Welfare & Community Zone Minutes PDF Free Download
1 / 55
/55
100%
19 May 2025
WCZ2404M
Page 1 of 11
Date:
Monday 24 February 2025
Time:
18:00 – 20:00
Venue:
C3.09, IOE
Welfare & Community Zone
Minutes
Chair:
Rachel Lim, Equity & Inclusion Officer
Members:
P
AP
AB
Alan Salazar Guerra, Sustainability Officer
X
Alanis Hernandez Vasquez, Hall Community Officer for New Hall -
Caledonian Road
X
Amanda Ng & Rory Clarke, Trans Officer
X
Anam Eijaz Ahmed Choudhary, Welfare Rep (Societies)
X
Arkh Rishi Goyal, Hall Community Officer for John Dodgson House
X
Benjamin Li, UCL East Student Officer
X
Benjamin Scalan, Accommodation & Housing Officer
X
Danilo Paganelli and Anji Suri, LGBQ+ Officer
X
Darcy Lan, Postgraduate Officer
X
Eda Yildirimkaya, Equity & Inclusion Officer
X
Elisa de Aragao Bibay, Women’s Officer
X
Karrar Hashim, Hall Community Officer for Endsleigh Gardens and John
Adams Hall
X
Kelly Chow, Social Class & Mobility Officer
X
Kenloy Smith, Hall Community Officer for Stapleton House
X
Lampros Mallios, Postgraduate Hall Community Officer for 109 Camden
Road (Ann Stephenson, Ifor Evans, Max Rayne and Neil Sharp House)
X
Manaal Tariq, International Students' Officer
X
Oskarwha Barltrop, Undergraduate Hall Community Officer for 109
Camden Road (Ann Stephenson, Ifor Evans, Max Rayne and Neil Sharp
House)
X
Pooja Murugakannan, Hall Community Officer for Ian Baker House and
Ramsay Hall
X
Rachel Lim, Welfare & Community Officer
X
Rawleka Wilson and Sharvari Patil, People of Colour Students' Officer
X
Richard Hebblethwaite, Mature, Part-time & Carers Students' Officer
X
Sasha Lawson, Welfare Officer
X
Yiming Yao, Welfare Rep (Societies)
X
Quorum: 12
In Attendance:
Jayne Flowers, Representation and Democracy Coordinator
Jeff Saddington-Wiltshire, Representation and Democracy Manager
Ana Boikova, Activities & Engagement Officer
Carl Salton-Brooks, Director of Student Experience
Madeline Macintyre, Democracy Assistant
Nick Miao, Cheese Grater, Editor-in-Chief
Actions Log 2024/25
Responsibility
Update due:
WCZ2404M
Page 2 of 11
Continue discussions with EDI, HR, and SSWS
teams to address issues raised by Muslim students
regarding campus incidents.
EI Officer & WC
Officer
19 May 2025
Ensure students are informed about the new
Report and Support process and share best
practices once fully implemented.
WC Officer
19 May 2025
Continue working with London universities coalition
to lobby for improvements in transport affordability
and accommodation accessibility.
WC Officer &
Trans Officers
19 May 2025
Preliminary Matters
1. Welcome
Chair welcomed members to the fourth Welfare & Community Zone meeting of the 24/25
academic year.
2. Approval of minutes from previous meeting
WCZ2403 minutes were approved.
Announcements
3. Leadership Race: Nominations are open!
Chair encouraged participants to put forward their nominations for the Leadership Race,
which will remain open until 10th March.
Officer Updates & Questions
4. Welfare & Community Officer (RL)
Contraception Scheme Launch
UCL is partnering with Contraception Direct to provide students with free
contraception delivery under a new NHS scheme.
Students can book an appointment online and have prescriptions sent directly to
their door every month, free of charge.
If a student has never used contraception before, they will be set up with a quick
consultation with a nearby pharmacist.
UCL is the first university in the country to trial this initiative.
Medical Education & Resource Advocacy
RL has been working on the Medical Internal Quality Review and lobbying for better
resources for medical students to help them prepare for exams.
This includes reviewing programme gaps and advocating for additional support.
Digital Accessibility & Student Support
WCZ2404M
Page 3 of 11
RL met with UCL’s EDI team to discuss improvements to Report and Support
processes.
Under the new system, all student cases will first be directed to Student Support &
Wellbeing Services (SSWS).
If a case involves staff or requires institutional action, it will be referred to UCL HR.
RL emphasized the importance of ensuring students understand this new process,
and best practices will be shared once the system is fully implemented.
Leadership Race & Officer Engagement
Discussions on the Leadership Race are ongoing, with potential structural changes
being explored to improve engagement.
RL acknowledged the low voter turnout in recent officer elections, highlighting the
need to increase student confidence in officer roles.
Rumi App – Flatmate Matching Pilot
UCL is trailing Rumi, a flatmate-matching app, for one year.
RL expressed concerns about whether this is something students actually want or
need and will gather feedback before further implementation.
Islamophobia Action Plan
RL and EI Officer (EY) have been leading the Islamophobia Action Plan in response
to concerns raised by Muslim students.
Actions include:
oForming a working group with Muslim student leaders.
oPublishing a statement addressing concerns.
oEngaging with SSWS and other departments to improve support structures.
The goal is to ensure that Muslim students feel seen, supported, and confident in
coming forward with concerns.
London Student Partnership & Government Lobbying
RL has been involved in the London Student Partnership, a coalition of London
universities working together to lobby the government.
Current priorities include transport affordability and accommodation accessibility.
RL concluded by expressing enthusiasm for ongoing projects and invited students to share
feedback and concerns on these initiatives.
5. Equity & Inclusion Officer (EY)
Art Gallery Launch
The marginalised communities art gallery is launching on Thursday, after months of
preparation.
The project highlights artists from underrepresented backgrounds, with
contributions from liberation officers and POC officers.
All attendees are invited to the launch event (5-7 PM, free drinks & snacks).
WCZ2404M
Page 4 of 11
Marginalised Community Health Support Initiative
An organisation initially reached out to provide mental health support for
marginalised communities.
They have been invited to engage with students during Welcome Week to maximise
outreach.
LGBTQ+ History Month Cocktails
The fundraiser has raised £170 in the first half of the month and will continue for five
more days.
Student Centre Facilities & Hygiene
A toilet hygiene inspection was conducted following student complaints.
Cleaning staff face challenges due to high traffic, but Sodexo is developing a better
plan.
As a small improvement, self-service wet wipes will be placed on each floor to keep
study tables clean (expected next week).
Report & Support System Review
Discussions with EDI, HR, and SSWS teams are ongoing to evaluate Report &
Support data and address underreported cases.
Special focus is on concerns raised by Muslim students regarding increased
incidents on campus.
Disabled Student Network Engagement
In the absence of a Disabled Students’ Officer, EY has been attending Disabled
Student Network events.
The Inclusive Environment Director was invited to one of the events to hear student
concerns.
A new Disabled Students’ Officer is expected to be elected in the upcoming
Leadership Race.
Sanctuary Community & Refugee Student Support
EY delivered a speech at the Sanctuary Community Event, highlighting Union-led
initiatives for sanctuary students.
Collaboration with the Student Action for Refugees (STAR) Society is ongoing.
Peer-to-Peer Mental Health Support Initiative
EY and POC Officer are developing a peer mental health support scheme, which
will be discussed further in this meeting.
EY encouraged engagement with ongoing initiatives and welcomed feedback from
attendees.
WCZ2404M
Page 5 of 11
6. Postgraduate Officer (DL)
Academic Rep Conference & Career Supercharger
DL co-facilitated a session at the Academic Rep Conference, sharing insights on
how reps can organise impactful career events for their cohorts.
Collaboration opportunities with Academic Reps are being explored.
Expansion of Postgraduate Career Supercharger
Two recent Career Supercharger events were well-attended, selling out quickly.
Upcoming collaborations include Postgraduate Career Supercharger + Tea
Societies and Postgraduate Career Supercharger + Women's Network.
Events are open to undergraduates interested in career development.
Startup Competition – Hult Prize
The Hult Prize Startup Competition is taking place tomorrow, with 10 shortlisted
teams presenting sustainability-focused business ideas to professional judges.
The competition is led by four postgraduate students who have worked extensively
to organise it.
China Career Events
A series of China-focused online career events is being developed for students
interested in working in China post-graduation.
More details are available on the Student Union website.
Engagement with PGR Students
DL has been actively engaging with new PGR students, both online and in-person,
explaining the role of the Students’ Union and ways to get involved.
Upcoming sessions will include free food and freshly brewed Chinese tea to
encourage participation.
Collaboration & Career Event Opportunities
DL is supporting collaborative career workshops, such as with the Women’s
Network and the Mature Students Network.
Encouraged students and reps to reach out to co-organise career events for their
specific networks.
DL welcomed attendees to participate in these initiatives and explore further collaboration
opportunities.
Matters for Information
7. Welfare & Community Teams Update
Project Period is progressing, with working groups established to improve visibility.
Plans include posters and a map directing students to available period products.
WCZ2404M
Page 6 of 11
The student survey for E6 is finalized and ready for distribution. Discussions
continue on the single-source information page content.
The Personal Academic Tutor pilot is in progress, with departments opting to retain
the title "Personal Tutor" to emphasize holistic student support beyond academics.
RL and EY met with UCL’s Chief People Officer to address student concerns
regarding communications, particularly about the Richard Mole investigation and
the need for improved clarity in student outreach.
The Office for Students (OfS) Strategy was discussed, focusing on postgraduate
opportunities and university responsibility in student career support.
The monthly accommodation meeting highlighted issues at Ramsey Hall, where
students were using paper plates and wooden forks due to a dishwasher
breakdown. As a result, a 20% rent compensation (backdated to November) will be
issued. Temporary crockery was provided until the issue was resolved.
8. Outcomes from and inputs to UCL committees
£20,000 was secured for Ramadan Iftars, following collaboration with EDI, Cultural
Engagement, and other departments.
RL and EY are involved in the University Sanctuary Working Group, ensuring
support for students from refugee and asylum-seeker backgrounds.
Work is ongoing with SSWS and the Digital Accessibility Team to standardize SoRA
policies across departments. Complaints have been raised about inconsistent
messaging, including emails discouraging students from using SORA
accommodations.
Discussions on Report and Support data continue, with RL set to meet the Director
of EDI. Attendees were encouraged to share any concerns for inclusion in the
discussion.
Matters for Discussion
9. Policy - Improved transport links for UCL East students
A proposal was discussed to expand transport support for UCL East students, including
potential reimbursement mechanisms for students traveling between campuses. The
discussion explored whether this required a new policy or an amendment to an existing
one, with a focus on making travel support accessible to clubs, societies, and networks.
Transport Reimbursements & Shuttle Bus Service
The proposal suggested allowing clubs, societies, and networks to reimburse
attendees for travel expenses, particularly for events at UCL East.
There was uncertainty regarding the mechanism of bus diversions, particularly
between Stratford and Bloomsbury, with ongoing efforts to clarify this with Transport
for London (TfL).
Some members emphasised the need to promote existing funding options, such as
the UCL East Fund, which supports club and society events at UCL East.
Expanding Participation & Student Access
WCZ2404M
Page 7 of 11
A suggestion was made to extend reimbursement eligibility for students attending
specific events or using specialized UCL East facilities, such as laboratories or
technology resources.
It was noted that some societies, such as the Bubble Tea Society and Social
Society, have already held events at UCL East with full funding.
Members discussed streamlining the reimbursement process to ensure students
can easily claim travel costs, possibly adopting a similar approach to the
Participation Fund.
Clarification on Policy Scope
Members inquired whether the policy strictly focused on shuttle bus services or if it
extended to individual reimbursements for travel between Bloomsbury and UCL
East.
It was acknowledged that details on implementation would be determined after the
policy passes, with further discussions on the best approach.
Voting Outcome
The policy to improve transport links for UCL East students passed unanimously
with 100% voting in favour.
The next steps will involve determining the implementation strategy and engaging
with UCL and relevant bodies to lobby for these changes.
Members were encouraged to stay informed and provide input as the policy develops.
10. Policy - Rental property complaints database
The proposal aimed to lobby UCL to establish a robust reporting and advice mechanism
for students experiencing poor treatment from landlords or third-party accommodation
providers. The discussion explored whether this required a new policy or could be
addressed through existing services.
Existing Support & Advice Services
UCL’s Advice Service already provides one-on-one support for students facing
tenancy issues.
It was suggested that awareness needs to be improved, as many students may not
know about these services.
A proposal was made to offer recorded sessions or seminars on basic tenancy law
and student rights to better educate students, particularly second-year and
international students.
Concerns About UCL’s Role in Tenant Advocacy
Some members expressed concerns that UCL’s Rent Guarantor Scheme (RGS)
could be affected if UCL takes a stronger stance against landlords.
If UCL acts as a guarantor, it may be seen as directly involved in tenancy disputes,
potentially impacting its credibility.
WCZ2404M
Page 8 of 11
It was noted that this issue falls under broader lobbying efforts, including
collaborations with the National Union of Students (NUS) to end rent upfront
requirements and reform guarantor policies.
Potential Next Steps & Policy Revision
Given the concerns raised, members debated whether to proceed with a vote or
withdraw and revise the proposal for future consideration.
It was agreed that further consultation is needed, particularly regarding the
feasibility of UCL’s involvement in landlord disputes.
The proposer chose to withdraw the policy to rework it based on the discussion
points raised.
Outcome
No vote was held on this policy.
Further discussions will take place outside the meeting to develop a revised
approach that aligns with existing student support services and lobbying efforts.
Members were encouraged to share additional input before the next policy revision.
11. Discussion - Removal of Circuit Laundry from UCL Accommodation and
replacing it with in-house laundry machines
The discussion focused on removing Circuit Laundry from UCL-managed accommodations
and replacing it with in-house laundry facilities to reduce costs for students. Currently, UCL
accommodations do not include laundry costs within bills, unlike other utilities. It was noted
that laundry costs have been increasing, with the current price for a wash and dry cycle
averaging £5.
Feasibility & Financial Considerations
A cost analysis suggested that four new washing machines could be purchased if
each resident contributed less than the cost of a single wash cycle.
Some members raised concerns that UCL may not want to take responsibility for
machine maintenance and repair costs, which are currently covered by Circuit
Laundry.
It was acknowledged that some UCL halls are externally managed (e.g., Unite
Students), which could complicate contract negotiations and create inconsistencies
across accommodations.
Alternative Solutions & Support for Students
A suggestion was made to introduce a Laundry Fund, similar to the Hardship Fund,
to support students who struggle with laundry costs.
Members raised the idea of using available funding from the SU or UCL
Accommodation to subsidize laundry costs or provide Circuit Laundry vouchers for
students.
The accessibility of laundry facilities was highlighted as a concern, particularly for
disabled students, due to dryer placement and app payment issues.
WCZ2404M
Page 9 of 11
Long-Term Accommodation Strategy & Student Experience
Members discussed the potential for reimagining laundry spaces as social areas in
new accommodation planning, emphasizing the need for centrally located,
accessible facilities.
UCL’s long-term accommodation strategy group is already reviewing the role of
laundry facilities in student accommodations.
Concerns were raised about the long-term Circuit Laundry contract (until 2031) and
whether UCL could negotiate at least one free wash per month per student to help
offset costs.
Next Steps
The issue will be raised in upcoming meetings with UCL Accommodation to explore
possible changes to laundry services.
Further discussions will determine whether UCL can renegotiate elements of its
Circuit Laundry contract or move towards an in-house model in future
accommodation planning.
Members were encouraged to provide additional feedback and attend the upcoming
meeting to further discuss student concerns regarding laundry costs and accessibility.
12. Peer-to-Peer Mental Health Support Scheme
The proposal aimed to develop a peer-to-peer mental health support scheme to provide
inclusive and culturally relevant mental health support at UCL. Recognizing that mental
health provider backgrounds impact student experiences, the scheme seeks to create a
support network where students can connect with peers from similar backgrounds or lived
experiences. The initiative is being developed in collaboration with UCL Connect, which
has already been working on a similar project.
Key Considerations & Feedback
Concerns were raised about ensuring trained volunteers provide effective and
appropriate support. A suggestion was made to train selected students in each hall
to offer mental health first aid and peer support.
Members discussed whether merging this initiative with existing support schemes
(e.g., Transition Mentor Scheme) could create a more cohesive system, but it was
noted that each scheme serves different purposes.
The scheme could function as a buddy system, where students are matched based
on shared backgrounds or identities (e.g., LGBTQ+ students, students with
disabilities) to foster a sense of connection and reduce isolation.
Challenges & Potential Adjustments
Some members expressed concerns that labeling the scheme as a mental health
initiative might discourage students from engaging, particularly those who do not
see themselves as having a mental health issue but still experience loneliness or
isolation.
WCZ2404M
Page 10 of 11
A key issue raised was ensuring confidentiality and appropriate boundaries for
volunteers. Training should include guidance on when to break confidentiality in
case of serious concerns.
Members highlighted the need to ensure volunteers remain engaged, as some past
schemes have suffered from participants not responding or dropping out, making it
frustrating for students seeking support.
Next Steps
The project team will consider refinements based on the discussion, including:
oClear training and selection criteria for volunteers.
oFraming the scheme as a “buddy system” rather than solely a mental health
initiative.
oProviding an option to change peer matches if needed.
Further consultation with UCL Connect and other stakeholders will be conducted to
finalize the structure and implementation plan.
Members were encouraged to share additional feedback and to reach out if they wished to
be involved in developing or piloting the scheme.
Any Other Business
13. Any Other Business
Accommodation Meeting with UCL Officials
Joseph Lay (Director of Accommodation) and Sarah West (Head of Student
Experience) have agreed to meet on March 4th from 4:00 to 5:00 PM at the
Cruciform Building and online.
The meeting aims to provide hall community officers (HCOs) an opportunity to
discuss concerns directly with UCL Accommodation and Student Experience teams.
Briefing emails will be sent out to HCOs, who are encouraged to share the invite
with students and collect queries in advance via a submission form to help shape
responses.
The discussion is intended to foster collaboration rather than an adversarial
dynamic, using ongoing concerns like Circuit Laundry as a starting point for better
engagement.
Those interested in attending should email the Welfare & Community Officer (RL) to
receive an invitation.
109 Camden Rd Residents Complaint
A complaint will be submitted by residents of 109 Camden Rd due to unresolved
accommodation issues.
RL was asked to provide a comment on the matter.
Minutes approved as a true and accurate record
Chair:
Rachel Lim
WCZ2404M
Page 11 of 11
Signature:
Rachel Lim
Date:
15/4/25
1hps://studentsunionucl.org/whats-on/events-acvies/welcome-fair-2024
2hps://www.independent.co.uk/news/educaon/educaon-news/coca-cola-is-banned-from-students-union-over-
unethical-pracces-412455.html
3hps://www.meshighereducaon.com/opinion/universies-should-rethink-their-complicity-corporate-bad-
behaviour
4hps://www.macleans.ca/educaon/uniandcollege/universies-shouldnt-prot/
5hps://sites.google.com/luu.org.uk/luu-policy/beer-union/unethical-companies-freshers
6hps://www.ethicalconsumer.org/
7hps://www.abersu.co.uk/changeaber/policy/toreducetheuseouyingfromamazonwithinthestudentsunion/
Briefing – Policy Proposal
Title: Use of Amazon Vouchers and Products
Date: 02/05/2025
Audience: Welfare & Community Zone
The topic at a glance:
This is a resubmission of a lapsing policy
Apart from this Policy, UCL and the Union has no other guidance on ethical purchasing.
Reports show that Amazon are not doing enough to recover their significant carbon
footprint.
What is the current situation at UCL related to this proposal?
UCL does not currently have a policy for or against using Amazon vouchers or ordering from
Amazon to use Amazon products. Amazon vouchers are occasionally used to thank participants
for participating in a survey and/or research study at UCL. However, Students’ Union UCL has
since moved to One for All Vouchers. However, the Union did host Amazon Prime as a vendor at
the 2024 Welcome Fair.1
What would change if the policy was successful?
The Union would re-commit to not using Amazon products, including vouchers, and continue not to
engage with them.
What is the relevant national context to this situation?
Universities and students have tried to avoid engaging with corporations they consider unethical. In
addition to the Union previously adopting a policy against the use of Amazon vouchers and
products, further relevant examples are listed below:
» Sussex University banned Coca-Cola products from the Students’ Union over unethical
practices 2
» There is an awareness that universities engaging with companies perceived to have
unethical practices should be reconsidered3 4
» Leeds University Union passed a policy to “ban unethical companies during Freshers'
Week” 5based on an ‘Ethical Consumer’ index6. The presence of an Amazon Prime banner
on campus seems to have sparked the introduction of this policy.
» Most recently, Aberystwyth Students' Union passed a policy “To Reduce the Use of Buying
from Amazon Within the Students Union”, which is now considered completed. A point of
encouraging staff to pursue local businesses and abandon fast commercial buying
practices, which was lead on by their President.7
8hps://www.ethicalconsumer.org/company-prole/amazoncom-inc
9hps://thisrockesg.com/sustainability/amazon-sustainability-report/
Since the previous policy was passed, Amazon’s unethical practices have persisted. For
example, Ethical Consumer writes that. “Our research highlights many ethical issues for Amazon,
including climate change, environmental reporting, habitats & resources, pollutions and toxics,
arms & military supply, human rights, worker's rights, supply chain management, irresponsible
marketing, animal rights, animal testing, factory farming, use of controversial technologies, political
activities, and anti-social finance.”8
Are there any legal implications to this policy proposal?
No.
Does this relate to any existing Union policy?
This is a renewal of a lapsing policy.
Are there any financial, resource or stakeholder / public relations issues with this policy proposal?
No.
Are there any sustainability implications to this policy proposal?
Yes. As stated in “What is the relevant national context to this situation?”, Ethical Consumer,
amongst other organisations, has highlighted the danger Amazon poses to sustainability practices.
Furthermore, This Rock analysed Amazon’s most recent Sustainability Report (2024). They found
that, while Amazon has committed to renewable energy, the Climate Pledge and electric delivery
vehicles, it still has a significant carbon footprint, poor labour practices and a purposely obscuring
supply chain to avoid taking sustainable responsibility.9Therefore, this proposal positively impacts
the Union’s sustainability goals by committing to not using Amazon products.
Are there any equity and inclusion implications to this policy proposal?
No.
What would the next steps be if the proposal passed?
Students’ Union UCL would reinstate their lapsed policy. They will also identify relevant
stakeholders (departments and individuals who usually give Amazon vouchers out) to
understand their views on this matter, as this could directly affect how participants engage
in studies. Help staff and students identify alternative providers who they can use instead
of Amazon.
Policy Proposal
Title: Support Students in Sex Work
Policy Zone to be discussed at: Welfare & Community Zone
1. What would you like the Union to do?
Renew the soon to lapse policy, Supporting Students in Sex Work
(https://studentsunionucl.org/policy/up2209/supporting-students-in-sex-w…).
This is the second time it is renewed
(https://studentsunionucl.org/policy/up2008/supporting-students-in-sex-w…).
The Union should produce a written report within 6 months, on what they have done
so far to support students in sex work and how they plan to improve and continue the
work so far.
This is all the more important when the police and crime bill comes into force (which
will likely happen in the second half of 2025). This would seek to implement the
nordic model. The proposed legislation seeks to criminalise the purchase of sex
while decriminalising its sale. This is referred to as the Nordic Model or the Sex
Buyer Law. 5. In theory, this model aims to reduce demand and target exploitation,
however in reality it will harm people working in the sex work industry and may push
them into more dangerous and volatile environments. More information can be found
here: https://bills.parliament.uk/publications/60153/documents/6313
All the following information is written in the original policies.
It includes:
- To support and campaign for the full decriminalisation of sex work in order to better
protect student sex workers.
- To support sex worker led organisations, such as the English Collective of
Prostitutes, SWARM, Sex Workers Alliance Ireland, and SCOT-PEP, who work to
improve the lives of student sex workers across the UK and beyond.
- If there was an attempt to introduce the Nordic Model, to raise awareness of the
impact on student sex workers.
- To support student sex workers being threatened with disciplinary action based
solely or in part due to their status as a sex worker.
- To support student sex workers that are being outed, targeted, faced with prejudice
and discrimination or harassed in the university for their status as sex workers
- To have resources available for student sex workers seeking report, such as the
Student Sex Work Toolkit for Staff in Higher Education developed by the Sex Work
Research Hub
2. Why would you like to do this?
I think that restating the union's commitment to supporting students in sex work is
incredibly important. With one in twenty students working in sex work, often to
support increasing costs of living, offering support to a student group that is already
at high-risk is the least that the union could do. Additionally, pushes for legislation to
criminalise the purchase of sex, for example through the introduction of a "Nordic
Model", are often led by anti-choice, anti-trans, right-wing fundamentalists and
radical exclusionary feminists, who act against the values of diversity and inclusivity
that the union stands by.
Often, legislation of this kind is brought forward in the name of anti-trafficking
programmes, when in reality they are laws which aim to control what people can and
can’t do with their own bodies, combined with dangerous anti-immigration initiatives.
Criminalising the purchase of sex puts sex workers, especially those who work on
the street, in danger. Decriminalisation reduces police abuse, harassment and
violence against sex workers. Organisations that support the decriminalisation of sex
work include the World Health Organisation, UN Women, Amnesty International, the
Global Commission on HIV and the Law, Human Rights Watch, and NUS.
Decriminalisation would ensure that sex workers feel able to report unsafe clients or
violence at work without the worry of criminal repercussions, and that those who
wish to leave the sex industry are not left with criminal records as a result of their job.
3. How will this aect students?
The Student Sex Worker Project shows us that at least one in twenty students have
engaged in sex work. During a cost of living crisis, more students will be dependent
on sex work during their time at university. By passing this policy, the union, and
hopefully, the university, will be better able to support students in sex work.
As stated in the previous policy, expulsion of or disciplining student sex workers for
their involvement in sex work is counterproductive to their goals, safety and
wellbeing. “Outing” or letting others know about a student’s status as a sex worker
without their consent puts the student at great risk of harm, and is a form of
harassment. Prejudice and discrimination against sex workers can include using
slurs against sex workers, excluding sex workers from societies or events,
purposefully silencing the voices of sex workers, aggressively arguing for
criminalisation or for the Nordic model without inclusion of current sex workers
themselves, and maliciously outing a sex worker with intent to cause discipline or
harm.
Brieng – Policy Proposal
Title: Supporng Students in Sex Work
Date: 07/05/2025
Audience: Welfare & Community Zone
The topic at a glance:
• This submission calls for the renewal of a lapsing policy of the same name. This would be the
second me this proposal has been put forward for renewal.
• The Union has a page that oers informaon, guidance, and advice to Student Sex Workers
• The Government’s forthcoming Crime and Policing Bill includes a proposal to criminalise the
purchase of sex (the Nordic Model), which this policy opposes and opts for full decriminalisaon.
What is the current situaon at UCL related to this proposal?
The Union previously passed a “Supporng Students in Sex Work” policy in 2020 (policy code UP2008) and
renewed it in 2022 (UP2209).
1
That policy is due to expire in June of 2025. The Union has a page that oers
informaon, guidance, and advice to Student Sex Workers as part of the support provided by the Advice
Service.
2
Beyond this, previous commitments included public support for full decriminalisaon and
protecon from instuonal discipline or harassment due to engagement in sex work.
The University does not currently have any publicly available guidance specic to student sex work.
There are no dedicated resources provided by UCL for students who engage in sex work.
What would change if the policy was successful?
The Union would formally reinstate its support for student sex workers. This includes:
• Producing a wrien report within six months outlining what acons have been taken so far and
future plans.
• Campaigning in favour of full decriminalisaon of sex work, including opposing the Nordic Model,
which may be introduced as part of naonal legislaon in 2025.
• Promong and signposng resources, such as the Student Sex Work Toolkit for Sta in Higher
Educaon.
• Collaborang with sex worker-led organisaons such as SWARM and the English Collecve of
Prostutes.
What is the relevant naonal / internaonal context to this situaon?
Internaonally, there is growing support for the decriminalisaon of consensual sex work. Major health and
human-rights organisaons, like the World Health Organisaon, Joint United Naons Programme on
HIV/AIDS (UNAIDS), Amnesty Internaonal, and Human Rights Watch, endorse decriminalisaon as the best
way to reduce violence, improve health outcomes, and respect sex workers’ rights. For example, WHO
modelling indicates that decriminalisaon could cut new HIV infecons among sex workers by up to 46%
1
hps://studentsunionucl.org/policy/up2209/supporng-students-in-sex-work
2
hps://studentsunionucl.org/advice-and-support/support/student-sex-workers
over a decade.
3
A recent UN Working Group report explicitly called for full decriminalisaon of adult sex
work worldwide.
4
Naonally, in the UK, the Government’s forthcoming Crime and Policing Bill includes a proposal to
criminalise the purchase of sex (the Nordic/Sex Buyer Model) while keeping the sale legal.
5
Submission of
evidence to Parliament has warned that this approach “increases danger” and urged instead full
decriminalisaon, nong that in places like France and Northern Ireland, violence against sex workers rose
under the Nordic model.
6
Naonally, students and workers’ unions have taken similar posions. For instance, the UK Naonal
Union of Students (NUS) passed a moon in 2014 supporng decriminalisaon so that sex workers have
labour rights and protecons. Many Student Unions, such as Sheeld
7
, St Andrews Students’ Associaon
8
,
Newcastle University Students' Union
9
, University of Srling Students’ Union
10
and Greenwich Students’
Union
11
have all published toolkit guides, policy and avenues for support for student sex workers.
Are there any legal implicaons to this policy proposal?
While there are no legal implicaons to passing the policy, the policy’s main advocacy goal – full
decriminalisaon of sex work – would require changes to naonal legislaon. The Union would be able to
openly campaign for law reform while working within the bounds of current law.
Does this relate to any exisng Union policy?
Yes. This proposal is eecvely a re‑introducon of the current (but lapsed) SU policy “Supporng Students
in Sex Work” (UP2008/UP2209). The earlier policy contained virtually the same commitments – e.g. to
campaign for decriminalisaon and to support sex-working students facing harassment or discipline.
Are there any nancial, resource or stakeholder / public relaons issues with this policy proposal?
Yes, a nancial cost could be incurred to produce resources and the six-month report. However, producing
the six‑month report or hosng awareness events could be covered under exisng ocer porolios. Any
material costs (e.g. prinng a safety leaet or purchasing a rights-of-sex-work toolkit) would be modest.
Key stakeholders include student sex workers themselves and allied external groups, such as the
English Collecve of Prostutes and SWARM. Union sta would need appropriate training; for instance, the
Union may liaise with the Sex Work Research Hub or similar experts to ensure correct advice.
Are there any sustainability implicaons to this policy proposal?
No.
Are there any equity and inclusion implicaons to this policy proposal?
Yes, supporng student sex workers has strong equity implicaons. Sex work intersects with many protected
and marginalised idenes: for example, surveys have found that a majority of student sex workers idenfy
as LGBTQ+ and a large share have disabilies or health condions.
12
The Student Sex Work Project found
3
hps://www.who.int/teams/global-hiv-hepas-and-ss-programmes/populaons/sex-workers
4
hps://www.hrw.org/news/2023/11/28/landmark-un-report-calls-sex-work-decriminalizaon
5
hps://bills.parliament.uk/bills/3938
6
hps://publicaons.parliament.uk/pa/cm5901/cmpublic/CrimePolicing/memo/CPB27
7
hps://su.sheeld.ac.uk/advice-and-support/health-wellbeing/support-for-student-sex-workers
8
hps://www.yourunion.net/support/student-sex-workers/
9
hps://nusu.co.uk/support/community/ssw
10
hps://www.srlingstudentsunion.com/advocacy-and-advice/studentsexworkers/
11
hps://www.greenwichsu.co.uk/advice/sexworkers/
12
hps://www.independent.co.uk/student/news/decriminalisaon-of-student-sex-work-prostuon-to-pay-
university-tuion-fees
that 5% of students engage in some form of sex work, oen for economic reasons.
13
Harassment, prejudice,
and oung without consent are risks that disproporonately aect these students. This policy seeks to
protect a vulnerable group by ensuring they are treated with respect and can access condenal, non-
judgmental support. It aligns with the Union’s broader commitments to equity, diversity, and safeguarding.
What would the next steps be if the proposal passed?
According to the proposal, the Union must report back within six months on what has been done in the past
to support sex workers and what is planned for the future. Therefore, the Welfare & Community ocer
should work alongside the Policy & Research team to gather data on exisng support, such as the number
of students who have sought condenal advice and the type of support provided. They should also reach
out to listed organisaons (e.g. the English Collecve of Prostutes, SWARM, etc.) for informaon to help
support their eorts to support and upli student sex workers’ wellbeing.
13
hps://www-2018.swansea.ac.uk/media/Student%20Sex%20Work%20Report%202015.pdf
Policy Proposal
Title: The Union should commit to formalizing the implementaon of the Sustainability Council and
addressing the climate emergency across the Union’s work
Policy Zone to be discussed at: Welfare & Community Zone
1. What would you like the Union to do?
The climate crisis is an existenal challenge that aects all aspects of student life, from academic
opportunies and future careers to personal well-being. As one of the UK’s leading universies, UCL
has both the responsibility and the inuence to take ambious acon on sustainability.
The Union should reinforce its strong and ongoing commitment to sustainability and addressing the
climate crisis by:
a) Embedding sustainability as a core priority across the Union’s work:
The Union should build on its exisng Sustainability Strategy 2022-25 integrang sustainability into
all areas of its acvies, from student engagement and campaigns to decision-making processes and
operaonal policies. This includes ensuring that sustainability is factored into Union-run events,
procurement, partnerships, and advocacy eorts.
b) Supporng the Sustainability Council as a key mechanism for student-led climate acon:
The Union should formally recognize the Sustainability Council as an essenal space for students to
collaborate and develop sustainability iniaves. The Council will aim to play a key role in amplifying
student voices and inuencing the Union, UCL, and actors beyond our student community in regards
to sustainability and climate acon.
With that in mind, the Sustainability Council will have two main branches: Monthly Council sessions
and student-led Task Forces.
The Monthly Council sessions will be open to all students, providing a space to address
environmental maers and discuss ongoing sustainability projects at the Union. The Council, from
me to me, might submit policy to Zones for consideraon to further its work. The Union will
formally invite all environmental sociees to take part, in addion to relevant environmental student
leaders.
The Task Forces are student-led working groups focused on specic areas of work. Currently, the
Sustainability Council has the Banking and Polical Task Forces which should be acvely supported by
the Union. In addion to these two Task Forces, the Union should aim to develop other Task Forces
throughout the years in areas such as Energy, Educaon, Biodiversity, and any other areas that the
student community deems relevant. The Union should ensure that each Task Force has an
overarching vision that spans mulple years, along with clear goals set at the beginning of each
academic year.
The responsibility for ensuring project connuity across the Task Forces from year to year rests with
the SU President, who will be supported by any relevant sta members. It is also the responsibility of
these members/groups to recruit students at the start of each year to join the Council and its Task
Forces. When relevant and feasible, the Sustainability Ocer will support the work of the President
in relaon to the Sustainability Council and its Task Forces.
c) Lobbying and supporng UCL to strengthen its climate commitments and sustainability/
environmental related policies:
The Union should push UCL to implement more ambious sustainability iniaves, hold the
university accountable for its environmental commitments, and ensure student voices are
meaningfully included in shaping sustainability policies.
2. Why would you like to do this?
The Students’ Union has already taken important steps, such as developing a sustainability strategy
and iniaves to educate students such as the Sustainability Course developed in partnership with
the IOE, UCL's Faculty of Educaon and Society, running sustainability events, and facilitang the
implementaon of the new SU Sustainability Council. However, a more structured and long-term
commitment will ensure that sustainability remains a central priority across all Union acvies.
By embedding sustainability into the Union’s core work, the Union can more eecvely push for
change at UCL, support student-led climate acon, and ensure that future ocers connue to
priorise environmental issues. The Sustainability Council provides an essenal structure to make
this possible, oering a space for students to coordinate eorts, connect with sustainability
iniaves across the UK, and advocate for stronger policies at both UCL and naonal levels.
3. How will this aect students?
a) Creang long-term structures for student-led sustainability acon:
By formally recognizing the Sustainability Council as part of this commitment, students will have a
dedicated space to shape the Union’s sustainability priories, and run campaigns that drive climate
and environmental acon across the university and beyond. This ensures that climate acon remains
a priority regardless of changes in Union leadership as well as project connuity.
b) Ensuring that student voices are heard in the Union’s sustainability decisions:
A stronger mandate for sustainability means that students will have more opportunies to inuence
how the Union approaches environmental issues, making it easier to push for moons that align with
student values and the urgent need for climate acon.
c) Making sustainability a core part of the Union’s work:
This moon ensures that sustainability is priorised as an integral part of the Union’s mission and
wider mandate. This will result in more environmentally responsible Union acvies, more
opportunies for students to get involved in sustainability iniaves, and a stronger plaorm for
students who want to drive meaningful climate acon.
By passing this moon, the Union will commit to making sustainability a long-term priority,
strengthening its ability to advocate for ambious climate policies, and providing students with
structured opportunies to take acon through spaces like the Sustainability Council. This will ensure
that environmental issues and acon remain central to the Union’s mandate to advocate for a more
just and sustainable future.
•
•
•
1
hps://studentsunionucl.org/arcles/ucl-student-union-sustainability-council-susco
2
hps://studentsunionucl.org/sites/default/les/inline-images/Informaon%20Sheet.%20Banking%20Taskforce.pdf
3
hps://studentsunionucl.org/sites/default/les/inline-images/Informaon-Sheet.%20Polical%20Taskforce.pdf
4
hps://studentsunionucl.org/student-sustainability-forum
Policy Proposal
Title: The Union Should Cut Ties With Environmentally And Socially Harmful Banks
Policy Zone to be discussed at: Welfare & Community Zone
1. What would you like the Union to do?
Banks play a powerful but oen invisible role in exacerbang the climate crisis. As students open
bank accounts—parcularly during Freshers Week—the Union has a unique opportunity and
responsibility to ensure our student community is well equipped with comprehensive, ethical, and
environmentally focused informaon to make the choice of who to bank with.
Hence, the Union should strengthen its climate commitment by:
A) Ending and banning acve promoon of environmentally harmful banks through SU events and
partnerships:
The Union should cut es with environmentally and socially harmful banks, ensuring that they are no
longer invited at Union events aimed at promong their banking services. However, these
instuons should sll be welcomed in panel discussions or educaonal spaces where mulple
perspecves are encouraged. This approach ensures a disncon between informed debate and
implicit endorsement.
For clarity on which banks to be listed as environmentally and socially harmful banks, the Union
should follow the assessment of experts on the maer like the MotherTree Bank League Table and
Switch It Green.
B) The Union Finance Commiee should priorize the environmental and ethical implicaons of a
bank when making any banking-related decisions.
2. Why would you like to do this?
Despite widespread student support for climate acon, many students are unknowingly banking with
instuons that fund the fossil fuel industry. In 2023 alone, the top 60 global banks poured over
$705 billion into fossil fuel companies, with Barclays leading among European banks (Banking on
Climate Chaos, 2024). The average student account—even with a zero balance—supports an
esmated £1.5 million in fossil fuel investments due to bank lending pracces (Switch It Green,
2024).
This moon will ensure that the Union plays a proacve role in educang students about banking,
while also reinforcing its climate commitments by ending partnerships that implicitly legimise
environmentally damaging banks. These changes also align with the SU’s exisng Sustainability
Strategy.
3. How will this aect students?
By supporng the Banking Task Force and embedding its work the Union will foster student
leadership on ethical nance and build pressure on harmful banking pracces. This reinforces the
Union’s role as a climate leader and ensures connuity for campaigns aligned with student priories.
Passing this moon ensures that students are equipped to bank with their values, that the Union
stays true to its climate commitments, and that students are at the forefront of reshaping nancial
norms for a more just and sustainable future.
Brieng – Policy Proposal
Title: The Union Should Cut Ties With Environmentally And Socially Harmful Banks
Date: 02/05/2025
Audience: Welfare & Community Zone
The topic at a glance:
• The Union’s current banking choice is due to it being the most nancially viable bank for a large
charitable organisaon.
• The Union provides nancial advice, including banking advice, but not specic ethical banking
advice.
• Other Students’ Unions have chosen to take up ethical banking choices, relave to what can
support their instuonal size.
• Organisaons such as Students Organising for Sustainability provide unique training opportunies
for students to learn about ethical banking and nances.
What is the current situaon at UCL related to this proposal?
The Union inially shied away from its banking source to adopt more ethical pracces. However, it has
reverted to using Barclays Bank, which proves to be the most nancially viable opon for a large charitable
organisaon. At present, the Union lacks guidance on ethical banking for students, although the
Sustainability Council (SusCo) Banking Task Force aims to educate and inform students about ethical
banking opons. The Union provides more general banking and money advice.
1
In the past, parcularly in 2020, UCL published informave arcles urging students to make ethical
choices when selecng a bank or to switch to an ethical bank whenever possible. This appears to be
promoted as part of the Posive Climate campaign.
2
People & The Planet ranked UCL 15th in its University
League for sustainability. Specically, it judged UCL to have no ethical banking policies regarding banking
and ethical investment and therefore scored zero on this scale.
3
What would change if the policy was successful?
The Union would need to seek out an o-high-street bank that meets the proposal's ethical requirements.
Addionally, work would need to be done to review partnerships and appropriate ethical banking advice for
students.
What is the relevant naonal context to this situaon?
In the last ten years, ethical banking has become a larger concern of students, and several ideas have been
presented within their relevant Students’ Union structures for change. For example, the University of the
West of England (UWE) Students’ Union passed a policy in 2017 to “commit to using Triodos Bank, an
ethical bank that does not invest in fossil fuels.” The bank in queson is a Bristol-based ethical bank.
Unfortunately, as of 2021, this policy has not been fully realised as the UWE SU has yet to nd a bank that
comfortably supports an organisaon of their size.
4
1
hps://studentsunionucl.org/advice-and-support/support/nancial-support
2
hps://www.ucl.ac.uk/sustainable/case-studies/2020/apr/switch-ethical-banking
3
hps://peopleandplanet.org/university-league/2024/u1522/university-college-london
4
hps://www.thestudentsunion.co.uk/representaon/student-ideas/108/
More recently, Falmouth & Exeter Students' Union announced in 2023 that it had decided to move
its banking to The Co-Operave Bank aer the Board of Trustees made a decision based on “student
feedback highlighng the benets of switching to ethical banking providers.”
5
It is essenal to note that the
Falmouth & Exeter Students' Union is a smaller union and can, therefore, be supported by the Co-Operave
Bank; however, it is unclear whether this specic provider can support the Students’ Union and its nances.
York St. John Students' Union announced in April 2025 that they had successfully encouraged their
university to divest from high-street banks and use Unity Trust Bank, “a bank that does not invest in fossil
fuels and only lends to organisaons making a posive dierence in the UK”. They also stated that their
movaons were based on work done in partnership with “Students Organising for Sustainability”
6
. This
organisaon is expanded on below.
In terms of Students’ Unions cung es and banning acve promoon of environmentally harmful banks,
two prominent examples are available.
Nongham Trent Students' Union acvely promotes sustainable banking strategies as part of its
oer to students. This page explains the benets of choosing sustainable banking and provides alternave
opons to tradional ‘big banks’ for students.
7
Students Organising for Sustainability (SOS-UK) is a student-led organisaon that oers educaon
on various topics related to sustainability. Their “Invest for Change” campaign acvely asks Universies and
their beneciaries, such as Students’ Unions, to create ethical investment porolios. To help students lobby
for this, they run Invest for Change workshops.
8
While this training is explicitly targeted at lobbying, SOS-UK
oers a helpful and educaonal source for curang and producing educaonal content on ethical banking
for students, by students.
Are there any legal implicaons to this policy proposal?
No.
Does this relate to any exisng Union policy?
The Union previously passed a policy to cut es with Barclays Bank; this proposal lapsed in October 2023.
9
Are there any nancial, resource or stakeholder / public relaons issues with this policy proposal?
Yes. The implicaons of changing banks needs to be considered by the Union Trustee Board. The decision to
change bank is a decision for the trustees to take, weighing up the policy and the nancial risks to the
organisaon.
Are there any sustainability implicaons to this policy proposal?
Yes. If approved, this policy proposal will promote a banking approach that enables students to make
informed and sustainable choices about their banking opons, through ceasing the promoon of unethical
banking partners. It will also support the SusCo objecve of increasing student awareness about sustainable
banking.
Are there any equity and inclusion implicaons to this policy proposal?
No.
5
hps://www.thesu.org.uk/news/arcle/6013/Becoming-more-sustainable-through-banking/
6
hps://ysjsu.com/news/arcle/Ethical-Investment-YSJ
7
hps://www.trentstudents.org/about-us/sustainability/what-you-can-do/sustainable-banking
8
hps://www.sos-uk.org/project/invest-for-change
9
hps://studentsunionucl.org/policy/up2103/students-union-ucl-banking
What would the next steps be if the proposal passed?
The outcome of the policy passing will need to be communicated to the Union’s Finance Commiee and
Trustee Board.
Policy Proposal
Title: Union to Lobby UCL for Accountability, Transparency, and Ongoing Protecon in Sta
Misconduct Policies
Policy Zone to be discussed at: Welfare & Community Zone.
1. What would you like the Union to do?
The Union should lobby UCL to maintain a rm and transparent stance against sta
misconduct, ensuring consistent enforcement of zero-tolerance policies and safeguarding all
students from inappropriate, threatening, or violent behaviour. Where relevant policies exist,
the Union should work to hold UCL accountable for their successful implementaon, ensure
connued improvement, and guarantee that mechanisms remain student-focused and
inclusive.
Policy Objecves:
1. Reinforce and Monitor UCL’s Zero-Tolerance Stance
• Lobby UCL to publicly rearm and communicate its zero-tolerance posion on sta
misconduct, parcularly in the context of recent reviews of the Personal
Relaonships and Prevenon of Bullying, Harassment and Sexual Misconduct
policies.
• Ensure that UCL connues to evaluate and improve these frameworks post-
publicaon, with a focus on how they impact students – especially those in vulnerable
academic posions.
2. Enhance Implementaon and Oversight of Misconduct Invesgaons
• Lobby for transparent and independent review processes in cases involving sta
misconduct, with clear communicaon of student rights and accessible reporng
channels.
• Advocate for independent oversight or external review mechanisms to minimise
conicts of interest and increase trust in outcomes.
• Press UCL to guarantee connued training for sta involved in invesgaons, especially
when personnel changes occur.
3. Guarantee Protecon and Support for Student Complainants
• Lobby UCL to guarantee protecon from retaliaon for any student who reports sta
misconduct.
• Ensure that safeguards are in place for the duraon of invesgaons, including
academic accommodaons and access to support services.
• The SU should seek a formal consultave or review role in policy implementaon,
ensuring students’ perspecves are reected.
2. Why would you like to do this?
Students deserve a university environment in which they are protected from misconduct by
those in posions of power. While UCL has taken posive steps – such as reviewing key policies
– students connue to face barriers in reporng sta misconduct, including unclear processes,
fear of retaliaon, and insucient transparency.
Recent cases demonstrate that policy existence alone is insucient – what maers is how
eecvely these are enforced and experienced by students. The Union must act as a watchdog
and advocate to ensure that implementaon is robust, consistent, and student-centred, with
ongoing training and improvement built into these systems.
3. How will this aect students?
• Improved Student Safety: A visible, enforced zero-tolerance approach reassures
students that UCL takes protecon seriously.
• Greater Transparency & Trust: Students will have clearer routes to report misconduct
and more faith in the fairness of invesgaons.
• Protecon from Retaliaon: Guaranteed safeguards help ensure students are not
punished for coming forward.
• Sustained Accountability: Through regular SU monitoring and input, misconduct
policies can evolve to meet students’ needs over me.
This policy will especially benet:
• Postgraduate and research students, who may be especially reliant on sta
relaonships.
• Internaonal students, who may be unfamiliar with reporng processes or their rights.
• Marginalised students, who oen face compounded vulnerabilies in power-
imbalanced environments.
Brieng – Policy Proposal
Title: Union to Lobby UCL for Transparent, Survivor-Centred Improvements to the "Report and Support"
System through Formal Student Consultaon
Date: 08/05/2025
Audience: Welfare & Community Zone
Trigger warning: This policy brieng contains references to sexual assault.
The topic at a glance:
• UCL introduced a Report and Support system in 2019 to tackle bullying, harassment, sexual
misconduct, racism, hate crimes and other misconduct
• In 2021, the EDI department conducted student experience research to evaluate the user-
friendliness of Report and Support. This study included 12 students and did not focus on
experiences or improvements centred on survivors.
• Many universies and students' unions, including Cambridge, the Open University, and Birmingham,
have consultaon frameworks, but evidence of student consultaon on mental health services is
minimal.
What is the current situaon at UCL related to this proposal?
UCL introduced a Report and Support system in 2019 to tackle bullying, harassment, sexual misconduct,
racism, hate crimes and other misconduct.
1
UCL publishes annual anonymous reports on data insights and
intelligence obtained through Report and Support
2
, the latest of which was published in Spring 2025. The
reports are comprehensive and transparent regarding usage of the plaorm, type of issue report and the
outcome given. The 2023-24 academic year report indicates that an internal review of Report and Support
took place during May and November 2024. However, consultaon with feminist and gender advocacy
groups is not menoned as part of this report.
The Equality, Diversity and Inclusion (EDI) department conducted user-experience research in 2021
to test the user-friendliness of Report and Support
3
. The research had 12 student parcipants and focused
on usability rather than experiences of using the plaorm and survivor-centred improvements. UCL has
previously consulted with students, via the Students’ Union, on large-scale new projects such as the UCL
Strategic Plan
4
. The University also has a proud history of student co-producon and partnership through
projects and iniaves such as Change Makers
5
and Student Partnership Commiees
6
.
In March 2025, a former UCL student was convicted of mulple rapes and other serious oences
7
,
thus increasing the scruny of plaorms such as Report and Support as well as the support oered to
survivors of gender-based violence.
1
hps://report-support.ucl.ac.uk/
2
hps://report-support.ucl.ac.uk/support/reports-on-bullying-harassment-and-sexual-misconduct
3
hps://report-support.ucl.ac.uk/support/report-support-user-experience-evaluaon
4
hps://www.ucl.ac.uk/news/2022/jun/strategic-plan-2022-27-student-consultaon-so-far
5
hps://www.ucl.ac.uk/changemakers/
6
hps://www.ucl.ac.uk/teaching-learning/news/2024/oct/new-student-partnership-commiees-spcs-everything-you-
need-know
7
hps://www.ucl.ac.uk/news/2025/mar/ucl-statement-following-criminal-convicon-zhenhao-zou
A Cheese Grater arcle ulising an Oce for Independent Adjudicators (OIA) report, which was
shortlisted for ‘Best Invesgaon’ at the 2025 SPA Naonal Awards, highlighted a ‘range of failings’ with
Report and Support
8
.
What would change if the policy was successful?
The policy proposal would mandate the Sabbacal Ocers to lobby UCL to re-open their review of the
Report and Support services with the intenon of providing survivors and gender advocacy groups a
plaorm to shape instuonal response systems.
What is the relevant naonal / internaonal context to this situaon?
UCL uses a Report and Support system devised by the organisaon ‘Culture Shi’
9
, the plaorm is used at
several other UK Higher Educaon instuons such as Nongham, Sussex, Greenwich, Westminster,
Southampton, Essex, LSE and Imperial.
Across the sector, a number of Universies and Students’ Unions have ‘consultaon frameworks’
such as Cambridge
10
, Open University
11
and Birmingham
12
. However, there is minimal evidence of student
consultaon with regards to mental health, wellbeing and support services. This is largely because
instuons typically prefer to conduct internal reviews of their services.
Despite this, there is emerging scholarship in the past decade regarding a ‘survivor-centred’
approach in devising and improving support services as outlined in this policy proposal
131415
.
Are there any legal implicaons to this policy proposal?
No.
Does this relate to any exisng Union policy?
The Union has live policy regarding the wider disseminaon of the Acve Bystander programme which aims
to tackle sexual misconduct, bullying and harassment on campus
16
. However, there is not a conict between
this policy proposal and the exisng live policy.
Are there any nancial, resource or stakeholder / public relaons issues with this policy proposal?
Should this policy proposal pass, there could be tension and a reputaonal risk with the University,
parcularly colleagues within Support and Wellbeing Services, as the Union will be highlighng issues with
the internal review which they conducted this academic year.
Are there any sustainability implicaons to this policy proposal?
N/A
Are there any equity and inclusion implicaons to this policy proposal?
Consulng with feminist and gender advocacy groups regarding support systems designed to support them
is a posive step forward, as it allows student voices to inform the development of Report and Support. If
this policy proposal is successful, other student groups could be consulted regarding their experiences with
8
hps://cheesegratermagazine.org/2025/01/20/ucl-support-tool-did-more-harm-than-good-report-nds/
9
hps://educaondemo.culture-shi.co.uk/
10
hps://www.seniortutors.admin.cam.ac.uk/les/student_consultaon_framework.pdf
11
hps://community.open.ac.uk/how-we-listen/consultaon
12
hps://www.intranet.birmingham.ac.uk/student/academic-support/registry/legislaon/documents/public/cohort-
legislaon-2024-25/policy-consultaon-with-students-24-25.pdf
13
hps://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/1077801220935196
14
hps://www.degruyterbrill.com/document/doi/10.1515/9780228002383-004/pdf?licenseType=restricted
15
hps://www.spotlighniave.org/design-survivor-centred-programme
16
hps://studentsunionucl.org/policy/up2402/acve-bystander-and-consent-training
Report and Support. For example, the latest annual report highlights an 841.7% rise in Ansemism during
the 2023/24 academic year.
If a ‘survivor-centred’ approach is taken to improve Report and Support, this could be triggering and
trauma-inducing for any students who have been the vicms of bullying, harassment, sexual misconduct,
racism, hate crimes and other misconduct. Therefore, enhanced support should be oered to students
involved in the consultaon work.
What would the next steps be if the proposal passed?
The policy proposal would mandate the Sabbacal Ocers to lobby UCL to re-open their review of the
Report and Support services with the intenon of providing survivors and gender advocacy groups a
plaorm to shape instuonal response systems.
Policy Proposal
Title: Union to Lobby UCL for Transparent, Survivor-Centred Improvements to the "Report and
Support" System through Formal Student Consultaon
Policy Zone to be discussed at: Welfare & Community Zone
1. What would you like the Union to do?
The Union should lobby UCL to formally consult students – parcularly feminist and gender advocacy
groups – on how the "Report and Support" (R+S) system can be improved to beer reect the needs
of survivors and build trust in the reporng process. While UCL uses CultureShi’s R+S plaorm and
cannot fully redesign it, any scope for customisaon and improvement should include students.
Where changes have already been introduced, the Union should ensure these are eecvely
implemented, communicated, and sustained, especially through mes of sta turnover or leadership
change.
1. Formal Student Consultaon
• Lobby UCL to establish a formal consultaon process with students – parcularly survivors and
feminist sociees – to guide future improvements to R+S.
• Consultaon should go beyond feedback collecon and include ongoing partnership with
student groups in any decision-making about system changes, language, structure, and
accessibility.
2. Increased Transparency & Clear Communicaon
• Press UCL to regularly publish anonymised data on R+S usage, outcomes, and melines –
without compromising privacy.
• Ensure that all students are clearly informed of what happens aer a report is led, including
what anonymous reports can and cannot trigger.
• Advocate for clear disclaimers about data use and follow-up protocols at the point of
reporng.
3. Improve Accessibility & Survivor Support
• Ensure that the system remains trauma-informed, with reporng processes that are easy to
navigate and that oer mulple opons, including anonymous reporng, follow-up
communicaon, and direct referral to specialist services.
• Monitor implementaon of the new two-way communicaon opon for anonymous reports
to ensure it is used eecvely and responsibly.
• Lobby for connued development of survivor support features within the plaorm, including:
o Direct access to specialist caseworkers.
o Referral pathways to legal advice, counselling, and academic accommodaons.
o Clarity around melines and expectaons post-reporng.
4. Sustainable and Trauma-Informed Stang
• Ensure connued training for all sta involved in receiving and responding to R+S submissions,
including those newly hired or moved into relevant roles.
• Monitor implementaon of First Responder training and press for regular refreshers,
especially during sta transions.
• Collaborate with UCL and SSWS to evaluate the performance of new specialist sta (e.g.
Caseworkers, ISVAs) and ensure the system remains survivor-centred.
5. Explicit Consent for Data Use
• Lobby for explicit, opt-in consent before any R+S report is used for stascal analysis or
instuonal reporng.
• Ensure students are informed – at the point of submission – that anonymous reports will not
result in formal invesgaons, to prevent false expectaons.
2. Why would you like to do this?
While UCL has recently reviewed the Report and Support plaorm and introduced posive changes –
including stang increases and expanded communicaon features – students remain concerned about
its trustworthiness, accessibility, and responsiveness. Crically:
• Survivors have not been meaningfully involved in shaping improvements.
• Concerns persist about the use of data without consent and confusion over anonymous report
outcomes.
• Support groups like the Women’s Network and Gender & Feminism Society have expressed a
desire for formal consultaon and long-term engagement with the redesign process.
• Survivors have reported feeling abandoned or le in the dark aer using the plaorm.
This policy would ensure that UCL is held accountable for the success and sustainability of its plaorm
changes – and that student voices are integral to shaping a truly survivor-centred system.
3. How will this aect students?
• Increased Trust in Reporng Systems: Clearer language, student input, and informed consent
will reduce fear and confusion.
• Beer Survivor Support: Improvements to stang and system features will ensure survivors
receive mely, compassionate, and coordinated support.
• Stronger Student Voice in Policy: Formal consultaon gives survivors and gender advocacy
groups a plaorm to shape instuonal response systems.
• More Transparent and Accountable Pracce: Public reporng and process clarity will ensure
UCL follows through on promises and remains accountable to the student body.
Brieng – Policy Proposal
Title: Union to Lobby UCL for Accountability, Transparency, and Ongoing Protecon in Sta Misconduct
Policies
Date: 08/05/2025
Audience: Welfare & Community Zone
Trigger warning: This policy brieng contains references to sexual assault and harassment.
The topic at a glance:
• UCL has a Disciplinary Code, within it, ‘misconduct’ is dened as: ‘improper interference with the
proper funconing or acvies of UCL, or of those who work or study in UCL, or acon which
otherwise damages UCL and or its sta or students’.
• The Oce for Students (OfS) announced a new condion (E6) for harassment and sexual
misconduct in UK universies, eecve 1 August 2025.
What is the current situaon at UCL related to this proposal?
UCL has a comprehensive Disciplinary Code, within it, ‘misconduct’ is dened as: ‘improper interference
with the proper funconing or acvies of UCL, or of those who work or study in UCL, or acon which
otherwise damages UCL and or its sta or students’
1
. The University also have a ‘zero-tolerance policy
towards bullying, harassment, and sexual misconduct’
2
.
UCL introduced a Report and Support system in 2019 to tackle bullying, harassment, sexual misconduct,
racism, hate crimes and other misconduct
3
. UCL publishes annual anonymous reports on data insights and
intelligence obtained through Report and Support, the latest of which was published in Spring 2025
4
. The
reports are comprehensive and transparent regarding usage of the plaorm, type of issue reported and the
outcome given. In the 2023/24 academic year, 43% (n=409) of reports were made against sta. Of the 985
reported cases, no further acon could be taken on 47.6% of the cases (n=469), principally due to
anonymous reporng, liming UCL’s ability to act as outlined in the annual report.
Of the 1,801 reported issues in the 2023/24 academic year, 24% (n=438) related to bullying, 19%
(n=338) related to harassment, 12% (n=215) related to racism and 7% (n=117) related to sexual misconduct.
Sta misconduct is a pernent issue at UCL currently, as evidenced by the Sabbacal Ocer's
statement highlighng their shock at the sexist and misogynisc language used by the SSEES Director in a
November 2024 incident.
5
What would change if the policy was successful?
The policy proposal would mandate the Sabbacal Ocers to lobby UCL to maintain a rm and transparent
stance against sta misconduct, ensuring consistent enforcement of zero-tolerance policies and
1
hps://studentsunionucl.org/advice-and-support/advice/academic-issues/ucl-disciplinary-code-and-procedure
2
hps://www.ucl.ac.uk/ion/equality-diversity-inclusion/challenging-bullying-harassment-vicmisaon-and-
inmidaon
3
hps://report-support.ucl.ac.uk/
4
hps://report-support.ucl.ac.uk/support/reports-on-bullying-harassment-and-sexual-misconduct
5
hps://studentsunionucl.org/arcles/sabbacal-ocers-response-to-ssees-incident
safeguarding all students from inappropriate, threatening, or violent behaviour. There will be a focus on
accountability, implementaon, improvement and ensuring mechanisms are student-focused and inclusive.
What is the relevant naonal / internaonal context to this situaon?
Typically, UK Universies will have a Disciplinary Code for sta and students as well as a reporng system,
most commonly Report and Support, whereby individuals can raise an issue if they do feel bullied, harassed
or discriminated against.
The Oce for Students (OfS) produced a new condion (E6) regarding harassment and sexual
misconduct at UK Universies, which will come into eect from 1 August 2025
6
. Harassment and sexual
misconduct, parcularly sta misconduct is a serious issue across the UK Higher Educaon sector
78
, which
has received increased press coverage in the past couple of years
9
. In contrast, bullying, which is the widest
reported issue at UCL via Report and Support is a relavely under-researched area
10
.
Are there any legal implicaons to this policy proposal?
No.
Does this relate to any exisng Union policy?
The Union has live policy regarding the wider disseminaon of the Acve Bystander programme which aims
to tackle sexual misconduct, bullying and harassment on campus16. However, there is not a conict between
this policy proposal and the exisng live policy.
Are there any nancial, resource or stakeholder / public relaons issues with this policy proposal?
Should this policy proposal pass, there could be tension and a reputaonal risk with the University,
parcularly colleagues within Support and Wellbeing Services, as the Union are highlighng issues when it
comes to students facing barriers in reporng sta misconduct.
Are there any sustainability implicaons to this policy proposal?
No.
Are there any equity and inclusion implicaons to this policy proposal?
No.
What would the next steps be if the proposal passed?
The policy proposal would mandate the Sabbacal Ocers to lobby UCL to maintain a rm and transparent
stance against sta misconduct, ensuring consistent enforcement of zero-tolerance policies and
safeguarding all students from inappropriate, threatening, or violent behaviour. There will be a focus on
accountability, implementaon, improvement and ensuring mechanisms are student-focused and inclusive.
6
hps://wonkhe.com/blogs/how-to-implement-the-new-ofs-requirements-on-harassment-and-sexual-misconduct/
7
hps://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/09646639211002243
8
hps://www.universiesuk.ac.uk/sites/default/les/eld/downloads/2022-09/sta-to-student-misconduct-strategic-
guide-28-09-22.pdf
9
hps://www.bbc.co.uk/news/arcles/cnl048l0njeo
10
hps://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/arcles/PMC8895698/
Item for Discussion
Title: Anti-Spiking & Safe Drinking Measures.
Policy Zone to be discussed at: Welfare & Community Zone.
1. What would you like the Union to do?
The Union should lobby UCL to implement stronger anti-spiking measures and
promote safer drinking practices at student events, particularly in bars and sports
nights. This includes:
1. Improving Spiking Awareness Campaigns
o Conduct a review of all spiking awareness posters to ensure they are clear,
informative, and do not sound like a "dare."
o Increase the visibility of anti-spiking materials in UCL-affiliated venues, bars, and
club spaces.
o Ensure messaging is survivor-centered, focusing on accountability rather than
victim-blaming.
2. Introducing a Ban on Students Purchasing Drinks for Others at Sports Nights
o Implement a formal ban on purchasing drinks for others at sports nights to
minimize spiking risks.
o Work with venue managers and security teams to ensure consistent enforcement
of this rule.
o Introduce consequences for violating the policy, such as temporary suspensions
from sports events.
3. Enhancing Education on Spiking & Safe Drinking
o Implement mandatory awareness sessions for all students regularly attending
social and sports events.
o Address common misconceptions about spiking, ensuring students understand
that spiking is not limited to drugging but also includes adding alcohol to drinks
without consent.
o Expand bystander intervention training to equip students with the skills to safely
intervene in suspected spiking cases.
The Union should work with UCL leadership and venue managers to ensure these
measures are effectively implemented and regularly reviewed.
WCZ2405M
Page 1 of 15
Date:
Monday 19 May 2025
Time:
18:00 – 20:00
Venue:
Executive Suite 103, Engineering Front
Building, Hybrid (Teams)
Welfare & Community Zone
Minutes
Chair:
Rachel Lim, Welfare & Community Officer
Members:
P
AP
AB
Alan Salazar Guerra, Sustainability Officer
X
Alanis Hernandez Vasquez, Hall Community Officer for New Hall -
Caledonian Road
X
Amanda Ng & Rory Clarke, Trans Officer
X
Anam Eijaz Ahmed Choudhary, Welfare Rep (Societies)
X
Arkh Rishi Goyal, Hall Community Officer for John Dodgson House
X
Benjamin Li, UCL East Student Officer
X
Ben Scanlan, Accommodation & Housing Officer
X
Danilo Paganelli and Anji Suri, LGBQ+ Officer
X
Darcy Lan, Postgraduate Officer
X
Eda Yildirimkaya, Equity & Inclusion Officer
X
Elisa de Aragao Bibay, Women’s Officer
X
Karrar Hashim, Hall Community Officer for Endsleigh Gardens and John
Adams Hall
X
Kelly Chow, Social Class & Mobility Officer
X
Lampros Mallios, Postgraduate Hall Community Officer for 109 Camden
Road (Ann Stephenson, Ifor Evans, Max Rayne and Neil Sharp House)
X
Manaal Tariq, International Students' Officer
X
Oskar Barltrop, Undergraduate Hall Community Officer for 109 Camden
Road (Ann Stephenson, Ifor Evans, Max Rayne and Neil Sharp House)
X
Pooja Murugakannan, Hall Community Officer for Ian Baker House and
Ramsay Hall
X
Rachel Lim, Welfare & Community Officer
X
Rawleka Wilson and Sharvari Patil, People of Colour Students' Officer
X
Richard Hebblethwaite, Mature, Part-time & Carers Students' Officer
X
Sasha Lawson, Welfare Officer
X
Yiming Yao, Welfare Rep (Societies)
X
Quorum: 12
In Attendance:
Jayne Flowers, Representation and Democracy Coordinator
Colum Mackey, Head of Policy, Representation & Evaluation
Madeline MacIntyre, Minutes, Democracy Assistant
Nick Miao, Student Observer, Editor in Chief of Cheese Grater
Welcome and Introductions
1. Welcome
Chair (RL) welcomed participants to the final Welfare & Community Zone of the 24/25
academic year.
WCZ2405M
Page 2 of 15
2. Approval of minutes from previous meeting
WCZ2405 minutes approved.
Announcements
3. Leadership Race Outcomes
In March, the Leadership Race took place, drawing participation from 13,493 voters and
achieving a record-breaking turnout of 27.09%. A total of 106,611 ballots were cast,
resulting in the election of several outstanding student leaders. A special acknowledgment
was extended to the newly elected sabbatical officer team, with some members present in
the room.
Ana Boikova (Activities & Engagement Officer)
Sarah Jilani (Education Officer)
Eda Yildirimkaya (Equity & Inclusion Officer)
Darcy Lan (Postgraduate Officer)
Ben Scanlan (Students' Union President)
Hana Mougharbel (Welfare & Community Officer)
Officer Reports and Questions
4. Welfare & Community (WC) Officer – Rachel Lim (RL)
The WC Officer provided updates, beginning with an announcement about the opening of
the new Quiet Space at 26 Gordon Square. This location is now available for students
seeking a calm environment for studying, resting, etc. It is currently operating as a trial,
with the hope that demonstrated student interest could lead to a more permanent offering.
The WC Officer encouraged attendees to visit the space, noting it is located in room B32
and marked with an external banner.
The second major update focused on staff accountability initiatives planned for the
upcoming year. Attendees were given three pages, with the first two pages detailing the
officer’s sabbatical report for the year and a draft illustrating the level of detail future sub-
reports could contain. The goal is to increase transparency and provide students,
particularly those in elected zone positions, with more comprehensive reporting.
The Women’s Officer expressed concern about the lack of support from the Students’
Union after being informed last-minute that they would be required to attend Union
Executive in person, despite previous confirmation that remote attendance was
acceptable. In response, the WC Officer acknowledged the validity of the concern,
explaining that the recent shift to in-person Union Executive meetings aimed to boost
engagement. However, they recognized that accommodations for medical and personal
circumstances should have been considered and stated that clear policies are needed
moving forward.
Further discussion ensued about the consequences of officer absences. The WC Officer
raised questions about what would happen if an officer missed three meetings, particularly
toward the end of their term. They noted that there is currently no formal process for such
situations and highlighted the need for structured procedures, possibly mirroring the bi-
election process used when Society Committee members resign. They pointed out that
WCZ2405M
Page 3 of 15
absences often cluster toward the same time of year and flagged this as something to
monitor.
5. Postgraduate (PG) Officer – Darcy Lan (DL)
The PG Officer (DL) began their update by introducing the Extended Learning
Opportunities (ELO) programme, highlighting its focus on providing students with
experiences that enhance employability and personal development. The programme
currently includes 44 categories, grouped under themes such as “Innovate and Create,”
“Connect with Communities,” “Debate the Future,” and “Supercharger.”
DL emphasised the importance of these opportunities, particularly for postgraduate
students. They noted that while everyone graduates with a degree, it’s participation in
team-based activities and real-world problem-solving—especially those involving
partnerships with industry organisations—that truly set students apart. These experiences,
they explained, help students build stronger CVs and more compelling personal narratives
for future job applications. DL, known for their ongoing focus on careers and employability,
reiterated their commitment to ensuring postgraduates have access to such valuable
experiences. They pointed to the postgraduate newsletter as a key space where these
opportunities are actively promoted.
DL went on to highlight several upcoming trips for postgraduate students, which are
designed to offer meaningful, memorable experiences before dissertation season begins.
Recognising that many postgraduates are on one-year taught programmes, DL expressed
a desire to help them make the most of their time by offering opportunities to socialise and
explore. One of the upcoming trips includes a visit to Horizon 22, described as the tallest
building in Europe. Each trip is preceded by a social event in Phineas, where
postgraduates can meet, chat, and build connections before travelling together.
DL reflected on how important these moments are in building community among
postgraduate students, many of whom might otherwise feel isolated. Engagement, they
reported, has been strong. When asked about turnout at these events, DL explained that
the most popular opportunities, particularly those spotlighted in their newsletter, are often
fully booked soon after promotion. One such example is the Consultancy Challenge, a
competitive programme where students apply and are screened to participate in a real-
world project supporting a charity. DL shared their own experience from the previous year,
where they worked with a charity supporting students with learning needs, describing the
project as highly rewarding and a highlight of their time in the role.
Matters for Information
6. Welfare & Community Teams Update
Item was not discussed during meeting.
Matters for Discussion
7. Policy - Use of Amazon Vouchers and Products
This proposal sought to maintain the Union’s existing stance, which prohibits the use of
Amazon vouchers due to the company’s ongoing ethical and sustainability issues. These
concerns include Amazon’s poor record on worker treatment, anti-union actions,
WCZ2405M
Page 4 of 15
environmentally unsustainable practices, and associations with controversial political
donations and products.
The policy also aimed to reinforce the Union’s commitment to ethical consumerism by
encouraging support for small and local businesses, particularly those that are BAME-
owned. The intent is to move away from convenience-driven partnerships with large
corporations like Amazon and instead prioritise alternatives that reflect the Union’s values.
During the discussion, it was noted that while the original policy had technically expired,
the Union continued to act in alignment with its principles. There was a broader point
raised about the need to clarify to students that policies often remain in effect
operationally, even after their formal lapse, unless there are significant changes in
circumstances. A recent example was highlighted where Amazon’s appearance at the
Welcome Fair contradicted the Union’s existing commitments, illustrating the need for re-
submission and clearer enforcement.
Further reflection was given on how expired policies are interpreted, with a reminder that
such policies are often embedded in ongoing operational practices. It was stressed that
unless a policy becomes unworkable or outdated—due to, for example, financial
constraints or legal changes—the Union should treat them as continuing mandates. This
sparked a wider conversation about improving the visibility and clarity of policy status on
the Union website and ensuring members understand how passed motions shape day-to-
day decisions.
After discussion, the policy was put to a vote and passed with 100% of members in favour.
8. Policy - Supporting Students in Sex Work
This proposal aimed to reaffirm the Union’s commitment to protecting and advocating for
student sex workers, with an added requirement that a written report be produced within
six months. This report is expected to outline both the actions previously taken under the
policy and plans for future work in this area.
Central to the policy was explicit opposition to the Nordic Model, which is being considered
as part of the upcoming Crime and Policing Bill. The model, which criminalises the
purchase of sex while technically decriminalising the seller, has been widely criticised by
sex worker advocacy groups and human rights organisations. The Union was urged to
take a firm stance against this legislative direction, instead advocating for full
decriminalisation, which is considered safer and more aligned with global human rights
standards.
The policy also reiterated the importance of ensuring safety, non-discrimination, and
adequate institutional support for student sex workers across the university. The need for
better follow-through on existing commitments was raised during the discussion,
particularly around visibility and accountability. It was suggested that producing a formal
report would allow the Union and its members to track progress more clearly and ensure
that commitments are being acted upon in a timely manner.
After discussion, the policy was put to a vote and passed with 78% of members in favour.
WCZ2405M
Page 5 of 15
9. Policy - The Union should commit to formalizing the implementation of the
Sustainability Council and addressing the climate emergency across the Union’s
work
This policy called on the Union to formalise the implementation of the Sustainability
Council and to embed the climate emergency as a central consideration across all areas of
its work. While a Sustainability Council had already been launched earlier in the year, it
remained informal. This policy sought to officially establish the Council within Union
structures, ensuring that it receives institutional support and becomes a sustained,
strategic element of the Union’s operations.
In addition to formal recognition, the policy emphasised the need for the Union to maintain
a broad and active commitment to environmental responsibility. This included lobbying
UCL to strengthen its climate commitments and to integrate student voices into
sustainability policymaking. The proposal highlighted that climate action should not be
treated as a siloed effort, but as a foundational priority embedded across the Union’s wider
goals and activities.
Support for the policy was backed by collaboration with over ten environmental societies,
all of whom agreed that a more structured and permanent Sustainability Council is both
timely and necessary. The speaker noted that currently over sixteen students are
contributing more than four hours of work per week to the Council, participating in highly
engaged task forces, including political and financial working groups. One immediate
outcome of these efforts was an upcoming meeting with 15–20 other universities as part of
a UK-wide Sustainability Council network—an initiative that, as was pointed out, would not
have been possible without the Council’s groundwork.
The policy also aimed to ensure that new students arriving at UCL are easily able to
identify routes into climate engagement through the Union, positioning sustainability as a
clear and accessible part of student life. The Union was praised for the support it had
already shown in this area, and the policy was framed as a necessary step to continue and
institutionalise that progress.
After discussion, the policy was put to a vote and passed with 100% of members in favour.
10. Policy - The Union Should Cut Ties with High Street Banks
This policy proposed that the Union should cut ties with high street banks known for poor
environmental and social records. The motion called for an end to the active promotion of
such banks at Students’ Union events, framing the issue as both a matter of ethical
financial practice and climate responsibility.
The proposal urged the Union’s Finance Committee to embed environmental and ethical
considerations into all banking decisions, recommending the use of external resources like
MotherTree and Switch It Green to inform future choices. By doing so, the Union would not
only align its financial activities with its broader sustainability strategy but also set an
example for students on how to make values-driven banking decisions.
The discussion highlighted the scale of the problem, with one speaker noting that high
street banks such as HSBC and Barclays have indirectly financed around £1.5 million into
fossil fuel projects through student banking. They emphasised the potential power of
WCZ2405M
Page 6 of 15
students to enact change, pointing out that switching to a more ethical bank takes as little
as 15 to 20 minutes, yet carries significant environmental impact.
It was also noted that while the Union currently banks with Barclays, there are plans under
discussion to transition away from that relationship in favour of a more sustainable option.
The policy aimed not only to encourage students to shift their personal finances but also to
ensure the Union leads by example in how it manages and represents its financial
affiliations.
After discussion, the policy was put to a vote and passed with 89% of members in favour.
11. Policy - Union to Lobby UCL for a Firm Stance Against Staff Misconduct &
Strengthened Protection for Students.
This policy called on the Union to lobby UCL for a firmer and more transparent stance
against staff misconduct, with a focus on student protection, accountability, and clear
institutional processes. The proposal responded to recent controversies and growing
concerns around inappropriate staff-student interactions and a perceived lack of action in
safeguarding student rights.
The policy aimed to strengthen UCL’s commitment to a zero-tolerance approach to staff
misconduct by ensuring this position is clearly communicated, regularly reviewed, and
centred on the needs and safety of students. It advocated for structural improvements in
how allegations are handled, including independent oversight, transparent investigative
procedures, and consistent training for those involved in handling misconduct cases.
A core concern addressed was the need for student complainants to be protected from
retaliation and to have access to both academic and emotional support throughout the
investigative process. The policy also called for students to have a formal role in shaping
the implementation of misconduct policies, ensuring that their experiences and concerns
are directly reflected in institutional responses.
During the discussion, it was noted that the policy emerged from the advocacy work of the
Women’s Network and wider student concerns. Reference was made to visible cases
where boundaries between staff and students were crossed and students’ rights were not
adequately recognised. The proposal was framed as an essential step toward creating a
safer and more just university environment.
After discussion, the policy was put to a vote and passed with 100% of members in favour.
12. Policy - Union to Lobby UCL for Transparent, Survivor-Centred Improvements to
the "Report and Support" System through Formal Student Consultation
This policy called for the Union to lobby UCL for transparent, survivor-centred
improvements to the "Report and Support" system, with an emphasis on formal student
consultation. The proposal highlighted the importance of including student voices—
particularly survivors and gender advocacy groups—in shaping future iterations of the tool.
This would involve collaborative input on platform design, language, accessibility, and
implementation to ensure that it better reflects student needs and experiences.
The policy also sought to address current gaps in transparency and survivor support. It
called for UCL to clearly communicate how the platform operates, particularly regarding
WCZ2405M
Page 7 of 15
the implications of anonymous reporting, and to obtain clear, opt-in consent for the use of
data. Further improvements proposed included access to caseworkers, legal guidance,
and features like anonymous two-way communication to allow for safer, more informed
reporting.
A key component of the motion was the requirement for consistent, trauma-informed
training for all relevant staff, especially in light of frequent staff turnover. Ensuring a
consistent standard of care and support was described as essential to maintaining student
trust, regardless of changes in personnel or leadership.
During the discussion, it was noted that the policy arose from ongoing frustrations around
how the current system communicates outcomes and supports survivors. It was
emphasised that while UCL has been reviewing Report and Support for the past two
years, progress had often felt unclear or insufficiently student-led. One recent
improvement mentioned was a new reporting pathway for staff misconduct cases, which
will now go directly to UCL HR—an effort to streamline the process and provide more
focused support.
A response from UCL staff involved in Report and Support was read aloud, expressing
openness to continued dialogue and a willingness to schedule dedicated discussions to
better understand and implement the policy’s recommendations. The response was
received positively and seen as a hopeful indication of institutional willingness to
collaborate with students going forward.
After discussion, the policy was put to a vote and passed with 100% of members in favour.
13. Discussion - Union to Lobby UCL for Stronger Anti-Spiking & Safe Drinking
Measures.
It was noted that discussions had previously taken place about the potential for banning
students from purchasing alcoholic drinks for others at Union bars, especially during
Sports Nights. However, implementing such a measure was recognised as logistically
challenging. Staff limitations and the complexity of enforcing the policy fairly made it
difficult to carry out in practice. As a result, the proposal remained more of a point for
consultation than a formal recommendation, with the broader goal being to gauge student
opinion and explore viable paths forward.
Participants were asked to reflect on their own experiences in Union bars and whether
they had seen anti-spiking awareness materials. Some attendees mentioned having
noticed posters, while others felt that visibility and messaging could be improved,
particularly in high-traffic venues. The conversation highlighted the importance of not only
raising awareness but also pairing it with practical bystander intervention education.
Scenarios were shared where students had encountered spiking incidents and felt unsure
about how to respond, underscoring the need for basic first aid knowledge and clearer
guidance for those supporting affected peers.
Attention was also drawn to the need for stronger educational resources. It was suggested
that spiking and bystander intervention content could be integrated into existing training
sessions, such as active bystander workshops. A national initiative called “Staying Safe”
was also mentioned—UCL is considering adopting this programme, which includes short-
form educational content on drug awareness and intervention strategies. A follow-up
WCZ2405M
Page 8 of 15
meeting with UCL’s Head of Wellbeing had already been scheduled to discuss student
input, indicating movement on this front.
Participants agreed that clearer communication from UCL or the Union about these
initiatives would help reassure students that action is being taken. Making information
accessible through public channels, rather than relying on word-of-mouth or small forums,
was seen as a priority. The importance of maintaining student anonymity when accessing
training or support materials was also raised, with a focus on making the system safe and
approachable for all.
14. Discussion - Democracy review/collecting feedback about our democratic
structures - Do you think ‘Zone’ accurately reflects your experience with these
meetings Can you think of any alternative names to ‘Zone’?
The discussion opened with reflections on the term "Zone" itself. Some participants noted
that the word felt vague and lacked clarity or purpose, describing it as abstract rather than
representative of a decision-making or governance space. Alternatives such as
“committee,” “council,” or “assembly” were floated as potentially more accurate
descriptors. These terms were seen as better communicating the structure, function, and
seriousness of the meetings to the wider student body.
Attention then turned to the accessibility and engagement of democratic spaces more
broadly. It was suggested that initial barriers to participation were high, but once students
became involved and saw the impact of their contributions, engagement tended to grow
organically. There was discussion around how to support this entry point more
effectively—ensuring students know what is being debated and how they can get involved.
Suggestions for improvement included clearer and more frequent promotion on social
media, and making agendas and motions more transparent and engaging. One attendee
proposed introducing more provocative or unusual policies to spark curiosity and
discussion, using intrigue or humour as a way to attract first-time participants.
The structure of the meetings themselves was also reviewed. Feedback suggested that
while the current layout—such as the circular or "UN-style" seating—can help with
accountability and transparency, it may also place too much focus on the chair or officer at
the centre of the discussion. There was a desire expressed for more collaborative, less
hierarchical formats that encourage collective discussion and shared ownership of
decisions.
The group also touched on issues of attendance and accountability. A suggestion was
made to implement firmer policies for officers who repeatedly fail to submit apologies or
attend meetings, with some support for a structure in which missing multiple meetings
without explanation could trigger a formal response. There was recognition that such
changes would need to be considered as part of a wider review of officer support and
expectations, and any decisions would likely need to go through Union Executive rather
than being implemented unilaterally within Zones.
The Democracy Team’s role in shaping agendas and assessing the practicality of
submitted policies was clarified. It was noted that while staff advisors ensure policies are
feasible and align with the Union’s structures, it is ultimately the chairs of each Zone who
decide what is included on the agenda.
WCZ2405M
Page 9 of 15
Any Other Business
15. AOB
Members were first encouraged to provide feedback on the session and broader
democratic structures via three QR codes made available in the room. The feedback forms
included reflections on policies discussed, as well as specific questions about the naming
and structure of Zones. It was emphasised that responses could be brief and informal—
short entries were welcome and valuable, with the reassurance that input would
significantly shape ongoing internal conversations and future planning.
Officers were reminded to begin preparing their handovers, especially those not continuing
in their roles next year. The deadline to complete officer handovers was set for 16 June.
While informal, verbal handovers were noted as helpful, written materials were preferred to
ensure continuity and to avoid information being lost between transitions. In particular, it
was mentioned that handing over social media access—especially Instagram accounts—
was often overlooked, and officers were encouraged to prioritise this.
An additional item was raised regarding ongoing efforts to support queer and trans people
of colour within the Union. It was clarified that while this topic was not formally on the
agenda for discussion at this meeting, it remained an important and active project.
Attendees were invited to share any thoughts or feedback with the relevant officer, and
updates on the form such a space might take—whether a society, a network, or another
model—were still being explored in collaboration with those leading the initiative.
Before closing, there was a brief exchange about the implementation of officer
accountability policies. Clarification was sought around the mechanisms for triggering a
vote of no confidence, particularly whether it would act as a separate route to a
referendum rather than replacing the petition process. It was suggested that this could
serve as an alternative pathway, and further ideas on how best to structure this process
were welcomed.
Minutes approved as a true and accurate record
Chair:
Rachel Lim
Signature:
Rachel Lim
Date:
27/05/2025
WCZ2405M
Page 10 of 15
Appendix 1: Voting Record
7. Policy - Use of Amazon Vouchers and Products
Members:
For
Against
Abstain
Alan Salazar Guerra, Sustainability Officer
X
Alanis Hernandez Vasquez, Hall Community Officer for New Hall
- Caledonian Road
Absent
Amanda Ng & Rory Clarke, Trans Officer
Absent
Anam Eijaz Ahmed Choudhary, Welfare Rep (Societies)
Absent
Arkh Rishi Goyal, Hall Community Officer for John Dodgson
House
No Vote
Benjamin Li, UCL East Student Officer
Absent
Ben Scalan, Accommodation & Housing Officer
X
Danilo Paganelli and Anji Suri, LGBQ+ Officer
X
Darcy Lan, Postgraduate Officer
X
Eda Yildirimkaya, Equity & Inclusion Officer
Absent
Elisa de Aragao Bibay, Women’s Officer
X
Karrar Hashim, Hall Community Officer for Endsleigh Gardens
and John Adams Hall
Absent
Kelly Chow, Social Class & Mobility Officer
X
Kenloy Smith, Hall Community Officer for Stapleton House
Absent
Lampros Mallios, Postgraduate Hall Community Officer for 109
Camden Road (Ann Stephenson, Ifor Evans, Max Rayne and
Neil Sharp House)
Absent
Manaal Tariq, International Students' Officer
X
Oskar Barltrop, Undergraduate Hall Community Officer for 109
Camden Road (Ann Stephenson, Ifor Evans, Max Rayne and
Neil Sharp House)
X
Pooja Murugakannan, Hall Community Officer for Ian Baker
House and Ramsay Hall
Absent
Rachel Lim, Welfare & Community Officer
No Vote
Rawleka Wilson and Sharvari Patil, People of Colour Students'
Officer
X
Richard Hebblethwaite, Mature, Part-time & Carers Students'
Officer
Absent
Sasha Lawson, Welfare Officer
Absent
Yiming Yao, Welfare Rep (Societies)
X
WCZ2405M
Page 11 of 15
8. Policy - Supporting Students in Sex Work
Members:
For
Against
Abstain
Alan Salazar Guerra, Sustainability Officer
X
Alanis Hernandez Vasquez, Hall Community Officer for New Hall
- Caledonian Road
Absent
Amanda Ng & Rory Clarke, Trans Officer
Absent
Anam Eijaz Ahmed Choudhary, Welfare Rep (Societies)
Absent
Arkh Rishi Goyal, Hall Community Officer for John Dodgson
House
No Vote
Benjamin Li, UCL East Student Officer
Absent
Ben Scalan, Accommodation & Housing Officer
X
Danilo Paganelli and Anji Suri, LGBQ+ Officer
X
Darcy Lan, Postgraduate Officer
X
Eda Yildirimkaya, Equity & Inclusion Officer
Absent
Elisa de Aragao Bibay, Women’s Officer
X
Karrar Hashim, Hall Community Officer for Endsleigh Gardens
and John Adams Hall
Absent
Kelly Chow, Social Class & Mobility Officer
X
Kenloy Smith, Hall Community Officer for Stapleton House
Absent
Lampros Mallios, Postgraduate Hall Community Officer for 109
Camden Road (Ann Stephenson, Ifor Evans, Max Rayne and
Neil Sharp House)
Absent
Manaal Tariq, International Students' Officer
No Vote
Oskar Barltrop, Undergraduate Hall Community Officer for 109
Camden Road (Ann Stephenson, Ifor Evans, Max Rayne and
Neil Sharp House)
X
Pooja Murugakannan, Hall Community Officer for Ian Baker
House and Ramsay Hall
Absent
Rachel Lim, Welfare & Community Officer
No Vote
Rawleka Wilson and Sharvari Patil, People of Colour Students'
Officer
X
Richard Hebblethwaite, Mature, Part-time & Carers Students'
Officer
Absent
Sasha Lawson, Welfare Officer
Absent
Yiming Yao, Welfare Rep (Societies)
X
WCZ2405M
Page 12 of 15
9. Policy - The Union should commit to formalizing the implementation of the
Sustainability Council and addressing the climate emergency across the Union’s
work
Members:
For
Against
Abstain
Alan Salazar Guerra, Sustainability Officer
X
Alanis Hernandez Vasquez, Hall Community Officer for New Hall
- Caledonian Road
Absent
Amanda Ng & Rory Clarke, Trans Officer
Absent
Anam Eijaz Ahmed Choudhary, Welfare Rep (Societies)
Absent
Arkh Rishi Goyal, Hall Community Officer for John Dodgson
House
X
Benjamin Li, UCL East Student Officer
Absent
Ben Scalan, Accommodation & Housing Officer
X
Danilo Paganelli and Anji Suri, LGBQ+ Officer
No Vote
Darcy Lan, Postgraduate Officer
X
Eda Yildirimkaya, Equity & Inclusion Officer
Absent
Elisa de Aragao Bibay, Women’s Officer
X
Karrar Hashim, Hall Community Officer for Endsleigh Gardens
and John Adams Hall
Absent
Kelly Chow, Social Class & Mobility Officer
X
Kenloy Smith, Hall Community Officer for Stapleton House
Absent
Lampros Mallios, Postgraduate Hall Community Officer for 109
Camden Road (Ann Stephenson, Ifor Evans, Max Rayne and
Neil Sharp House)
Absent
Manaal Tariq, International Students' Officer
X
Oskar Barltrop, Undergraduate Hall Community Officer for 109
Camden Road (Ann Stephenson, Ifor Evans, Max Rayne and
Neil Sharp House)
X
Pooja Murugakannan, Hall Community Officer for Ian Baker
House and Ramsay Hall
Absent
Rachel Lim, Welfare & Community Officer
No Vote
Rawleka Wilson and Sharvari Patil, People of Colour Students'
Officer
X
Richard Hebblethwaite, Mature, Part-time & Carers Students'
Officer
Absent
Sasha Lawson, Welfare Officer
Absent
Yiming Yao, Welfare Rep (Societies)
X
WCZ2405M
Page 13 of 15
10. Policy - The Union Should Cut Ties With Environmentally And Socially Harmful
Banks
Members:
For
Against
Abstain
Alan Salazar Guerra, Sustainability Officer
X
Alanis Hernandez Vasquez, Hall Community Officer for New Hall
- Caledonian Road
Absent
Amanda Ng & Rory Clarke, Trans Officer
Absent
Anam Eijaz Ahmed Choudhary, Welfare Rep (Societies)
Absent
Arkh Rishi Goyal, Hall Community Officer for John Dodgson
House
No Vote
Benjamin Li, UCL East Student Officer
Absent
Ben Scalan, Accommodation & Housing Officer
X
Danilo Paganelli and Anji Suri, LGBQ+ Officer
X
Darcy Lan, Postgraduate Officer
X
Eda Yildirimkaya, Equity & Inclusion Officer
Absent
Elisa de Aragao Bibay, Women’s Officer
X
Karrar Hashim, Hall Community Officer for Endsleigh Gardens
and John Adams Hall
Absent
Kelly Chow, Social Class & Mobility Officer
X
Kenloy Smith, Hall Community Officer for Stapleton House
Absent
Lampros Mallios, Postgraduate Hall Community Officer for 109
Camden Road (Ann Stephenson, Ifor Evans, Max Rayne and
Neil Sharp House)
Absent
Manaal Tariq, International Students' Officer
No Vote
Oskar Barltrop, Undergraduate Hall Community Officer for 109
Camden Road (Ann Stephenson, Ifor Evans, Max Rayne and
Neil Sharp House)
X
Pooja Murugakannan, Hall Community Officer for Ian Baker
House and Ramsay Hall
Absent
Rachel Lim, Welfare & Community Officer
No Vote
Rawleka Wilson and Sharvari Patil, People of Colour Students'
Officer
X
Richard Hebblethwaite, Mature, Part-time & Carers Students'
Officer
Absent
Sasha Lawson, Welfare Officer
Absent
Yiming Yao, Welfare Rep (Societies)
X
WCZ2405M
Page 14 of 15
11. Policy - Union to Lobby UCL for a Firm Stance Against Staff Misconduct &
Strengthened Protection for Students.
Members:
For
Against
Abstain
Alan Salazar Guerra, Sustainability Officer
X
Alanis Hernandez Vasquez, Hall Community Officer for New Hall
- Caledonian Road
Absent
Amanda Ng & Rory Clarke, Trans Officer
Absent
Anam Eijaz Ahmed Choudhary, Welfare Rep (Societies)
Absent
Arkh Rishi Goyal, Hall Community Officer for John Dodgson
House
No Vote
Benjamin Li, UCL East Student Officer
Absent
Ben Scalan, Accommodation & Housing Officer
X
Danilo Paganelli and Anji Suri, LGBQ+ Officer
X
Darcy Lan, Postgraduate Officer
X
Eda Yildirimkaya, Equity & Inclusion Officer
Absent
Elisa de Aragao Bibay, Women’s Officer
X
Karrar Hashim, Hall Community Officer for Endsleigh Gardens
and John Adams Hall
Absent
Kelly Chow, Social Class & Mobility Officer
X
Kenloy Smith, Hall Community Officer for Stapleton House
Absent
Lampros Mallios, Postgraduate Hall Community Officer for 109
Camden Road (Ann Stephenson, Ifor Evans, Max Rayne and
Neil Sharp House)
Absent
Manaal Tariq, International Students' Officer
X
Oskar Barltrop, Undergraduate Hall Community Officer for 109
Camden Road (Ann Stephenson, Ifor Evans, Max Rayne and
Neil Sharp House)
X
Pooja Murugakannan, Hall Community Officer for Ian Baker
House and Ramsay Hall
Absent
Rachel Lim, Welfare & Community Officer
No Vote
Rawleka Wilson and Sharvari Patil, People of Colour Students'
Officer
No Vote
Richard Hebblethwaite, Mature, Part-time & Carers Students'
Officer
Absent
Sasha Lawson, Welfare Officer
Absent
Yiming Yao, Welfare Rep (Societies)
X
WCZ2405M
Page 15 of 15
12. Policy - Union to Lobby UCL for Transparent, Survivor-Centred Improvements to
the "Report and Support" System through Formal Student Consultation
Members:
For
Against
Abstain
Alan Salazar Guerra, Sustainability Officer
X
Alanis Hernandez Vasquez, Hall Community Officer for New Hall -
Caledonian Road
Absent
Amanda Ng & Rory Clarke, Trans Officer
Absent
Anam Eijaz Ahmed Choudhary, Welfare Rep (Societies)
Absent
Arkh Rishi Goyal, Hall Community Officer for John Dodgson
House
No Vote
Benjamin Li, UCL East Student Officer
Absent
Ben Scalan, Accommodation & Housing Officer
X
Danilo Paganelli and Anji Suri, LGBQ+ Officer
No Vote
Darcy Lan, Postgraduate Officer
X
Eda Yildirimkaya, Equity & Inclusion Officer
Absent
Elisa de Aragao Bibay, Women’s Officer
X
Karrar Hashim, Hall Community Officer for Endsleigh Gardens
and John Adams Hall
Absent
Kelly Chow, Social Class & Mobility Officer
X
Kenloy Smith, Hall Community Officer for Stapleton House
Absent
Lampros Mallios, Postgraduate Hall Community Officer for 109
Camden Road (Ann Stephenson, Ifor Evans, Max Rayne and Neil
Sharp House)
Absent
Manaal Tariq, International Students' Officer
No Vote
Oskar Barltrop, Undergraduate Hall Community Officer for 109
Camden Road (Ann Stephenson, Ifor Evans, Max Rayne and Neil
Sharp House)
X
Pooja Murugakannan, Hall Community Officer for Ian Baker
House and Ramsay Hall
Absent
Rachel Lim, Welfare & Community Officer
X
Rawleka Wilson and Sharvari Patil, People of Colour Students'
Officer
X
Richard Hebblethwaite, Mature, Part-time & Carers Students'
Officer
Absent
Sasha Lawson, Welfare Officer
Absent
Yiming Yao, Welfare Rep (Societies)
X
