student council 251011

8/3/2019 Student Council 251011

1/13

Present:- Matthew McPherson (Chair), Mike Williamson, Philippa Falkner, Emma Meehan, Xu

chengzhi, Abigail Barr, John Gales, Matthew Robinson, Jacob Humphrey, E.J. Aaron-Beloten, Stuart

Tooley, Hugh Murdoch, Sophie McCallum, Claire Rackley, Callum Leslie, Mike Shaw, Ebony Ruggero,

Finbar Bowie, Hazel Louise Marzetti, Graine Regan, Reka Nagy, Tessa Dunham, Nadia Mehedi, Sylvia

Gitau, Pheobe Coghlan, Ben Morse, Kolos Kantor, Lauren Wellock, Mayumi Ihara-Quinones, Kieran

MacInness, Ross Camerson, Amy Middleton, Fraser Graham, Naomi Beecroft, Joe Dewhurst, Milena

Lasheras, Peter Thibault, John Gales, Alva Traebert, Kate Harris, Suzi Compton, Ellen Harris, Stuart-

Joseph Washington, Mandy Kelleher, James Beavan, Tom Nash, Declan Sheridan, Kirty Haigh, Michael

Yeomans, Sophie Marshall, James McAsh, Anya OShea, Hannah Procter, Robert Loughney, Jack

McGinn, Vignesh Ganesan, Quinvy Seale, Lilian Lee, Hilary Iwanowski, Brian Focarino, Kerstin Brzezek,

Jiwei Li, Aurora Adams

In Attendance:- Craig Stewart, Kirsty Jamieson, Andrew Clark

Apologies:- Andrew Burnie, Ashley Cooke

Meeting Opens: 1830 Action

1. Reports and Questions

MM opened the meeting by thanking everyone for their attendance, especially the newly elected

Council members. MM explained that there would be a change to the agenda to accommodate MSP

Marco Biagi. Furthermore, the meeting would be chaired tightly as the agenda is rather full.

MM explained that motions for Student Council meetings can only be accepted up until 4pm on theMonday the week before Council meets. For this particular meeting, there were no motions by this

deadline, so Executive, which is responsible for the Agenda, had organised the meeting with MarcoBiagi. Some motions which had then come in after the deadline had been accepted exceptionally, and

due to time sensitivity. However, in future the deadline would be strictly adhered to.

Reports and Questions

PF reminded the Student Council that this was a good opportunity to hold the Sabbs etc. to account.

JD registered displeasure at MSP Marco Biagi being invited to the Student Council meeting. JD saidthat the meeting should be short instead of filling up the agenda with an MSP.

MM told student council that JDs complaint had been the only one received. MM said that when

there is an empty agenda, there is a good opportunity to question the local MSP on constituency and

educational matters. MM reminded Student Council that Marco Biagi is a Parliamentary Liaison

Officer to Cabinet Secretary for Education, Mike Russell.

MC raised concerns about having enough access to financial reports in order to hold the appropriatepeople to account.PF replied that she had not had enough time to take this forward. PF informed Student Council that

the trustees receive detailed financial information as they have to make important investmentdecisions. PF said that EUSA is moving towards a new system which will make scrutiny easier.

MM reminded Student Council members that they could submit further written questions.

2. Rectorial Elections

MM said that the Rector is chair of the University Court which is the governing body of the institution.

This position is currently held by Ian McWorter. In February, the student body will have the chance to

nominate and campaign for a new Rector. MM has spoken to trade unions about potential candidates.

Minutes of 2nd Ordinary Meeting of 128th

Student Council held on Tuesday 25th October2011 at 6:30 pm in Teviot Row House, DebatingHall


2/13

AWS asked how students nominate a candidate.

MM replied that all the information is on the University website, and that nominations are made to the

university.

JMcC asked if EUSA will be supporting any candidates and are there any candidates at the moment.

MM informed Council that usually EUSA will not declare support for any particular candidate but will

encourage particular people to stand. At the moment MM is trying to persuade Helena Kennedy QCwho is a Labour Peer to stand.

ST added during a meeting of the Policy Lapse Committee, they had come across a motion that said

that EUSA will not support any candidate. The policy is due to laps, but it will return to Student

Council.

3. Safe Space

MM drew attention to paper C which outlines the standing policy on safe space at meetings. MM

opened up discussion around issues of applauding, hand gestures etc. during Student Council

meetings.

JMc asked for clarification.

MM told Council that the policy should be discussed. The safe space policy was decided ad hoc forthe emergency Student Council meeting last week, but MM and the other Sabbs felt that it should be

properly debated by the Council as the policy will govern all meetings.

The following points were made:

JD felt that applause is a waste of time, but that hand gestures could be useful.

EM reminded Council that meetings should be as open and accessible as possible and so it

would be good for the newly elected representatives to contribute to this discussion

AWS said that interrupting and heckling is intimidating, but that hand gestures are not.

HM argued that hand gestures are distracting, confusing and irritating Council members can

show their feelings by voting.

CL thought that anything which shows a strength of feeling during a debate is intimidating for

those who have a minority opinion and it is important that they feel they can voice a valid

opinion.

SD agreed that this is intimidating.

BS said that if one is holding a minority opinion, it can be encouraging to see some support.

PF felt that as long as Council members are not being intimidating, there is nothing wrong

with gestures etc. Facial expressions can give away feelings anyway. As long as Council

members are being sensitive, they are complying with the good conduct regulations.

VG said that a round of applause can increase confidence in individual Council members.

SJW wondered how will this would be moderated or enforced.

MM replied that this would be up to the chair. The policy would apply to convenors too.

SMc argued that Student Council members should not laugh at people as this is the mostintimidating type of behaviour.

TN said that there is nothing wrong with hand gestures, and that Council members should

remember that courtesy is of utmost importance.

SD put forward that signs of approval are very different to signs of disproval.

AAs said that the most important thing was to not speak while other council members are

speaking. This is very rude and can be very intimidating if Council members feel that theyare not being listened to.

AAd summarise by saying that the consensus seemed to be that positive gestures are acceptable, but

negative ones are not.


3/13

4. Marco Biagi, MSP

MM introduced Marco Biagi as the SNP MSP for Edinburgh Central. MM encouraged Student

Council members to ask questions about constituency and educational matters.

MB said that he was happy to be at Student Council and that he used to be on the Student

Representative Council at the University of St Andrews. MB explained that he is on the Education

Committee which has been talking about fees, student support and the funding gap in education.

MM asked for questions.

HM asked why the Rest of UK Fees policy raised fees to Scottish Universities way above what

English Universities will be able to charge (on account of the 4 year degree). Also, why is the Scottish

Government not following the Welsh example and supporting Scottish students to study in the rest of

the UK?

MB replied that Wales has a particular issue with 50% of their students going to England, whereas

95% of Scottish students stay in Scotland. MB said that a final decision has not been taken yet and

will depend on funding. He would like a funding system whereby more people go to study outwithScotland to broaden their minds through an international university experience.

As for Rest of UK Fees, MB said this is an issue which was not entered into lightly by the SNP

government. MB would ideally like a system where nobody pays fees, but the system of reciprocitymeans that the government do not have a choice. A model in the EU where the money follows the

student via government transfer would be far more satisfactory. EU model would be better where

money follows the student by government transfer. MB also wanted to emphasise that the Universities

were expected to show discretion when setting fees, and their unwillingness to do this has resulted in a

cooling off of relations. MB finished by saying that the UK government was to blame, not the Scottish

government.

MR: Challenged MBs assertion that fee increases werent in any of the parties manifestos and

wondered how MB could criticise the coalition government for increasing fees at Scottish universities

when Scotland receives a disproportionately high share of the block grant?

CR: wondered how the government were going to support students, and how could policy towards

colleges be justified?

AWS: The University has stated that it may offer three year degrees for English students in order toremain competitive. Does this not amount to discrimination?

MB acknowledged that fees were in the Conservative manifesto and argued that although Scotland

receives a high share of the block grant, it is more efficient in how it uses this money.

MB said that student support has had its budget increased by 64.5% which will mean much more

money for student funding and that the NUS has welcomed this. MB agreed that colleges will be

taking a hit, but the move towards a regional model will reduce course duplication and overlap.

MB said that it was up to Universities whether they offer 3 year degrees. He also reminded Student

Council that Scottish students can enter straight into second year to avoid repeating their final year of

school.

MK asked MB to respond to the argument that reciprocity is still discrimination.

JB asked MB to comment on the fact that Edinburgh is the second worst Russell Group university interms of the bursaries it offers.

TN asked MB what his stance on gay marriage was.

MB explained that the EU funding situation is unusual as under EU rules, universities are not allowed

to treat another citizen of an EU country differently to one of our own. MB wants a system like the

EHIC, and said that Austria is pushing for this too. 40% of EU applications to UK were to Scotland

which implies that Scotland could be seen as cheap optionMB said that the SNP government will maintain funding for the Arts and Social Sciences, whereas in

England this funding will come through tuition fees. University Principals are very happy with this.

MB said that Russell group comparators are unfamiliar to him, but that the support issue should be

addressed.

MB explained that the Out for independence campaign ensures LGBT issues are kept prominent.

Although there have been some problem with donors, the SNP remain committed. MB will vote for


4/13

same sex marriage.

KH said that her fees are 1800 where they would have been 3600 in England. She therefore

wondered why there could be no similar discount/subsidy scheme when the new fees structure is

introduced.

ST argued that the RUK issues has not really been debated and that the agreement was arrived at by a

gentlemans handshake. Too much freedom has been given to universities and essentially, fees havebeen completely deregulated. Can anything be done before 2013 to re-regulate fees, taking into

account the 4 year degree programme?

JW asked MB about the possibility of a warning system for annual fee increases.

MB, in answer to JWs question said that this should be taken into account.

In answer to ST, MB said that a Scottish Statutory Instrument (subordinate legislation) will be passed

to formally limit tuition fees to 9000 per year. The government are also considering introducing

student guarantees between the university and the student and imposing statutory duties on universitiesto widen access.

Addressing KHs point, MB said that the discount she receives relates to a decision taken in 2005 re

top-up fees. MB restated that 3 year degrees could be a solution to student debt.

CL wondered why the teaching grant had been cut. CL also wanted MB to account for his fellowSNP members Bill Walker and John Mason who have voiced strong opposition to equal marriage.

SD wondered how, in light of the empty rhetoric of widening participation from the UK government,

the Scottish government would enforce this policy.NB argued that a 4 year degree is better for students and that debt considerations should not be the

main motivation for people choosing where to study.

MB agreed that a 3 year degree isnt always good necessarily, but that there has been reluctance to

offer it for those who want it. The 3 year degree should not be objected to unless the situation arises

where people are being forced into it.

MB said that the widening access programme will be stronger than the Westminster alternative. There

will be direct duties on the institutions and some other interesting models exist which are being

considered.

In response to CL, MB said that John Mason has said he will be relaxed about gay marriage and hisissue is about the religious institutions being forced to offer it. MB went on to say that all political

parties have rogues, but the leadership of the SNP have always been strong and have a good track

record on LGBT issues. As for the teaching grant, although this has been cut, there is more funding

for Scottish students overall.

MM thanked MB for his attendance and urged Student Councillors to pass further questions onto MB.

MB can be followed on twitter as EdinburghBiagi

During the break, Student Councillors should write down ideas for the various forums. MM

encouraged all to contribute to this process.

5. Rest of UK Fees (RUK)

ST and JMc provided an update for Student Council: They are going to write letters and emailsexpressing student concern to Marco Biagi (a letter has been approved). There are a few expenditure

requests which need to be approved. There will be a demonstration taking place in Edinburgh, but the

date for this has not been finalised.

After the first meeting about the protest to take place on the 9/11/11, the planning committee are going

to aim for three buses to go down to London. EUSA money and fundraising will pay for these, and the

rest of the funding will be made up from charging students subsidised rates. The allocation of seats

will be done by random ballot (although there is an amendment which may pass and alter this) whichwill happen on Monday 31st October 2011 to avoid the buses becoming too expensive towards the

date. Although there is not money from EUSA for marketing, they are pursuing free means of raising

awareness facebook, emails etc.


5/13

Factual Questions

AWS asked why ST and JMc had not addressed the NUS recommendations.

JMc pointed out paper D - advice from NUS to all student associations about how they should respond

to the demonstration. In terms of legality, the march route was confirmed today, so the march is legal.

NUS have made arrangements to ensure the inclusion and safety of disabled students. However, theposition for vulnerable students and students under the age of 18.

HM added that vulnerable students and students under 18 will be safeguarded by two CRB checked

NUS officials who will liaise with the demo organisers.

TN asked if there will be any left-over money from fundraising, and what will happen to it.

ST said that this is unlikely, and if there is, it will go back into the EUSA Student Council budget.

PT asked if there was a possibility of collaborating with other Edinburgh universities in order to pushdown the cost.

JMc said that there was possible collaboration with the University of St Andrews.

MM said that other Edinburgh universities are broadly supportive, but was unsure about their position

towards the demos.

Student attending council wondered, on account of there being no funding for advertising, how many

people had signed up so far?

JMc said that the motion has still technically not passed Student Council, so nobody is actually signedup. However, around 50 people have registered their interest.

6. Putting students at the heart of the system motion proposed by JMc

MM explained that this motion has a number of proposed amendments. Although normally, the

proposer of the motion could accept amendments, because the motion has already been altered (at theemergency Student Council meeting), each amendment will be considered separately for the sake of

clarity and fairness.

Proposing the motionJMc said that this motion relates to an issues which is very important for the student movement. There

is a need to fight for universities which are for the general good of society and should be paid for by

the government. The student body cannot give up with fight. They need to keep the debate going.

There is also a need to have an Edinburgh presence at the demonstrations on the 9th November 2011.

First amendmentLOH proposed the first amendment: LOH explained that the amendment would amend a technical

flaw in the motion. It would clarify that EUSA money would be used to pay forfurtherbuses on top

of any paid for by fundraising.

Speaking against the amendment AWS said that the original motion was passed at an emergency

Student Council meeting. He argued that the money should be given back to students.

VOTE: amendment passes

Second Amendment

LOH proposed the second amendment which related to how places on the buses should be allocated.

He argued that a ballot will not work, as people dont want a chance, they want to know whether they

can make arrangements. With the ballot, people will be informed at short notice. Also, people are less

likely to campaign if there is no certainty.

Speaking against the amendment, MY said that a random ballot is difficult, but a lot more fair. MYsaid that this is such a big issue, so short notice should not matter to students. This system will bring

in people who really want to go.

Speaking in favour of the amendment, MW said that this is not about people not being dedicated


6/13

enough to the cause. Some students have commitments like part-time jobs and it is not fair to keep

people hanging.

Speaking against the amendment, JB said that if there is no ballot, then the first to hear about the

opportunity will get the first to get a ticket. There is a need to widen participation and the ballot can be

carried out timeously.

Speaking in favour of the amendment, a student attending council argued that there needs to be greater

publicity.

Speaking against the amendment, ST reminded Councillors about the need to put their own self

interests last and think about people not involved in Student Council.

VOTE: amendment falls

Debate on the motion (as amended)

Speaking in favour of the motion, JMc highlighted that it is important to have an Edinburgh presence

at the demo as this issue will be of concern to those on campus. He emphasised the unifying nature of

this movement and the opportunities it gives to students to become interested in politics.

Speaking against the motion, CL said that he opposed on safety grounds. CL drew attention to paper

D from NUS and pointed out that there is no risk assessment and that there is yet no provision forvulnerable students and those under the age of 18 which is of great concern. CL said EUSA should be

concerned about its legal liabilities and the reputational costs.

MM reminded Student Council that whatever goes through Student Council still has to go through the

trustees, whose job it is to defend EUSAs financial and reputational credibility as a charity, and to

ensure they fulfil their charitable requirements under the Charities Act. MM confirmed that the

trustees would be meeting next week.

Speaking in favour of the motion, JH argued that the demonstration was a basic thing that EUSA

should be taking part in. There is a need to have buses to ensure Edinburgh students can take part inthe demonstration.

Speaking against the motion, MR said that many students are indifferent to the fees situation.

Furthermore, rhetoric about being priced out of education is misleading: debt is not the same as

inaccessibility.

Speaking in favour of the motion, MW said that there was no risk assessment as the route of the march

had only been decided on today following police advice. A risk assessment will be duly carried out aswell as other safeguarding measures.

Speaking against the motion, AWS argued the march had not been organised by the NUS or any major

trade unions. AWS said people will smash up buildings and the demo will not achieve anything.

AWS said participating will risk the reputation of EUSA and that students should find their own waythere.

VOTE: motion passes

Student Council Notes that

1. The cap on tuition fees in England has been raised to 9,000 per year.

2. As a consequence, the cap on Rest of UK fees in Scotland is also set to be raised to 9,000.

3. It is expected that this vote will happen this semester.

4. A Higher Education White Paper Putting Students at the Heart of the System) proposes

bringing free market forces into the higher education sector, cutting teaching grants, and puts

institutions into risk of closure.

5. The National Campaign Against Fees and Cuts has called for a National Demo in London on


7/13

the 9th of November to protest against fees, privatisation and education, and to demand better

student support.

6. NUS has subsequently backed the demo, pledging to give resources to it.

7. The National Demo has widespread support from trade unions (Unite, PCS, FBU, NUJ, RMT

and BFAWU), MPs (Mike Wood, Katy Clark, John McDonnell) and prominent political

figures such as Tony Benn.

8. NUS Scotland have expressed interest in financially supporting transport for the demo if otherStudents Associations do too.

9. The National Demo in 2010 was critical in giving student issues a national prominence.

10. EUSA allocated 7,500 to building for the National Demo in 2010.

11. That this motion is being debated at a time that excludes some members of Student Council.

12. When motions are passed at Student Council they are not normally debated again at the next

meeting.

Student Council Believes that

1. That as a consequence of the raise in cap on tuition fees, Scottish fees are likely to rise for

students from the rest of the UK

2. Education should be paid for through progressive taxation, not through fees.

3. The free market has no place in the education sector

4. Education is a public good and should be provided by the state5. Universities should be run for the benefit of society, not for the gain of profit.

6. Fighting fees and privatisation at the UK level is critical to our success at the Scotland and

University level.7. Building for a National Demo is an effective means of politicising our membership and can

help to engage students in other campaigns.

8. This motion requires debate on some of the most important issues of the year.

Student Council Resolves

1. To reaffirm our stance against fees and cuts.

2. To lead a campaign to get Edinburgh students to the National Demo.

3. To education our membership of the importance of these issues.

4. To support other local campaigns with these aims in mind.

5. To allocate 1,500 to this campaign.6. To seek further funding from lecturers, trade unions and NUS to fund further buses.

7. That the campaign co-ordinator will be elected at this emergency student Council meeting.

8. That the campaign should be co-ordinated through the open meetings held through External

Forum, mobilising students around the fight on rises in rest of UK fees.

9. That the campaign co-ordinator will report to Student Council Executive with developments.

10. That all students will be invited to be involved in the campaign.

11. That places on buses funded by EUSA, and through fundraising by EUSA, be distributed on

the basis of a random ballot (in pairs) with the exception of the Sabbatical officers and the co-ordinator.

12. If passed, this motion should be brought before a meeting of the next full Student Council, a

time which is more accessible to representatives.

7. Equal Marriage motion

HLM handed out consultation response forms and urged people to fill these in. KH said that more ofthese could be acquired from the Equalities Network website and AAs said that people could take part

in an online consultation via NUS LGBT website.

Proposing the motion

CL said that the motion covers all the basic aspects of the governments consultation. The motion is in

favour of the proposals, but wants the government to go further, for instance, extending civil

partnerships to heterosexual couples. The motion mandates CL to write a full EUSA response to the

consultation which will provide EUSA with the opportunity to have a big say

Nobody spoke against this motion.

VOTE: motion passes


8/13

Student Council notes:

1. The motion passed by Student Council on 11th November 2003 in support of civil partnerships,

adoption rights, and other equal rights issues.

2. The motion passed on 17 March 2009 mandating Student Council to campaign for equal marriage

rights for all couples.

3. The consultation by the Scottish Government on extending marriage rights to same-sex couples thatis currently taking place.

4. The consultation by the UK Government on how to implement the extending of civil marriage rights

to same-sex couples, that is planned to take place in 2012.

Student Council believes:

1. That both marriage and civil partnerships should be open to all couples, regardless of gender or

sexual orientation.

2. That no religious organisation should be forced to perform same-sex marriage ceremonies, but thatthose who wish to should be free to do so.

3. That if marriage rights are extended to all couples, civil partnerships should remain as an option for

individuals who wish them.

4. That fundamentally all couples should have the same rights in every respect, regardless of gender or

sexuality.

Student Council therefore resolves:

1. To mandate the Welfare Convener, in consultation with the LGBT Action Group, to respond to boththe Scottish and UK Government consultations on behalf of EUSA.

2. To, as resolved in the 2009 motion, campaign actively on this issue, supporting the campaigns by

the Scottish Youth Parliament, NUS Scotland and others.

8. Policy Lapse


9/13

ST gave a presentation to explain what was happening with old EUSA policy.

The policy lapse committee had all policy from 2000 to 2007 to look at, and last year, they got rid of

irrelevant policy. The committee have been dealing with 141 policies which were left. Most of these

policies will be thrown out, however, there are 9 which will be replaced by new, updated policy, and

31 which will be brought back to Council in another format.

Questions following presentation re lapsed policy:

JG: policy promoting Student Council meetings at Kings Buildings

ST: there are fewer people there and it is harder to get to in the evenings when the meetings are

JG: there are still many postgraduates in KB in the evenings

ST: this can be brought as a motion to Student Council

PF: Glaxo Smith Klein

ST: this will be incorporated into the larger social responsibility agenda

MY: exam scripts

ST: students do have access to them and now it just a case of publicising this

JMc: NUS motions only kept by NUS if they pass, so some may still be relevant to EUSA such asNUS democracy, and privatisation in halls.

EJAB: the privatisation policy was about giving halls to unite, and this is not happening to the

particular site anymore.ST: NUS motions should be lapsed because EUSA dont need to hold them, this is up to NUS.

SC: what is the policy about communication with students?

ST: about approving everything that goes on the website, and this is no longer viable

HM: there is already a high degree of privatisation of university accommodation.

ST: happy to bring privatisation issue back via a motion.

MM thanked ST for his presentation.

9. Motion against discrimination of gypsies and travelling people proposed by KH

KH took both amendments as friendly.

Proposing the motion (as amended)

KH said this motion would speak out against the negative and racist media coverage about travellingpeople. KH said that there will be some traveller students and EUSA therefore needs to send a strong

message that it is not tolerated.

Speaking against the motion, PF agreed that discrimination had taken place and that it was shocking.

However, the motion would not solve this and condemning the police is inappropriate. This should be

part of a wider campaign.

Speaking in favour of the motion, SCsaid that although there should be a wider campaign, this motionis a step in the right direction.

Speaking against the motion, AWS said that the motion was too specific: it comdems the police and

does not address travelling people within society in the wider sense. Speaking against the police is

inappropriate and the actions of the residents of Dale Farm are highly questionable.

Summation

KH said that the eviction from Dale Farm was because of racism, and that to expect travellers to fit inwith a specific way of life was not acceptable.

PF agreed that there was discrimination taking place, but that the motion was inappropriate in its attack

on the police and it did not address the real issues.


10/13

VOTE: motion passes

Student Council notes:

1. That one third of the British admit being personally prejudiced against Gypsies and Travellers.

(http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/no-blacks-no-dogsno-gypsies-860873.html)

2. That Dale Farm in Essex is a Traveller community which has recently been evicted by force. Theresidents own the land they live on, but have not been given planning permission because the site is

officially registered as greenbelt. However, the concreted site was a scrap yard before the Travellers

bought it.

3. That there are cases where planning permission has been given retrospectively, for example in the

case of a neighbour of the community. According to the Commission for Racial Equality, more than

90% of Travellers planning applications are initially rejected. This compares to less than 20% of

rejected applications for everybody else.

4. That the eviction of Dale Farm has been condemned by several organisations including AmnestyInternational and the United Nations on human rights grounds. (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-

england-essex-14763905)

5. That the Essex police force shot Taser guns at a crowd of protestors during the eviction.

6. That the Association of Chief Police Officer's (ACPO) own guidelines states that Tasers should not

be used in terms of a crowd control measure in public order scenarios.(http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/the-staggers/2011/10/stun-guns-police-tasers)

7. That among Edinburgh Universitys student population of around 27,000, many will have Gypsy or

Traveller backgrounds.

Student Council believes:

1. That no culture should be discriminated against.

2. That the great percentage of rejected planning applications in the case of Travellers demonstrates

institutional racism and should be campaigned against.

3. That UK authorities should recognise the particular needs of Gypsies and Travellers.

4. That the moral of a society is measured by how it treats its minorities.

5. That police violence and brutality is completely unacceptable, and that the use of Taser guns shows

excessive use of force.

6. In the right to nonviolent protest.7. That students with Gypsy or Traveller backgrounds have the right to a supportive students

association.

Student Council resolves:

1. To mandate the Sabbatical Officers to publicly condemn the discrimination of Travellers and

Gypsies and the eviction of Dale Farm.

2. To mandate the Sabbatical Officers to publicly condemn the police's use of Tasers during the

eviction.3. To mandate the Sabbatical Officers to publicly defend the right to protest.

4. To put a statement to this effect on the EUSA website.

10. Ethical Procurement motion proposed by LOH

Propos al of the motion

LOH said that the company which the University use for library security (G4S) have a record of

human rights violations across the world which include supplying equipment to Palestinian prisons and

breaches of human rights in detention centres. EUSA and the University need an ethical investment

policy.

Speaking against the motion, FG said that many students work for the company. Preventing the

university signing a contract with them will not affect the company, but will affect the people whowork for them.

Speaking in favour of the motion, HM said that this issue is not about individual employees it is

about the university using a company with a dreadful track record. HM said that this campaign should
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/no-blacks-no-dogsno-gypsies-860873.htmlhttp://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/the-staggers/2011/10/stun-guns-police-tasershttp://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/no-blacks-no-dogsno-gypsies-860873.htmlhttp://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/the-staggers/2011/10/stun-guns-police-tasers


11/13

be coordinate with campaigns at other universities to stop illegal actions.

Speaking against the motion, MR said that some of the illegal activity relates to illegal settlement.

Also if EUSA condem all private contractors that have questionable activity, then G4S will only be the

thin edge of the wedge.

PF informed Student Council that this issue will go to the trustees to make a final decision on.

VOTE: motion passed

This Student Council Notes:

1. That the University of Edinburgh (henceforth the University) is committed to [leading] byexample, actively supporting best practice, innovation and leadership in relation to social

responsibility and sustainability: in learning and teaching, research and knowledge exchange

and across [...] services and physical infrastructure.

(http://www.ed.ac.uk/about/sustainability/about/approach)

2. That at the most recent EUSA General Meeting an overwhelming majority of students present

voted in favour of a motion to boycott Israeli goods.3. That the private security company Group 4 Securicor (henceforth G4S) provides security

services to the University Main Library and EUSA is currently in the process of signing acontract with G4S to provide money collecting services.

4. That G4S has a documented international track record of human rights violations.

5. That G4S is involved in violations of international law, particularly the Fourth Geneva

Convention, in the Occupied Palestinian Territories through providing security services and

equipment to incarceration facilities holding Palestinian political prisoners in Israel and the

West Bank. They also provide security services and technology to illegal Israeli settlements,

checkpoints and police headquarters in the occupied West Bank.

6. That G4S provide a perimeter defence system and central command for Ofer prison in theWest Bank where political prisoners are held in military administrative detention without

charge for indefinite lengths of time

7. That hundreds of Palestinian prisoners have been on hunger strike for over three weeks in

protest against the conditions in G4S facilitated jails.

8. G4S runs 4 immigration detention centres in the UK. In September 2008, HM Chief Inspectorof Prisons reported that people were being detained by the G4S-run Pennine House at

Manchester Airport for up to several days in a poor environment, with no access to fresh air

and daylight9. In the UK, G4S is the leading contractor for the forcible removal of migrants from Britain. In

a recent report, it was found that an alarming number of injuries have been sustained by

deportees at the hand of private escorts contracted by the Home Office over the last four

years. On 12 October 2010, three G4S guards heavily restrained an Angolan deportee named

Jimmy Mugbenga on departing British Airways flight 77 at Heathrow Airport, which led to

his death at Hillingdon Hospital later that day. Passengers reported hearing cries of dont do

this and they are trying to kill me. Scotland Yard is currently investigating after the death

became categorised as unexplained.10. After massive criticism from a number or organisations and politicians G4S announced in

March that it would pull out from a number of activities in Israeli settlements on the occupiedWest Bank. However, G4S will still be engaged in several activities in illegal settlements

after 2015 as they have no plans to stop the provision of security services to banks and

supermarkets inside the settlements. G4S will also continue to supply security equipment to

four prisons holding Palestinian security prisoners.

This Student Council Believes:

1. That the University and EUSA should strive to engage only in contracts with companies with

high ethical standpoints as far as possible. As such, there is a duty to not engage withcompanies, such as G4S, who are responsible for human rights abuses worldwide.

2. That divestment can send a strong message to companies such as G4S that their behaviour is

unacceptable and encourage them to improve their practices.

3. That as students who are part of the University community, we should have the right to
http://www.ed.ac.uk/about/sustainability/about/approachhttp://www.ed.ac.uk/about/sustainability/about/approach


12/13

demand no further support of the University in the actions of private companies such as G4S

who are complicit in human rights abuses.

This Student Council Resolves:

1. To raise awareness of the Universitys contracts with G4S and what the implications of this is

for human rights and social responsibility.

2. To engage with the University to ensure that the students concerns are heard with regard toG4S being present as contractors to the University on campus.

3. To lobby the University to drop all ties with G4S and switch to a more socially responsible

contractor, or simply University security, to provide security services to the University.

4. To use all possible means to ensure that G4S are not used as private security contractors for

the Association and/or any of its events.

11. Societies for approval

EM informed Student Council that this part of the agenda will be for electronic consultation in future.

AAs asked why the Amnesty International society are finding it hard to get funding?

EM replied that EUSA has to spend its own money (as a charity) on benefiting own members, and this

sometimes means that the money cannot go to another charity. There are concerns about certaincharities control over the charity student society. EUSA want to support groups who want tofundraise for charities, but this needs to be done within the remits of EUSAs charitable aims. New

policy means that new charity societies will not be societies, but fundraising bodies. Any societies

currently already societies will not have their position changed.

12. General Question Time

MM drew attention to papers K,L & M.

Written question: do the sabbs think it is a problem that there is a lack of knowledge of procedure in

Student Council especially for new members?

EM: There was training for new reps last week.

Craig: there is a link to the website for rules on the agenda

Written question: Why is SRC budget just 7,500?MM: this is decided by the finance team and approved by the trustees who are accountable to the

student body

Written question: Is it possible to publish SRC motions and minutes on the website?

MM: We are in the process of doing this and it is part of the communications strategy

Written question: Why has MM not declared that he is a Special constable?

MM: He has. Sabbs and execs do not have to declare political interests. The declaration is about gifts,bursaries etc. and other things that may affect judgement.

JD: Why was Marco Biagis allocated time on the agenda allowed to overrun?MM: There were lots of Council members who wanted to ask a question and as chair he needs to

balance what people want and the needs of Student Council.

JMc: Can we have more time for SC.

MM: It would be good to have more time for student council but more motions could be brought to

Council if they were submitted on time. Also, no more Council meetings can be arranged this

semester due to room booking difficulties, and Student Council members having arranged theirschedules around the arranged meeting dates.

HM: What was the decision on safe space?

MM: The Sabbs will take into account what was discussed and write a policy which will be taken back

to Student Council.


13/13

SC: What was the zone conference for which expenditure was approved?

MW: The NUS were discussing policy which fitted into 5 zones. Policy was discussed as well as how

it is going to be taken forward by the NUS.

PF: There will be reports from each conference available.

JD: Is it possible for the chair to be rotated?MM: It is in the regulations that the president should chair. If MM were to receive a demand from

Student Council he would consider chair rotation. MM said that chairing is an integral part of the role

of President.

SC: What exactly was the money for the Zone conference spent on?

MM: Travel, accommodation and the delegation fee.

MC:How much is spent on food at meetings?MM: Dont know, but it does not come out of campaigns budge.

AOS: What is happening with the academic study space campaign?

HM:The campaign to get more space in the library and more study space around campus before exams

start. There will be a facebook page to help the campaign along. HM said the University is beingslow. Funding for a study-space map has been secured.

Meeting closes at 2150

MM: find

out how

much

money is

spent on

food at

StudentCouncil

meetings

student council 251011

Documents