Union Senate (13th May 2025)

The chair opened the meeting and ensured everyone was familiar with how senate works.

These were reviewed and approved.

None were forthcoming.

VP Activities delivered their senate report as attached. Questions were as follows:

What actions will be taken as a result of your grant funding review?

• Societies that would be unable to function without grant funding will be approached and offered support on how to raise revenue to cover day-to-day costs. Societies with large surpluses will be asked what this needs to cover e.g. costs if expensive equipment breaks down.

What will be done to help the new VP Communities start their role?

• The VP Activities is writing an extensive handover document, and there will be lots of training over the Summer from the Activities team and other SUSU staff.

Badge Scheme – What will the eligibility criteria be for the new badge scheme?

• These are extensive, different and different criteria for each badge. Societies which reach a threshold of a number of criteria will be awarded the badge.

VP Sports delivered their senate report as attached. Questions were as follows:

What’s being done in the old Squash Courts in Building 42?

• Currently being used for storage as health & safety issues prevent them being used for something else. Long-term estates planning will potentially create multi-purpose spaces here in next 1-3 years but unlikely to remain as squash courts.

VP Education & Democracy delivered their senate report as attached. There were no questions at this time.

VP Welfare & Communities delivered their senate report as attached. Questions were as follows: 

Which areas currently falling under your remit will be shared with other Sabbatical Officers under the new sabb structure?

• This will be up to the new VP Inclusion to decide how much they want to take on - many of their manifesto points relate goals I have been working towards so I will be handing over the ongoing work.

How will the gender expression fund be spread across the year?

• The fund will be opened in September and will be available until it runs out. It will be 'refilled' the following September.

Union President delivered their senate report as attached. Questions were as follows: 

Will toilets in the NEQ follow the same pattern as in Building 100?

• Yes, most of the toilets will be 'supercubicles' (with toilet, sink etc. contained within individual cubicles), with male, female, and gender neutral options.

What is SUSU's new policy on room verification?

• There have been issues with rooms being left in an unsuitable state, so SUSU now has to verify bookings for university spaces made on behalf of societies. This shouldn’t take any longer than before, as long as it is clear who the request is for, and there is a risk assessment in place.

The representatives from Plant-Based Universities presented their proposal using the slides attached. Questions were as follows:

What work have you been doing with SUSU to support your goals outside of taking this motion to senate?

• PBU has been meeting with Head of Social Enterprise and Head of Sustainability to discuss what SUSU can do to improve the sustainability of its food offering.

Why have PBU chosen to bring this motion to senate rather than calling for an all-student vote? Wouldn't this demonstrate students' views more effectively?

• PBU haven’t directly spoken to all 25,000 students, but of the students they have spoken to, most are in favour
• Not confident that an all-student vote would reach quoracy.
• Senate wouldn't be representative enough to decide on a vote to go straight to 100% plant-based, but with a smaller shift it's reasonable for senate to make that decision.

Why has the figure of 60% been chosen as an initial target?

• This figure is slightly above where the university is at currently, and slightly less than where SUSU is at, so quick and easy wins can be made to start with.

What would Social Reviews look like?

• Big survey of all students as a starting point, opportunities to get involved in conversation - seeking active participation with each phase.

Since ~50% of food sales at SUSU are already plant-based, without a binding commitment, why is this motion needed?

• The motion builds on work already done – when plant based is the default, more people will go for it.
• Policy made increases the chances of meaningful action – increases consistency and accountability.

The campus has external businesses which won’t follow this and will continue to operate - won't students just go elsewhere?

• Cost is important as well – Costa & Pret are expensive. If SUSU keeps its costs low, people won’t automatically go elsewhere.

Have you done market analysis on what is available in Southampton in terms of plant based foods?

• PBU and SUSU would work with partners to source local plant-based food – but equally SUSU doesn’t currently source most of its food locally. Also most emissions in food come from agriculture, much less from transport.

SUSU doesn’t operate on a mass catering basis so not all of the examples given in the support evidence will apply. What have cost impacts been at other SUs which have gone plant based?

• Costs have reduced by up to 30% in some areas.

Where would this go next beyond SUSU? An issue that has happened at other unis has been a media backlash which the SU and University struggles to respond to.

• In the event that the motion is passed, the press release will be carefully worded – emphasis on gradual transition subject to social and financial reviews.

Could we not agree to 70% plant-based food without the year-on-year increase?

• Students want the overall change, limiting ourselves to 70% would go against what PBU has heard from students.
• Passing the motion wouldn’t be a binding commitment to 100% plant based – the review mechanism would allow SUSU to stop the transition if it wasn’t working for whatever reason.

Could we not do the social review before we approved the change?

• This year no change would be needed as 60% of SUSU menu items are already plant-based, so in effect we would be doing that for next academic year.

Even if we could demonstrate majority student support, how would we account for minority viewpoints who oppose the change?

• There will always be people who oppose any positive change, e.g. we don’t sell cigarettes in the SUSU shop even though some people would probably like us to.

100% Plant-Based catering is a reduction in student choice, which could be especially problematic for neurodivergent students and those with eating disorders. Could the eventual commitment to 100% not be removed from the motion?

• Proposing proper communication with neurodivergent students and students with eating disorders. PBU have already met with NDDSoc to discuss how this would work.
• Sabbs and other student representatives would be involved in the social review, so they could represent views that aren't necessarily their own.
• Changes to menus will be done with maximum consultation possible, including taster sessions. ‘Safe Foods’ will be taken into account during the social review so this is baked into the transition process.

 

A vote was held on this motion. There were 2 votes to approve, 10 to reject, and 0 abstentions.

VP Education and Democracy presented the proposed election dates for the 25/26 Academic Year. A vote was held on this proposal - there were 9 votes to approve, 1 vote to reject, and 1 abstention.