democracy – Page 2

6 March 2020

UCU Left ‘Four Fights’ Negotiators’ statement, 6/3/2020

Dear colleagues

We are writing as UCULeft ‘Four Fights’ negotiators who have been engaged in complex negotiations which are ongoing.

It is important to note that these negotiations have not yet resulted in an offer. Nothing is on the table and nothing is agreed.

The current situation is that after constructive discussions on the pay-related elements of the claim, the employers’ representatives were sent away to consult with their members.

In this context we are concerned that the General Secretary put out a statement on Thursday that was neither discussed nor agreed with the negotiators. In that statement she says that “If we can get an offer that represents the kind of movement I have set out here on all four parts of the dispute, I will recommend that our higher education committee (HEC) should consult members on whether to accept it.”

Negotiators are elected by members to engage directly with the employers to attempt to settle a dispute. During the course of negotiations we make proposals to the employers, knowing that whatever we might negotiate, there is a democratic process that holds us to account.

Offers, deals and accountability

HEC has agreed the following process for dealing with any offer from the employers. We have not had an offer, but were we to get one this is what would happen.

First, negotiators would discuss it as a package and consider whether or not to recommend it for consultation as the best that could be achieved through negotiations. If it were not ready to go out, we would go straight back to the employers to negotiate further.
Once it was sent out, members would see the offer, consult over and debate it in branch meetings or strike meetings, and elect delegates to a UK-wide meeting of branch reps.
At that meeting, branch representatives would debate the offer at a UK-wide level, and vote on it (in a weighted vote) to decide whether to recommend to HEC as to whether or not to put it out to members.
HEC would then take a vote on whether or not that offer should be sent out for a consultative ballot for members to vote on. HEC’s decision will be based on the recommendations of branch reps from the delegates meeting.

It is also strange to see a General Secretary proposing to recommend a deal that has not yet been made. It is standard practice in negotiations to say that “nothing is agreed until everything is agreed”. The assessment of whether an offer is acceptable cannot be made until all the details are confirmed. This is not yet the situation.

Negotiating on Pay

The second issue concerns headline pay. On Tuesday, UCU negotiators adopted a negotiating position of putting 3% on the table to give UCEA the chance to consult their members about the potential for a rapid resolution of the dispute in the context of a serious global health crisis that could engulf us all.

Let’s not forget that UCU’s claim is for RPI+3%. The employers are sitting on reserves of £44bn. They can afford to meet our claim in full.

This was, and is, a genuine offer to try to resolve the dispute, but it is for members and delegates in the process outlined above to decide whether or not it is sufficient to resolve it.

It is difficult to discuss an offer that does not exist! But were we to get an offer we would have to make a serious decision as to whether we as negotiators, collectively or individually, can recommend it to members to be decided on by the process outlined above.

All the negotiators are strengthened by every single striker and picketer. We now need to sustain and strengthen the action.

Our strikes are our strongest leverage. We can win this together.

Mark Abel
Marian Mayer
Jo McNeill
Sean Wallis

10 December 2019

Democracy Congress – Two steps forward, one step back?

Saturday’s Democracy Congress saw a mobilisation by the right-wing ‘Independent Broad Left’ (IBL) to block rule changes proposed by the UCU’s Democracy Commission intended to improve accountability of the union’s leadership.

The Democracy Commission – and this Congress – were called to address the causes of the crisis in the union that was triggered in the 2018 USS strike, when first, the will of branch delegates was ignored by the union’s Higher Education Committee (then-IBL-dominated) and by the then-General Secretary Sally Hunt. Infamously, criticism of the General Secretary at Congress was averted by a walkout of officials.

Two key questions arising from this crisis remain unresolved:

can a sitting General Secretary be removed promptly by members when they act contrary to their interests (i.e. how are they accountable to members)? and
by what democratic mechanism may multi-institution strikes be run, on a day-to-day basis, by striking members themselves?

Democracy and accountability will become obvious and dominant questions as members in HE in particular take further strike action in the new year. First, our members need to have confidence that their General Secretary will negotiate hard from a position of knowing she is accountable to active striking members. Second, members themselves must be able to make important decisions to coordinate and focus strike action effectively.

Indeed the day before the Democracy Congress, a special Higher Education Sector Conference, led by striking branches themselves, took bold steps to plan escalating action for the Spring and Summer Terms.

A majority, but rarely two-thirds

Although nearly all of the proposals were supported by a majority of delegates, very few achieved the two-thirds majority they required for rule changes to bring them into effect.

A procedure regulating how Congress can be curtailed and a three-term limit for General Secretaries were agreed, but important measures to enhance members’ control over the leadership by creating elected Deputy General Secretary posts, and allowing branches or regions to trigger an investigation of the actions of the General Secretary, did not get the necessary majority. Also shelved was a proposal to put strikers in control of their disputes through the creation of multi-institution Dispute Committees made up of striking branches and those in dispute.

This was a setback for anyone who invested in the Democracy Commission when it was established in response to the shut-down of the 2018 Congress. It was clear from the outset that the IBL had mobilised heavily for this Congress, and used their votes consistently against every change designed to give members more control over the decision-making structures of the union and those who make them. This faction of the UCU is opposed to a member-led union and is committed to blocking changes to the existing structures and procedures which would give members more control.

Although they have been routed in the big HE pre-92 branches – which is why Manchester, Oxford, and Cambridge have grown, democratised and got over 50% in the last HE ballots – the IBL still have influence elsewhere. The title of their handout ‘UCU Agenda’ (UCU Bureaucratic Control) could not be more apposite.

With left activists in many branches busy mobilising for a Labour vote in the General Election, many did not send delegates. Compared to a Labour victory, this Congress might not have seemed important. But in 2018 we learned the hard way that structures and accountability matter immensely.

Other delegates who voted with the IBL against some of the proposals may have believed that since we now have a new rank-and-file General Secretary, the changes proposed by the Democracy Commission were unnecessary. It is true that Jo Grady has shown exemplary support for members when they want to fight. She put her shoulder behind the HE balloting effort and spent the eight days of strikes touring the country visiting picket lines and speaking at rallies.

It is also the case that compared to two years ago we now have a left-led HEC (with a large number of UCU Left members and supporters elected) which is more committed to action by members and has consistently put forward a strategy that can win.

Democracy and accountability for the future

#NoCapitulation However, the potential for a split between a full-time leadership and ordinary union members remains. This is not about individual personalities. Anyone who is in an elected position and has led strikes knows the pressure they are under to resolve a dispute. This pressure is even more powerful in the case of a national dispute. There is also pressure from unelected full-time officials whose focus on finding ‘exit’ strategies can often lead to outcomes short of what continued action can achieve.

These pressures can only get stronger as the current HE disputes escalate. There is only one force capable of stopping a repeat of 2018 and a compromise deal far short of what is possible – the active, mobilised membership. This is why it was a serious mistake to for some who quite rightly were angered about the outcome of the USS dispute two years ago to oppose the proposal for setting up multi-institution strike or dispute committees. We need structures which ensure that it is always the members who are taking action, picketing and losing money – not standing committees or Carlow Street – who can take the crucial decisions on the direction of their dispute. This happens in practice at a local level – but strikes at a national level are currently handed over to HEC, FEC and the officials.

Nevertheless, healthy democracy is not conjured up by perfect rules and structures. A democratic deficit will not be corrected by technical fixes. As last year’s events around the USS dispute showed, the desire for greater democratic control over the union arises out of members’ activity. So while rule changes that enhance members’ control over the union are important, it is ultimately the level of membership involvement in the union’s struggles that really counts.

There was hardly any mention of the current USS and Four Fights disputes at Saturday’s Congress, although this dispute had been discussed at length the previous day. But the question of democracy cannot be separated from the battles in which we are currently engaged. During the eight days of strike action in HE, many branches had regular open strike committee meetings (sometimes called “strike assemblies”) to discuss and plan their action. It is through such mechanisms that the ideas and creativity of members to solve problems, plan initiatives and make their action more effective come to the fore.

But it is also those meetings that allow members and reps to evaluate the potential for further action. Thus it was strike meetings at UCL, Liverpool and Dundee that debated motions about strike days which were then formally voted on by branch committees and proposed to Friday’s HE sector conference as amendments. Already we are seeing a nascent member-led democracy in the disputes, pushing existing structures into action.

Existing structures and moving forward

UCL Strike Committee What are the existing mechanisms for members to assert democratic control in disputes? They depend on the calling of a special Sector Conference like the USS HE Sector Conference (HESC) on Friday. Calling such conferences is slow, and conferences are expensive. A multi-institution strike committee could be much more flexible, quickly called and streamlined to key questions not lengthy motions.

An obvious question concerns who gets to vote. According to convention, striking post-92 branch reps were not supposed to vote on Friday, because the HESC was called over the USS disputes. However, on many issues, like the calling of further action, it is obviously reasonable for post-92 reps to have a vote. This is because the union is committed to joint action, and therefore post-92 reps with ballot mandates would reasonably expect to take the action voted on! Meanwhile, at that same meeting, branch reps in USS branches that were neither reballoting nor striking were allowed to have a vote! There is a mismatch between striking branches and the democratic delegate structures.

This is not an HE-only problem. The same issue would apply to the Further Education strikes of 2018, when some branches were striking but others not. Our democratic structures are imperfect, but we need to use them.

But we cannot afford to wait for formal structures to be set up. We will need to create our own rank-and-file delegate body to link up local strike committees if we are to win the HE disputes. If we cannot do this through official means, we must create our own unofficial, mechanisms. The moral authority of strikers is not to be ignored, as the #NoCapitulation moment identified. Woe betide any HEC member or General Secretary who refuses to accept the will of mobilised strikers! So if we cannot make our reps accountable in rule, let us make them accountable in practice!

So the outcome of the Democracy Conference is: we need more democracy! In Higher Education, striking members and those reballoting need to get organised.

First, colleagues will need to work hard to win the next round of reballots in HE branches. Solidarity, twinning and branch-to-branch support across regions are crucial to getting the vote out.

Second, in early February we will know the outcome of the reballots and we need a national strike coordinating meeting. We can plan creatively towards fostering joint collective organising, from branch-to-branch Skype linkups to joint physical meetings in cities during the next round of strikes.

Margot Hill (Croydon College)
London Region Secretary
– standing for UCU Vice President

1 March 20194 March 2019

NEC report: The General Secretary Must Be Accountable To Members

Emergency National Executive Report 1 March 2019

The General Secretary Must Be Accountable To Members

UCU National Executive Committee (NEC) met on Friday 1 March as an extra-ordinary meeting due to the resignation of the General Secretary, Sally Hunt, on health grounds. NEC unanimously thanked Sally for her leadership in both the formation of the union and its development over the past thirteen years. NEC also wished her well with her illness and hoped she would be able to manage her health to ensure she retained a high quality of life. It is very fortunate that we live in a society which benefits from a fantastic National Health Service.

UCU Left wishes to see a united single left candidate stand for election. We welcome discussions with all members interesting in standing for the GS position with a genuine desire to ensure the agreed left candidate has a maximum chance of winning this most important seat in the union.

Winning the seat for the left is a key part of creating a transparent, accessible, accountable leadership which will bring about the member led, campaigning union we all want.

We have an opportunity to transform our UCU. We have to rise to the challenge.

Timetable

NEC was presented with a set of proposals on the process and timetable for the election of a new GS. Rules of UCU permit any UCU member or employed staff member of UCU to nominate themselves for election. These will be the same rules used for the previous three elections in UCU.

More problematic, however, is the timetable for the election. The timetable presented was to ensure a new candidate is elected prior to Congress in May 2019. However, the most significant argument over the accountability of officials and officers the union has ever had has been ongoing since the walkout of staff and the IBL majority on the NEC at Congress 2018. Since then, the Democracy Commission (created by Congress in response to the crisis) has included discussions of how we can formulate mechanisms for the recall of the General Secretary to ensure member-led democracy is strengthened within the union.

The timetable proposed at NEC circumvents and frustrates these discussions. A decision by a lay member to give up their job for five years is not one many can make on a whim. Yet the timetable ensures little time for any lesser mortal who has not known about this announcement weeks in advance to contemplate such a decision.

As a result, two sets of proposals were put forward to amend the regulations for the General Secretary elections. The first was to delay the election, and importantly the appointment, of the new General Secretary until a mechanism for recall had been passed at Congress. This matters because it has been previously argued by officials that any changes to the rules governing the accountability of the GS cannot apply to a sitting GS and will only apply to a future GS.

If this interpretation now was applied again to the future GS, protecting this person from recall, this would be an outrageous undermining of the Democracy Commission!

The Chair employed a classic, undemocratic manoeuvre by using her position as Chair to order business in a way which ensured that her supporters, i.e. the IBL, would not be seen to be voting against recall. This was done by taking the vote on the paper put forward by the bureaucracy first and then ruling that, if passed, the motions attempting to amend that paper would fall.

As a result both amending motions in this section fell without even being voted on.

The new GS’s contract and recall

The second set of proposals required that the GS’s contract of employment be modified to ensure that, if Congress agreed a rule for recall of the GS, it would apply to this new contract. Since the Democracy Commission is examining the potential for such a rule, which would go to Congress after the new GS had been elected, resolving this potential problem now was very important.

Without such a clause in the contract, the risk is that the new incumbent could potentially argue that the dismissal was unfair. Since candidates would sign up to this contract as part of the process of standing for election, it made sense for the NEC to ensure that all candidates agreed to the recall principle – even if there was no mechanism yet in the union’s rules.

The lead official advising the NEC reported legal advice stating that it was in fact possible to implement a recall mechanism using the existing contract.

Here again, the Chair refused to allow a vote on the proposals by suggesting that the passing of the unamended contract of employment meant the amendments fell. Again the vote to accept the unamended employment was 26 for and 21 against.

Let us be clear. This does not mean that the new UCU General Secretary will be protected from recall, but it does create ambiguity where none was needed.

Any ordinary member who was a fly on the wall in the meeting would have wondered why on earth did the Right of the NEC vote not to accept this motion as it cost nothing and would have simply confirmed the legal advice and protected the legal position of the union!

And it also means that all candidates for GS now need to be asked the following questions:

Do you accept that you should be accountable to members through a proper recall procedure in the union’s rules if Congress decides one is needed? Will you accept a change of terms of employment in your contract if this is said to be necessary, allowing for a recall mechanism to apply to you?

For all the claims that the IBL are not a faction they do indeed vote en-bloc remarkably consistently when directed by the chair!

Election conduct

It is to be expected that paid officials of the union and lay members of the union will stand. It is essential therefore that no candidate is given preferential treatment during the election.

In UNISON a major argument has broken out due to senior officials instructing employees of the union to campaign on their behalf.

Proposals to prevent this bullying of staff were also put forward by UCU Left members. Here the IBL voted with the UCU Left leading to a unanimous vote to prevent staff being disciplined if they refuse to act in a partisan way in the elections.

Similarly, candidates who are staff members or officers of the union will also be prevented from presenting UCU’s publicity in their name, with immediate effect.

Looking to the future

The next General Secretary will be crucially important to the future development of the union at a time when marketisation is fast progressing, when the membership of UCU has simultaneously grown and, crucially, at a time when a substantial minority of members indicates that a militant mood exists for action against marketisation.

The left in the union has a responsibility to ensure we have a candidate who can create a member-led union over the next five years. They need to be a candidate who can stand up to both the right wing of our union lay leadership and the trade union bureaucracy.

Motions text

On delaying the GS election

NEC thanks Sally Hunt for her service and sends best wishes.

NEC notes:

The Democracy Commission was tasked by our sovereign body Congress (2018) with introducing recall mechanism and greater accountability of officials including the General Secretary
The Commission is currently drawing up relevant recommendations and will be putting these to Congress 2019. The Commission was informed that the staff union UNITE would likely dispute changes to the current incumbent’s contract, and it was agreed therefore that a recall mechanism would come into effect at a change of contract.
Holding an election on the current proposal would create a delay of five years in the introduction of recall.

NEC believes such a delay undermines the wishes of Congress 2018 and thus undermines our democracy which may create discord.

NEC resolves not to implement any election process that would undermine and render ineffective the introduction of recall mechanisms if voted for by Congress 2019.

On Democracy Commission and GS election

Noting:

Democracy Commission’ specific, time-limited purview, mandated by Congress 2018 to make recommendations for branch delegates to decide at Congress 2019 and Special Congress (November 2019).
DC is mandated to recommend changes including aspects of the GS role, such as an inter-election recall mechanism.
DC may recommend shorter terms of office.
Changes agreed by Congress/Special Congress must only effect subsequent GS contracts.
Pursuing a GS election before Congress delays any agreed changes by 5 years.
GS election rules Schedule B provide up to 12 months calling notice.

NEC agrees:

Pre-empting outcomes of democratic debate at Congress would endanger confidence in UCU’s commitment to upholding sovereign Congress decisions.
UCU should elect its GS after Congress 2019 votes upon DC recommendations regarding the role, terms and conditions.
NEC should meet following Congress to agree finalised changes to the GS role.

Both motions fell by 26 to 21 with 1 abstention, following passage of section of report

Motion ensuring recall mechanism applies to incoming GS

NEC agrees to amend the new contract of the GS in NEC1215 to explicitly ensure that, should Congress agree a rule change that establishes a formal recall mechanism, this mechanism would trigger the issuing of notice by the President on behalf of the NEC, under clause (i) of the Termination of Employment section of the contract.

NEC further resolves that, should the above solution be not deemed workable, to add a new clause (iii) to the Termination of Employment section of the contract. This would clarify that, provided that a rule for the recall of GS were triggered under UCU rules, the GS would be suspended from office and given six months’ notice to allow the election to be conducted.

Motion fell 26 to 21, following passage of section of report

Amendments to GENERAL SECRETARY ELECTION 2019: GUIDANCE NOTES NEC1215.

Add new bullet points:

UCU staff members involved in the administration of the General Secretary election will act in a non-partisan way to all candidates and must not be asked for preferential treatment by any candidate or their supporters. Any member of staff found to be electioneering or showing favour to one particular candidate in the course of their normal employment will face formal disciplinary action. Any staff member refusing to act in a partisan way will be protected from any disciplinary action.
During the period of the election, starting with NEC 1^st March 2019, UCU will ensure equal access to media and public pronouncements for all candidates. Any statement released by UCU in the name of any staff member standing as a candidate will count as one of their allocated emails.

Motion passed unanimously

2 June 20182 June 2018

#OurUCU – Statement with full list of delegate signatures following shutdown of Congress

Updates to the list of signatories are being posted by @OurUCU on Twitter.

#OurUCU

We UCU elected delegates voted repeatedly in line with the advice of our Congress Business Committee to hear motions criticising the General Secretary which were in order. Unfortunately the General Secretary and a narrow majority of the National Executive Committee refused to accept the right of Congress to debate these motions. We believe the union members have the right to hold our most senior elected officials to account. This is a basic democratic right in all trade union and representative systems (e.g., Parliament). We disagree with the walkouts and reject the notion that the motions include a threat to undermine staff terms and conditions. There is no issue with the conduct and performance of our wonderful and hardworking UCU staff members. To turn a debate about our democratic process as a union into a procedural employment dispute is to evacuate our capacity to act as a political body. We resolve to continue to conduct the campaigns and defence of our members over pay and pensions that we all agree on and also to urge a debate in all branches and union bodies to discuss democracy in our union. We also resolve to continue the motions at a recall conference and not be distracted from the campaign to defend our members’ jobs, pay and pensions.

Signatories:

Peta Bulmer, University of Liverpool

David Swanson, University of Manchester

Dan Hunter, Guernsey College of Further Education

Paul Prior, University College London

James Brackley, University of Birmingham

Clelia Boscolo, University of Birmingham

Bob Jeffrey, Sheffield Hallam University and Yorkshire & Humbersice Regional Committee

Bruce Baker, Newcastle University

David Harvie, University of Leicester

Gareth Brown, University of Leicester

Dharminder Chuhan, Sandwell College of FHE

Andy Fugard, Birkbeck, University of London

Maciej Bancarzewski, University of Hertfordshire

Sorcha Ní Chonnachtaigh, Keele University

Lesley Kane, Open University

Sarah Kean-Price, Bath College

Tor Krever, University of Warwick

Chris McLachlan, University of Hertfordshire

Steve Roskams, University of York

Hannah Cross, University of Westminster

Michael Starrs, Epping Forest College

Paul Anderson, Queen Mary University of London

Mike Finn, University of Exeter

João Florêncio, University of Exeter

Rhian Keyse, University of Exeter

Sonja Curtis, University College London

Ben Plumpton, University of Leeds

Malcolm Povey, University of Leeds

Roddy Slorach, Imperial College London

Sean Vernell, City and Islington College

Linda Cronin, University of Roehampton

Annie Jones, Sheffield Hallam University

Gwen Vickers, Anti Casualisation Committee

Tony Brown, University College London

Dave Hyde, University of East London

Pauline Hall, Southeast Region & West Kent and Ashford College

Matthew Pritchard, Chesterfield College

Peter Heath, Heart of Worcestershire College

Cecily Blyther, Petroc

John Walker, Southern Region Retired Members Branch

Karen Evans, University of Liverpool

Lesley McGorrigan, University of Leeds

Tim Hall, Senate House

Anna Duncan, University of Oxford

Mark Farwell, Southampton Solent University

Jaya John, University of Oxford

Simon Courtenage, University of Westminster

Jan Koene, Sutton College

Simon Smith, Coventry University

Pura Ariza, Manchester Metropolitan University

Isabelle Rahman, United Colleges Group (College of North West London)

Keir Mobbs, University of Bath

Mesar Hameed, University of Bath

Richard McEwan, London Regional Committee

Tassia Kobylin, Goldsmiths University of London

Tom Hickey, University of Brighton

John Carter, Teesside University

Glyn Heath, University of Salford

Chris Sheahy, University of Salford

Kevin Bean, University of Liverpool

Dianabasi Nkantah, University of Coventry

Sean O’Brien, Halesowen College

Railene Barker, Nottingham College

Elaine White, Bradford College

Crispin Farbrother, Bournemouth University

Sai Englert, SOAS, University of London

Maciej Bancarzewski, University of Hertfordshire

Steve Lui, University of Huddersfield

Eleni Michalopoulou, University of Liverpool

Saleem Rashid, Sheffield College

Margot Hill, Croydon College

Joel Anderson, The Royal Central School of Speech and Drama

Mark Baxendale, Queen Mary University of London

Linda Moore, Ulster University

Nicholas Cartwright, University of Northampton

Brian Garvey, University of Strathclyde

Brian Hambidge, East Midlands Retired Members Branch

Anthony Johnson, Croydon College

Alison Forsyth, East Kent Colleges Group (Canterbury College)

Owen Mather, Runshaw College

Victoria Paine, West Kent and Ashford College

Nita Sanghera, South & City College Birmingham (Bournville College)

Rhiannon Lockley, Halesowen College

David Muritu, Sandwell College of FHE

Bernadette Driscoll, London Regional Committee

Charlotte Stevens, Birmingham City University

Ron Mendel, East Midlands Regional Committee

Marian Carty, Goldsmiths University of London

Sunil Banga, Lancaster University

Marian Mayer, Southern Regional Committee

Judith Suissa, UCL Institute of Education

Tony Brown, University College London

Nalini Vittal, University College London

Sherrie Green, University of Essex

Timothy Goodall, University of Leeds

Stefan Kesting, University of Leeds

Craig Gent, University of Warwick

Maria Chondrogianni, University of Westminster

Julie Hearn, Lancaster University

Sean Wallis, University College London

Carlo Morelli, University of Dundee

Vicky Blake, University of Leeds

Paul Anderson, Incoming National Executive Committee

Fiona Bailey, Capital City College Group (Westminster Kingsway College)

Mustafa Turus, Capital City College Group (City and Islington College)

David Tandy, Lambeth College

Mike Barton, New City College Group (Redbridge College)

Safia Flissi, South & City College Birmingham

Elaine Heffernan, New City College Group (Hackney Community College)

Darren Tolliday, Warrington and Vale Royal College

Julia Roberts, Lambeth College

Mandy Brown, Lambeth College

Ian Crosson, London Regional Committee

Brian Hawkins, Canterbury Christ Church University

Martin Morgan-Taylor, De Montfort University

Cristian Serdean, De Montfort University

Randal Jack, JISC

Constantina Papoulias, Kings College London

Deej Fabyc, London Metropolitan University

Chris Keast, Nottingham Trent University

Tristan Sturm, Queen’s University Belfast

Cyprian Njue, University of Brighton

Chris McLachlan, University of Hertfordshire

Michael Szpakowski, Writtle University College

Rachel Cohen, City University of London

Marion Hersh, University of Glasgow

Mark Abel, Incoming National Executive Committee

Ioanna Ioannou, Incoming National Executive Committee

Russell Caplan, London Regional Committee

Carol Cody, City of Liverpool College

Christina Paine, London Metropolitan University

Pete Bicknell, Lewisham Southwark College

Kitty Howarth, Nottingham College

Jane Elliott, Kings College London

Anthony O’Hanlon, University of Liverpool

Josh Hollands, University College London

Will Megarry, Queens University Belfast

Rosey Whorlow, University of Chichester

Jim Thakoordin, Luton ACE

Naina Kent, Hackney ACE

Janet Oosthuysen, Bradford College

Catherine Oakley, University of Leeds