Oral Answers to Questions
Richard Holden Excerpts(3 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Richard Holden (North West Durham) (Con)
Inflation is hitting all schools and colleges hard across my constituency, but unlike academies, councils, schools and other education providers, colleges cannot claim back VAT on supplies and services. Will the Minister speak with officials in other Departments to consider that issue, and to ensure that colleges such as Derwentside College in my constituency are able to do the best they can with the price pressures they are facing at the moment?
Oral Answers to Questions
Richard Holden Excerpts(3 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Nadhim Zahawi
Our knowledge-rich history curriculum requires teaching methods of historical inquiry. We should be teaching children how to think, not what to think, including how evidence is used rigorously to make historical claims and discerning how and why contrasting arguments and interpretations of the past have been constructed. Our guidance supports this, and schools already have powers to take disciplinary action where teachers repeatedly breach their legal duties.
Mr Richard Holden (North West Durham) (Con)
The Minister for School Standards (Mr Robin Walker)
The condition improvement fund addresses significant condition issues in eligible academies, voluntary-aided schools and sixth form colleges. Applications are carefully assessed on condition need, the quality of the project plan and value for money in order to prioritise the most urgent works. We announced the funding of more than 1,400 projects in the last round, including 10 in County Durham.
Mr Holden
Leadgate Primary School and Consett Junior School in my constituency hit some of the core criteria outlined in the plan, but at the top of County Durham’s list is Villa Real special school, which does not meet the normal criteria, given that it is less than 25 years old. However, there is a real need for expanded special needs provision in County Durham, and that school has serious structural issues. Can the Minister reassure me that that school will be looked at properly, even though it does not fit the traditional criteria?
Mr Walker
I recognise that my hon. Friend is a great champion of his schools. I believe that this is a local authority-maintained school. Local authorities receive condition allocations to improve their school buildings. Instead of the school applying to the condition improvement fund, Durham County Council will receive £6.6 million for the 2022-23 year. We have also announced £1.4 billion of investment for the financial years 2022-23 and 2023-24 to improve existing high needs provision, of which Durham will receive £11.2 million.
Special Educational Needs and Disabilities Review
Richard Holden Excerpts(3 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Nadhim Zahawi
I know that the hon. Lady is passionate about maths. She will know that over the past three years the overall budget has risen by 40% to £9.1 billion—a pretty big increase. She talks about SENCOs; today we have announced training for up to 5,000 more SENCOs in early years. The important thing to remember is that much of what is in the Green Paper has been produced through consultation with those in the system, with parents and with practitioners. All I ask is that colleagues read it carefully and engage with us on the consultation. It is a true consultation, because I want to get this right.
Mr Richard Holden (North West Durham) (Con)
I welcome the Secretary of State’s statement. Having been a special adviser in the Department when the SEND review was launched, I remember it well. I am really glad that the public consultation is happening. It has also been great to see extra funding in the past couple of years.
I recently visited Villa Real School, a special school in my constituency. One issue that the school faces is that it was built for a smaller number of pupils than it now has because of the rising need for special school places. Will the Secretary of State meet me to discuss the school? Will he also look at the capital building programme? It is essential that as part of the review we deliver the places needed for children in the environment they wish to be educated in.
Nadhim Zahawi
I will happily meet my hon. Friend. Today, we announced the first tranche of £1.4 billion out of £2.6 billion for up to 40 specialist and AP settings.
Oral Answers to Questions
Richard Holden Excerpts(3 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Alex Burghart
It was a central finding of the Sainsbury review, led by a Labour peer, that the vocational qualifications system should be simplified. What we are doing is creating world-class gold-standard qualifications that will give students meaningful work placements that will enable them to acquire qualifications designed by employers to give them the skills that the economy needs.
Mr Richard Holden (North West Durham) (Con)
Apprenticeships and technical qualifications are extremely important to my constituents. Following the success of my jobs fair last year, I am organising an apprenticeships fair on 11 February this year. Will the Minister agree to open the fair, or to come along at some point during the day and support those young people in my constituency who are looking for an alternative route into work?
Oral Answers to Questions
Richard Holden Excerpts(3 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Nadhim Zahawi
Over 99% of eligible settings have now received a CO2 monitor, with more than 320,000 now delivered. Final deliveries will be made before the end of term. Feedback from schools suggests the monitors are a helpful tool in managing ventilation, sitting alongside the other protective measures in place to manage transmission.
Mr Richard Holden (North West Durham) (Con)
The Minister for School Standards (Mr Robin Walker)
I recognise the impact on education of buildings in poor condition, which is why we have allocated £11.3 billion since 2015 to improve the condition of schools. In addition, the school rebuilding programme will transform the learning environment of 500 schools over the next decade. We are considering responses to our consultation on prioritising the remaining places in the programme, and we plan to set out our response early next year.
Mr Holden
I have unusual schools in my constituency, given the size of the rural population. I would like the Minister to meet me to discuss Witton-le-Wear Primary School, a small primary school in which the building is in quite good condition but the conditions for learning are not great, and Delta North School, an alternative provision provider that is looking to increase its provision for local people. I would look forward to it if he could meet me to discuss these two important constituency schools.
Mr Walker
It was a pleasure to visit my hon. Friend’s constituency not so long ago. I understand that the layout at Witton-le-Wear poses challenges, although it has sufficient capacity. The previous Minister for School Standards, my right hon. Friend the Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Nick Gibb), met him in July to discuss the school, since when officials have visited the school and set out the funding available to the Durham local authority to prioritise local need. Of course I would be happy to meet him.
I understand that Delta North is an independent school and, as a private business, we expect it to secure its own investment for development. We know that independent AP can play a useful role in the system, but we rightly prioritise the needs of state-funded schools when allocating public funds.
Nadhim Zahawi
I know that I can call the hon. Gentleman my friend because he is a passionate champion of education and of early years, and has been for a long time. In fact, he showed me around his think-tank, with which he did such tremendous work. He will be pleased to hear that we are delivering family hubs, which are not just about investing in bricks and mortar, but are evidence based when it comes to what can be done in the early years for families that need the most help.
Mr Richard Holden (North West Durham) (Con)
Storm Arwen has killed a load of the electricity supplies not only to homes across my constituency but to schools. Will the Minister ask the Department to feed into the Ofgem review to ensure that if there are power issues in future, schools such as the small schools in Weardale or schools like St Bede’s in Lanchester are not cut off and children are not cut off from education as they have been over the past two years because of covid?
Mr Robin Walker
I would certainly be happy to meet my hon. Friend further to discuss this while we also discuss the situation at Witton-le-Wear.
Oral Answers to Questions
Richard Holden Excerpts(3 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Nadhim Zahawi
I am grateful to the right hon. Lady for her question. She is always assiduous and follows the evidence. I am also grateful to her for coming to the Department on another matter to do with further education. The academic years independent evaluation is taking place and will assess the programme’s impact on pupils’ educational attainment in all regions, including the north, and we will of course publish that. I want to share with the House some of the latest reported figures on the national tutoring programme. It is going well in all parts of England, and provisional figures from our delivery partners show that so far this year 3,822 schools have engaged with the programme through the tuition partners and academic mentors. The latest reports show that 475 academic mentors have been placed in schools in the most disadvantaged areas of England. On top of this, all schools are sharing the £579 million to recruit their own local tutors.
Mr Richard Holden (North West Durham) (Con)
I would like to thank the School Standards Minister for his recent visit to Burnopfield Primary School in my constituency to look specifically at the national tutoring programme. However, at a recent headteacher cluster meeting, some of the smaller primary school leaders were concerned at the amount of paperwork involved in accessing the scheme. Will the Secretary of State look at the amount of bureaucracy involved, to ensure that the national tutoring programme can reach as many children as possible in every school?
Mr Richard Holden (North West Durham) (Con)
The condition of the buildings at Witton-le-Wear Primary School is really good, but the conditions for learning are not, given that there are partition walls between the classrooms because the school was built for 50 children, rather than the 80 who are currently there. Will the Minister meet me to discuss Witton-le-Wear Primary School and what can be done for the future?
Childcare Bill
Richard Holden ExcerptsFriday 29th October 2021
(3 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Childcare Bill 2021-22 View all Childcare Bill 2021-22 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Matt Rodda
I will go on to make some further suggestions for the type of independent review, and I am grateful for that suggestion on the Children’s Commissioner.
The Bill does not propose changing the system itself, but it would allow the Government to appoint an independent person to lead a review of free childcare schemes in England. I believe this could have the same powerful impact as previous education reviews led by respected figures with cross-party support. I am thinking of—this goes back a bit into history—the Dearing review of A-levels in the 1990s, or the more recent Augar review of higher education funding. Sometimes, getting a fresh perspective can tease out problems and help to construct collaborative and co-operative solutions that are driven by the sector. Clause 2 would bring together, under the leadership of that independent person, providers, parents, research organisations and others that they saw fit, to take a proper look at how we take childcare forward in this century.
Mr Richard Holden (North West Durham) (Con)
I am particularly interested in this Bill, as a former special adviser at the Department for Education. Clause 2 sets out the different things that the review must consider. Would the hon. Gentleman consider, perhaps in Committee, including the strategy to increase awareness, as set out in clause 3(3)? Some of the most disadvantaged people do not take up the provision that is currently available, so a review could be helpful if it also considered how to better engage those groups with what he is trying to achieve.
Matt Rodda
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that intervention; he makes a thoughtful point. He is absolutely right that there is a connection between raising awareness of this vital sector and the role of the review, and I would be grateful to work with him on that. As a former civil servant in the Department, I am very aware of the pressures and difficulty of trying to make the most of our ability to communicate with parents and the difficulty of reaching hard-to-reach groups.
The review would seek answers and pragmatic, practical solutions to the challenge that we have discussed today. That is very much what is needed at this stage. It is not just me calling for this; over 13,000 people signed a petition requesting a review. The National Day Nurseries Association has stated that childcare providers want the system to change in order to ensure that it works for all parents. The national day care alliance estimates that the childcare sector is facing other issues, which could also be discussed by the review, such as the potential shortfall of around £2 billion a year in Government funding, which the alliance believes is needed to meet the costs associated with providing free childcare on offer. As a result, nurseries are forced to charge higher costs to fee-paying families to cross-subsidise those eligible for free care. This, I am afraid, is robbing Peter to pay Paul and drives up the cost of childcare for everyone in the country.
Finally, during the recent debate in the Petitions Committee, the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Vicky Ford), the then Minister, said a review would not be appropriate before the comprehensive spending review. We have now had the Budget and the CSR, so I believe the timing is right. I am grateful to the current Minister for engaging. I believe that, as a new Minister, he may have a wonderful opportunity to take this forward. This is the perfect time to look at the system and ask ourselves whether it is the very best it can be.
The Chancellor spoke on Wednesday of moving to a post-covid economy. To support that post-covid economy, we need a post-covid childcare system that underpins and supports as many parents as possible back into work. We need a system that works for parents, providers and the whole country, but most importantly we need to invest in our children. I will work with anyone in this place to ensure that our children are given the best possible start in life.
As I draw my remarks to a close, I would like to spend a moment, with the House’s indulgence, thanking some of those who have so graciously supported this work. This place can be a maze of process and procedure but, with patience and good humour, the Whips and the Clerks are there to help. I again pay tribute not only to the hon. Member for Castle Point (Rebecca Harris), but to the Clerks and other people who have supported me. I also thank the media, including Grazia magazine, which is also campaigning on this issue, and others who are supporting me. I would like to offer my thanks to my hon. Friends the Members for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green) and for Hampstead and Kilburn (Tulip Siddiq), who have supported my endeavours with this Bill and provided sound advice where it was needed. To the Minister, I say once again that I believe—and I believe that he sees it in this way—that politics does not need to be confrontational. It does not have to be angry, as we have seen in the last few days. We can work together and seek compromise, and find better solutions, precisely because we are working together.
The Minister has been generous with his time, and despite our political differences, he has engaged in constructive debate and discussion. Whatever happens today, I hope that in his contribution he will consider the good faith that I bring to the Bill, and will feel able—perhaps because of his own experience—to meet me and representatives of the sector to see how we can progress this issue.
I believe that investing in early years education is one of the first duties of Government. It is the right thing to do, and now is the time to do it. I commend the Bill to the House.
Mr Richard Holden (North West Durham) (Con)
It is a delight to be called in this debate on an important topic. It is something, as I mentioned in my intervention on the hon. Member for Reading East (Matt Rodda), that I looked at a lot when I was a special adviser in the Department. It is always a pleasure to follow my neighbour and right hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Dehenna Davison).
Mr Holden
She should be right hon. She raised a really important point in her tribute to early years teachers. A lot of my family, including both my grandmothers and my mum, were primary school teachers. Those involved in teaching our children and in early years education—particularly over the past 18 months, when so many across the country have faced challenging circumstances—need a shout-out from this place whenever possible.
My hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Joy Morrissey) raised a particularly important point on the cross-Government approach that is needed. This issue touches so many different areas. Members from all parts of the House have raised the issue of family hubs, which was brought out by my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) and my right hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire (Dame Andrea Leadsom). That holistic approach, working with local government so that families have somewhere to go when in need, is very important. There is a broader requirement here, therefore, going a little further than just early-years childcare for two and three-year-olds: we need to look, too, at shared parental leave. At present far too few men are taking up opportunities to spend more time at home with their children, and perhaps a broader education drive is needed to push that, especially in early years. As more women are in higher-powered careers—a great thing for our country—we can perhaps share some of these responsibilities more broadly.
Tulip Siddiq
My office manager Oliver Denton Lieberman is today going off for a whole year on paternity leave. I want to applaud the fact that more men are doing so; it is good to recognise that.
Mr Holden
I pay tribute to the hon. Lady’s office manager for doing that; it is great to see people leading by example. It has been good to see the Prime Minister taking some proper paternity leave as well in recent years, and Ministers, too. It is still at far too low a level, however, and I think the hon. Lady would agree that we need to promote this more broadly across the board.
The hon. Member for Reading East raised some interesting issues. We need to look at the ratios of staff to children. It seems to me to be iniquitous that for a four-year-old in early years education the ratio has to be 1:8, but for a four-year-old in a school it can be 1:30. Perhaps we can look at childcare more broadly to ensure that it is cost-efficient and can deliver for parents.
I also want to pick up on some of the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough (Jane Hunt). One of the great pieces of news in the Budget was the increase in per-hour spending per child. That will go even further if we address those ratios, and it will help improve pay levels in the sector as well. Many of the childcare organisations in my constituency have been telling me that is a real issue, as it is in other sectors such as social care. We want jobs in those sectors to be seen as high-skilled professions offering careers where people can not just work, but go on and succeed more broadly.
I welcome the cross-party approach of the hon. Member for Reading East; it is exactly the right way to proceed as we share a common view on this matter on both sides of the House, particularly with more parents being in employment. Credit is due to the Government over the last year and a half for the excellent support they have put into the economy to ensure that there are jobs and that vacancy rates are at record highs. Indeed, perhaps this great economic success makes the concerns raised by the hon. Gentleman even more pressing.
However, I agree with my Conservative colleagues that, rather than legislating for a review, the Government could perhaps take this forward without legislation being necessary. I leave that thought with the Minister.
Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Bill (Eleventh sitting)
Richard Holden Excerpts(3 years, 9 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Matt Western
I was not aware of the case of Amanda Spielman, but we are increasingly seeing this sort of interference across the board. I have mentioned the case of the museum, and there is also the case that my hon. Friend has cited. What we want to do is put checks and balances in the system. If we were in government, we would expect the Conservative party to be saying the same of us. An honest and appropriate approach is needed. My right hon. Friend the Member for North Durham mentioned the US system, which is far tighter than so much that we have in this country. I just do not understand how the US can be doing it so well, yet we are not.
Mr Richard Holden (North West Durham) (Con)
We have ended up in a discussion about the US system versus our system, but the US system also has substantial flaws. One thing on which we probably agree on both sides of the House is that we want to see a minimum rate of corporation tax across the globe, which looks like it will probably be held up by Committees in the United States. There is give and take in both the systems that we are looking at. The hon. Gentleman suggests that the US’s system is perfect or is something that we should be moving towards, but it actually allows vested interests to block really sensible proposals that are liked by many other countries around the world. I would like him to reflect on that in his comments.
Matt Western
I am not saying that the US has a perfect system; far from it. I am saying that the parliamentary process, or the process that involves bodies from within the democratic systems of this place, generally pales in comparison to the way the US does this.
Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Bill (Twelfth sitting)
Richard Holden Excerpts(3 years, 9 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lloyd Russell-Moyle
In local government, the health service, education and other areas, there is a doctrine known as the new burden doctrine. It is a sensible doctrine whereby if a new burden is put upon a body—particularly in local government and in educational bodies under local government—the Government shall make provision to pay for that new burden, or they will provide for that body to be able to raise revenue to cover the new burden.
Higher education institutions have income-raising capacity, although I am sure they would say that the cap should be lifted or the funding formula should be changed. They can make that an argument to the Chancellor at the spending review, and I know that many of them have. I desperately hope that the burden is not put on poorer students, as we are reading in the papers. Personally, I would move to a proper graduate tax, or even free education. A new graduate tax could be introduced for the young, and an old-age social care tax for those who are older, so we could have one joint intergenerational tax that allows a bit of intergenerational solidarity—but I digress.
Despite my desire for free education or a proper graduate tax that does not put people in debt, universities can go and make their case to the Chancellor. They have powers to raise revenue, either by seeking research funding or through student fees. They can get more students in, in fact—they could squeeze two or three more students into lecture halls. Student unions have none of those abilities. They do not, on the whole, raise revenue. Some, which are now the exception, still run some commercial businesses, but that is a rarity in higher education—even in campus universities. Most campus university student unions do not even run their own bars now.
Government Members who think that student unions can raise the money need to look again at student union finances, the vast majority of which come from the good will of the institution. The problem is that if the institution deprives the student union of money, the financial penalty for that student union and its duty do not transfer back to the institution; the liability is not reduced. I suspect that the liability will be covered by the student union’s paying basic insurance, but if it is deprived of money it will have no ability to pay for that, while still having the liability.
The new clause does not specify an amount; all it says is that the institution, in appointing the student union—because it appoints the body that is the student union; its job is to say, “This is our registered student union”—has to make sure that the student union has sufficient resources. If the student union has bars and commercial services, the institution can say, “We’ve ensured that you have the right resources because we can see that you have an income. No problem.” If the student union has none of those resources, all the new clause requires is that the institution takes steps to ensure that it has. Perhaps it will give a bar over to the student union to run, so that it generates the resources, or perhaps it will give over an amount of money. The new clause requires that to happen. The guidelines will explain how that happens, of course, but without this provision I am deeply worried that we will be imposing a new burden.
Mr Richard Holden (North West Durham) (Con)
I have been reading the impact assessment and I can quite understand where the hon. Gentleman is coming from. It suggests that the annual enforcement costs would be around £400,000 a year and that the total ongoing costs directly applying to student unions would be £1.2 million a year nationwide. However, there are over 100 academic institutions and many student unions across the country; if we divide that cost by 100 academic institutions, we are not talking about a huge amount of money per institution. Does the hon. Gentleman not think that student unions should be able to deal with the small extra costs?
Lloyd Russell-Moyle
I go back to my point. This is not a huge burden on institutions, but we should require institutions to ensure that there are those resources, given that some student unions have almost zero resources—only a few hundred pounds in the bank account. For many student unions there will be no problem, but provision will be needed for others. The new clause just says to the institution, “Check that your student union can do this.” It might just be a matter of a few hundred pounds for the insurance premium. It is fair for the institution to be required to do that. I hope the Minister will take that on board, either in the guidelines or in Lords amendments.
Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Bill (Tenth sitting)
Richard Holden Excerpts(3 years, 9 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Matt Western
Labour cannot support this clause in its entirety. There are many points that could be highlighted. New section 69B(9) states::
“If a students’ union fails to comply with a requirement under subsection (8) and does not satisfy the OfS that it is unable to provide the information, the OfS may enforce the duty to comply with the requirement in civil proceedings for an injunction.”
God, the heavy hand of Government! It is like the opening credits of Monty Python with that hand coming down from the clouds and stamping on the little person, and that is the case for student unions across the country.
Matt Western
I stand corrected. The hon. Member obviously misspent more of his time than I did watching that. Whatever part of the anatomy it was, it was coming down rather heavily on the small person. That is what the Government are seeking to do. It is quite clear that the intention in No. 10 and its policy unit is to drive out student unions in this case and change the representation on how bodies may be affiliated on our campuses.
Too much of the clause is down to guidance and none of it has been done in collaboration with student unions. Student unions are not professionally organised with huge resources behind them to counter this and take the Government on. I would have thought the Government would be much more willing to work with student unions and with the National Union of Students and say, “We want to collaborate with you. We do understand there is this issue, and you perhaps appreciate there is a bit of an issue in certain places. How is it that we go about best addressing this issue across certain campuses?”, realising that it is not the case across 98.9% of events. We cannot support this. The obligations and duties on student unions are far too onerous, and we will be voting against the clause.
Lloyd Russell-Moyle
My argument does not necessarily only deal with fining; I am talking about regulation as opposed to fining, and we have had a debate on that. The point on fining is that we are worried that we will end up seeing a chilling effect and people coming forward vexatiously. That is a real concern—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for North West Durham groans, but he should stand up and say why he groans—give a speech or make an intervention supporting the Bill. He has said very little.
Mr Holden
I think that is a bit unfair. I do not quite understand where the hon. Gentleman thinks all of these vexatious claims will come from, and why they are about to happen. Why, in this instance, with student unions specifically, does he think that there will be millions of vexatious claims trying to close them down at the drop of a hat?
Lloyd Russell-Moyle
We have heard that “where there’s a blame, there’s a claim”. We have seen it in road traffic, and we have actually seen an increase in litigation in the higher education sector, which is deeply worrying. Government witnesses talked about the commercialisation of the HE sector and students demanding that they get the results that they want.Those demands have actually led to universities being more restrictive in what people can say. This will increase that.
Mr Holden
The evidence that the hon. Member is pointing to is on students and their universities, and I can quite understand that. This point, however, is all about student unions, so I would like to understand why he thinks that student unions will be targeted, rather than education providers.
Lloyd Russell-Moyle
Because, so far, student unions have not had that contractual relationship, with the ability of students to take them to court for failing to fulfil a service. That is my point about where the money comes from. At the moment, the student gives the money to the university. The contract for a basic service is between the student and the university. This extends that, so the student then has a direct contractual relationship with the student union.
If the hon. Member thinks that every single student will agree with what their student union is doing, and that no student will try it on, then I am afraid that his university experience was far too bland. My experience was of debate and contestation, and of people arguing and wanting to push the boundaries—quite rightly. This will not help that, because it will regulate student unions in a way that means they cannot then defend themselves properly. The reason for that is the financial point, which I was trying to come on to.
The university gets money from the student. They then give a grant—usually a small one—to the student union, which then spends, effectively, the university’s money. My understanding is that, according to the Education Act 1994, the university has an oversight role for how that money is spent. Yes, the student union can spend it how the students want, but within a framework that the university sets out and lays down. If the student union is liable, whose money are they liable with? That is what I am trying to get at.
If the OfS puts forward financial sanctions, whose money are they sanctioning at the student union? The student union’s money is just the university’s money, held in trust and spent on behalf of the university. Would student unions need to raise unrestricted monies, somehow? We know that most student unions do not raise unrestricted monies any more, because gone are the days of the bars. Or would student unions, if they were fined by the OfS, need to use their restricted university grants on this? If so, that clashes with the concept that that university grant is restricted to only the educational activities of the student—not for liability claims against the union. It seems strange that they would face this double regulation, and money able to be drawn from all different quarters, when they have no money themselves.