, Kings College London students union and Oxford
students union passed motions of solidarity with the Mexican students in the past month.

NEC Further Believes:

1. The struggle of the IPN students and work of the Rural Teachers are inspirations for the labour and
student movement worldwide.
2. The Mexican state is responsible for this crime.

NEC Resolves:
1. To condemn the Mexican state for the criminalisation and repression of students, and impunity and
negligence before, during and after the investigations.
2. To demand independent, international observed searches for these students whose situation is not yet
known.
3. To urge the NUS, NEC and local trade union branches (UCU, Unite and Unison) operating in universities
to seek out the practicalities of affiliation and forging links with the IPN (Instituto Politecnico Nacional),
UNAM, and Democratic Teachers Union in Mexico.
4. To urge the British government to condemn the events and pressure the Mexican government to
conduct a real investigation of the matter and stop the repression of students
5. To release a statement of solidarity with the ongoing protests and students opposing the Mexican state
on the slogan and hashtag "#Fue el estado." (It was the state).

Motion 7: Tax dodging campaign

Proposed by:

Toni Pearce

Seconded by:

Raechel Mattey, Beth Button, Megan Dunn, Piers Telemacque, Colum McGuire,
Joe Vinson

NEC Believes:
1. Corporate tax dodging sees those most able to pay contributing the least, while the rest of
society picks up the bill.
2. Tax dodging deprives governments of billions of pounds of revenue that could be used to pay
for vital public services, including education.

3. There is wide-ranging public concern with tax dodging, which has been shown to be wholly
justified by a National Audit Office report that more than 400 of the 800 largest businesses in
the UK paid less than 10 million in corporation tax in the 2012/13 fiscal year and around
160 paid no corporation tax at all.[i]
4. New revelations show that global firms, including British household names, channelled more
than a hundred billion pounds through the European tax haven of Luxembourg from 20022010 in order to cut their tax bills at home.[ii] Tax-dodging by multinationals around the
world is also causing harm to developing countries, which are thought to lose billions of
pounds to the problem each year.
5. Some official action has been taken in the UK against the kind of elaborate tax avoidance
schemes made notorious by celebrities. And globally the G20 and OECD are working to close
down some of the most obvious loopholes, but the job is far from done. Britains tax regime
still enables big companies to dodge tax and still offers expensive and economically
questionable tax breaks to business interests which lobby for them.
6. We need a new deal which sees companies pay their fair share of tax.

NEC Further Believes:

1. That this Tax Dodging Bill would act to make it harder for big companies to dodge UK taxes
and would make sure theyre not getting unfair tax breaks, by ensuring that foreign
multinationals cant use tax havens to avoid paying their fair share of tax on their business in
the UK ; and rigorously reviewing tax breaks for big companies and scrapping any which
dont bring true benefits to society
2. This Tax Dodging Bill would further ensure UK tax rules dont encourage big companies to
avoid tax in developing countries, including by toughening up the UKs anti-tax haven rules
to deter tax-dodging at home and abroad and review other tax rules to make sure they dont
harm developing countries;
3. And this Tax Dodging Bill would aim to make the UK tax regime more transparent and
tougher on tax dodging, by requiring big companies to publish their taxes, profits and other
key data for each country where they do business, including by toughening the tax regime,
making tax avoidance schemes riskier and more costly and giving HMRC the means to crack
down harder on tax dodging.
4. The campaign estimates that a Tax Dodging Bill could bring at least 4 billion more a year. [iii]
It would also curb tax avoidance by UK companies in developing countries, which
conservative estimates suggest could save more than 3 billion a year in revenues for
developing countries.[iv]

NEC resolves:
1. To work with campaigning organisations and across the third sector to support the Tax
Dodging Campaign.
2. to call on political parties to commit to introduce a tax dodging bill if elected in 2015
3. To promote the campaign to students unions
4. To continue to campaign for economic justice as an underlying principle of our manifesto at
the general election
[i]

http://www.nao.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/Tax-reliefs.pdf. Page 22.

[ii]

See http://www.icij.org/project/luxembourg-leaks/leaked-documents-expose-globalcompanies-secret-tax-deals-luxembourg. The estimate is roughly $215 billion between 2002

and 2010- 138 billion at the December 2010 exchange rate. These schemes would have
avoided tax in various countries including the UK.
[iii]
This figure is based on the governments own estimate of tax avoidance by large
companies (1.1. billion) a hypothetical figure of 500 million for income from a Google
tax, calculated from seven digital companies global figures for sales and profits as reported
in U.S. corporate filings and UK sales figures taken from Financial Times, Pressure to End
Digital Tax Bonanza, 3rd January 2014 (the calculation assumes that these companies UK
sales would have been profitable as their global sales, and that these profits would have been
taxed at the full UK corporation tax rate at the time) the governments estimates of tax
costs arising from the current Controlled Foreign Companies rules and the Patent Box which
could be recouped in the event of their reform (1.81 billion) and an estimate, based on
media reports, of tax avoided by companies using intra-group financing from tax havens,
specifically via the quoted Eurobond exemption. The total estimate of 3,910 million a year
is not scientific and is offered here in order to stimulate public debate about corporate tax
reform in the UK.
5. [iv] ActionAid has reported that legal tax avoidance by the UK-listed drinks company SABMiller
may have cost governments in Africa and India as much as 20 million per year.
(ActionAid. Calling Time. November 2010. See
http://www.actionaid.org.uk/sites/default/files/doc_lib/sabmiller_right_of_reply_and_respons
e1.pdf for SABMillers response at the time). Among the 350 largest companies listed on the
London stock exchange, there are more than 150 whose websites and annual reports indicate
that they have direct investments or sales in developing countries. In the hypothetical event
that companies of this type were to avoid an equivalent amount of tax, the cost to
developing countries would be more than 3 billion a year. This estimate is designed only to
suggest the potential scale of the problem and we are not alleging that all or any of these
companies are in fact avoiding tax. There is no way of knowing the true scale of corporate
tax dodging, here or in the developing world, without much greater transparency about
companies tax affairs.

[i]

http://www.nao.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/Tax-reliefs.pdf. Page 22.

See http://www.icij.org/project/luxembourg-leaks/leaked-documents-expose-global-companies-secret-tax-dealsluxembourg. The estimate is roughly $215 billion between 2002 and 2010- 138 billion at the December 2010 exchange
rate. These schemes would have avoided tax in various countries including the UK.
[iii]
This figure is based on the governments own estimate of tax avoidance by large companies (1.1. billion); a hypothetical
figure of 500 million for income from a Google tax, calculated from seven digital companies global figures for sales and
profits as reported in U.S. corporate filings and UK sales figures taken from Financial Times, Pressure to End Digital Tax
rd
Bonanza, 3 January 2014 (the calculation assumes that these companies UK sales would have been profitable as their
global sales, and that these profits would have been taxed at the full UK corporation tax rate at the time); the governments
estimates of tax costs arising from the current Controlled Foreign Companies rules and the Patent Box which could be
recouped in the event of their reform (1.81 billion) and an estimate, based on media reports, of tax avoided by companies
using intra-group financing from tax havens, specifically via the quoted Eurobond exemption. The total estimate of 3,910
million a year is not scientific and is offered here in order to stimulate public debate about corporate tax reform in the UK.
[iv]
ActionAid has reported that legal tax avoidance by the UK-listed drinks company SABMiller may have cost governments in
Africa and India as much as 20 million per year. (ActionAid. Calling Time. November 2010. See
http://www.actionaid.org.uk/sites/default/files/doc_lib/sabmiller_right_of_reply_and_response1.pdf for SABMillers
response at the time). Among the 350 largest companies listed on the London stock exchange, there are more than 150
whose websites and annual reports indicate that they have direct investments or sales in developing countries. In the
hypothetical event that companies of this type were to avoid an equivalent amount of tax, the cost to developing countries
would be more than 3 billion a year. This estimate is designed only to suggest the potential scale of the problem and we are
not alleging that all or any of these companies are in fact avoiding tax. There is no way of knowing the true scale of corporate
tax dodging, here or in the developing world, without much greater transparency about companies tax affairs.
[ii]

Motion 8: Healthcare Students

Proposed by:

Colum McGuire

Seconded by:

Megan Dunn, Sidonie Bertrand-Shelton

NEC Believes:
1. Healthcare students, such as those on nursing or midwifery courses, are funded differently to other HE
students. Different bursaries are also made available to social work students.
2. In England and Wales, NHS funding for healthcare students has failed to keep pace with inflation, and
indeed has been frozen in some instances for five years.
3. Social work bursaries in England have been cut by the Department of Health, such that neither
undergraduate nor postgraduate students are guaranteed bursaries and far fewer overall will receive
this support.
4. The Access to Learning Fund in England has been abolished, and the Financial Contingency Funds in
Wales are also under threat. NHS students are disproportionately likely to apply to such hardship funds.
5. The Pound in Your Pocket England report (2012) found that NHS-funded students had some of the
lowest wellbeing scores, in part because so many are older students with responsibility for children or
caring for other adults.
6. There are a number of trade unions and professional bodies who represent healthcare workers and by
extension healthcare students. In the past, NUS has had a formal partnership with them.
7. Many of these organisations have been campaigning for better pay for NHS workers.

NEC Further Believes:

1. NHS bursaries and social work bursaries were inadequate before and it is a scandal that so many
students will be struggling under these cuts.
2. That the government would cut hardship funding at the same time as squeezing the support for such
students is deplorable.
3. There is now a significant disparity in funding between NHS-funded students and other undergraduates.
4. NUS has in the past been guilty of not doing enough work specifically on this key demographic of its
membership and it is important to address specific issues affecting them.
5. Healthcare and social work are essential professions in society and should be supported properly,
especially if the NHS and local authorities wish to deliver high-quality services.
6. If healthcare or social work students cannot concentrate on their courses because of money worries, or
because they are working long hours to support themselves, this can only impact on their ability to
develop these essential skills.
7. Funding needs to be restored, increased and enhanced: healthcare and social work students need
adequate support.
8. By working closely with the key unions and professional bodies our chances of success will be much
higher.

NEC Resolves:
1. To call for adequate support provision for healthcare students, with NHS bursaries increased to levels
which enable healthcare students to pay their essential living costs.
2. To call for social work bursaries to be restored to all social work students.
3. To include these calls in our wider General Election work as appropriate.
4.
To enter into discussions with the Royal College of Nursing, Royal College of Midwives, Unison
and the British Medical Association in regards to potential partnerships and to agree common
objectives, extending to other bodies where relevant.