PCS Broad Left Network

This article sets out what happened at the 11th June NEC, what the NEC standing orders are, and why members should care about any of this.

By far the most important function and duty of the PCS National Executive Committee (NEC) is to implement policies as determined by our Annual Delegate Conference.

At the moment, this means launching the campaign to improve pay, to protect jobs and working conditions and to ensure that we tackle the relentless cost of living increases on our members. Additionally, holding the government to account on the Capita pensions crisis; responding to the EHRC code of practice; and defending our victimised reps in HMRC. The NEC was mandated to act on all these issues, and more at Annual Delegate Conference (ADC) last month in May, and indeed at last year’s ADC too.

Members rightly expect the NEC to progress these issues quickly, and to take our responsibility seriously. Members of the Coalition between BLN, Independent Left and Alliance for Change (“the Coalition”) that make up the newly elected NEC majority including the National President Bev Laidlaw are committed to launching a fighting campaign to win for members. The General Secretary, Fran Heathcote, has attempted to sabotage the NEC, and prevent it from meeting or making decisions, to try to block any of this business from being taken forward – this isunacceptable and unconstitutional. This culminated with the General Secretary and the NEC minority walking out of a properly convened meeting which took place on the 11^th June.

This is the most recent example of the General Secretary (GS) stalling progress. The GS is responsible for issuing communications, but to date nothing has been published to members telling them about the policy carried by ADC in May to launch a cost of living campaign to improve pay, defend jobs and a number of other issues. Nothing has been published telling members that at the emergency NEC meeting on 29^th May agreed to reject the insulting and insufficient unfunded pay remit of 3.5%, submit our pay claim for a 10% pay rise and demand national talks are reopened with the Cabinet Office. Articles written and submitted by the Deputy National President Dave Semple for the PCS website explaining the campaign and need for members to get ready to fight have been actively blocked from being published by the GS. A significant amount of the NEC’s instructions have not been carried out.

What happened at the 11^th June NEC?

Within 30 minutes of the meeting starting, the GS incorrectly claimed the meeting was in breach of the union’s rules as the NEC majority wished to adopt a new set of standing orders, which are the procedures governing how the NEC meetings are conducted, instead of the GS’s suggested version. A full factual account of the meeting can be read here. After some debate, the GS declared the NEC was “out of order” (something only the President can do) as we would not adopt her standing orders, and so the committee couldn’t decide any business. The GS left the meeting and encouraged her allies on the NEC to do the same. The President was then removed as a co-host of the Zoom call and the call was ended despite the NEC still being quorate (a majority of voting members present.)

This is particularly odd, as the NEC has already met this year without standing orders being adopted – the emergency NEC on 29^th May met to discuss and agree a response to the UK Civil Service pay remit, and instructions agreed at that meeting were taken forward by the GS (though many remain outstanding as mentioned.) None of the NEC nor the GS challenged this approach at the time.

The President restarted the 11^th June meeting at 14:30 after a brief adjournment. Theentire NEC, GS, Assistant General Secretary (AGS) and all Full-Time Officers (FTOs) usually present were invited and sent joining details. 20 voting members of the NEC from the Coalition including the President, Deputy President and two vice Presidents joined the NEC meeting, making it quorate and valid. AGS John Moloney also attended. The GS and all NEC members from the “Democracy Alliance” slate chose not to attend. The NEC adopted new standing orders, and dealt with all items of members’ business including to immediately progress work on a cost-of-living campaign in line with motion A375 agreed at ADC 2026, including advice for delegated bargaining areas.

In short, the GS used her control of the PCS systems to try to suspend the NEC. This is in direct contravention of PCS rules. She undermined the power of the NEC and President to conduct the business of the union, which is enshrined in the PCS Principle and Supplementary rules. Principal Rule 8 states: “The management and control of the Union, and the handling of its whole affairs, shall be vested in the National Executive Committee” and Supplementary Rule 7.12 states: “The President shall preside at all NEC meetings, put such motions to the vote as may be seconded, and be the judge of order.” Principle Rule 14 states: “In case of conflict between a principal rule and any other rule of the union, the principal rule shall prevail.” It is clear therefore that even if the standing orders are to be considered rules, they cannot prevent the NEC from exercising the full control of the union vested in the NEC by principle rule 8.

After the NEC meeting, the GS sent out an all-members email, published a video on social media and put an article on the PCS website giving her view of events. None of these were sanctioned by the NEC. These gave an inaccurate and biased account of the NEC meeting, without any detail or explanation to back up the GS’s accusations. No opportunity was given for the President or NEC majority to explain their reasoning or decisions to members. Even more concerning is the GS’s statement that she will ensure the “day to day” business of the union continues – this means making decisions without the required NEC control or oversight. This is completely against the PCS rules.

Why do the standing orders matter, and why should members care?

Simply put, if the GS uses a fight over standing orders to refuse to enact or allow her staff to enact any of the NEC’s decisions, it will be almost impossible to organise a campaign and strike ballot if acceptable improvements aren’t achieved through talks.

The standing orders are a set of principles and procedures that the NEC agree will govern their meetings for the year. It contains things like how debates will be conducted, who has the right to speak, and who has the right to bring business to the NEC and when and how votes will be taken. It sets out the powers of the President as the Chair of the NEC. There is nothing in the standing orders agreed by the majority of the NEC which, “break union rules designed to protect members’  from organised factions” as the GS has claimed. This is total red herring in order to mislead the membership.

It is important therefore that these procedures are democratic and allow for maximum debate and clear procedures for decision making. In 2024 when the Coalition first had a majority on the NEC, former National President Martin Cavanagh used the Standing Orders as a mechanism to veto any motion submitted by NEC members that disagreed with the recommendations in papers submitted by the GS. He knew that, without a Left Unity majority, Coalition NEC members’ motions to build for a national campaign and strike ballot in September 2024 (in line with union policy) would be agreed if he allowed the vote to happen. So a set of Standing Orders were forced through – despite the majority of the then NEC disagreeing with them, to enable him to do this.This created a log-jam situation where the NEC majority could vote down the GS’s papers which capitulated to the employer, but were prevented from voting through our alternative fighting strategies.

So, this is not a petty squabble over obscure rules and procedures. The GS has declared that the NEC cannot meet or decide things until her standing orders are accepted. This seems in keeping with the actions of Cavanagh and the GS in 2024, doing anything possible to prevent motions progressing a fighting campaign they and the rest of Left Unity don’t want. They have tried to pursue a partnership-like cosy relationship with the Cabinet Office for years, providing industrial peace at the expense of members.

The GS’s actions are actively harmful to members interests and progressing the campaign to win them a long overdue fair pay award and protect their terms and conditions, job security.  Having now lost the NEC majority and the position of President (and all motions supporting their policy stances at Conference), Left Unity apparently will now stoop to using legal advice paid for by members and the PCS bureaucracy to block the democratically elected NEC.

This is an unacceptable power-grab by the general secretary. The rules are explicit that the general secretary does not decide how to take forward members’ business; that is for the annually elected lay NEC to do underPrincipal Rule 8. The general secretary does not interpret the rules; that is for the President to do underSupplementary Rule 11.6: “The President shall determine any questions as to the interpretation of the Union’s Rules, including any questions as to whether or not the Rules are silent.” The general secretary is explicitly at the direction and under the oversight of the NEC under Supplementary Rule 8.1.

Ask the General Secretary to change approach, and join the NEC in the fight

Members elect an NEC and President to carry out the will of all members agreed at ADC. The General Secretary has acted undemocratically, trying to prevent that from happening. We ask that she changes her approach and join us in fighting toimprove members’ pay, jobs, pensions and working conditions.

Help us to regain proper lay-led, democratic control of our union – join the Broad Left Network today and send this to any reps and branches who want a fighting PCS governed by socialist principles, who will challenge the employer rather than doing their dirty work for them.

We were elected by you to be the PCS National President and Deputy President. That means we’re here to defend the democracy of our union and to make sure that the union delivers for you.

The new NEC has hit the ground running, and has already put in place plans:

• To build a serious national campaign on pay, jobs and hybrid working
• To put a claim to the Cabinet Office including for a 10% pay rise, £18p/h minimum wage, progression and a job security guarantee that protects our civil service members in the context of planned 15% staffing cuts.
• To coordinate ongoing strike action between those areas already in dispute – and to seek routes for private sector and devolved sector members to join in the fight.
• To defend trans rights in the face of the new EHRC guidance.

This is the first step towards a radical overhaul of the union.

Unfortunately, the General Secretary of PCS, Fran Heathcote, is content with the status quo and opposes real change in our union.

The General Secretary believes that the 3.5% pay remit published by the Cabinet Office last month is evidence of progress in talks. She agrees with the Cabinet Office that the minimum wage will be rate for the job of AAs.

We disagree, and the union’s National Executive Committee disagrees. The union’s Annual Delegate Conference gave us clear instructions as to pay, terms and conditions, defending trans rights, and on many other matters. Your NEC intends to follow those instructions.

In contrast, the General Secretary seeks to ignore these demands and instructions. She believes she knows best.

The NEC and we do not accept this.

We are fighting to build a national campaign in the UK civil service over the pay remit. Your NEC wants to sort out the decades-long problems faced by you, including real-terms pay cuts over the last 16 years, threats to tens of thousands of jobs, major office closures, escalating workloads and increasing restrictions to hybrid working, where it exists at all.

If the General Secretary was content to disagree, but otherwise to carry out the democratic decisions of the NEC, then this would be just a debate at the NEC as to how we progress union business.

Instead, the General Secretary is obstructing and delaying any action that might build towards a national campaign.

• The General Secretary has failed to pass along contact details for our key representatives in areas the NEC has instructed the President to contact.
• The General Secretary has failed to pass along correspondence from Group Executive Committees that have written to the NEC about the national campaign.
• The General Secretary has persistently issued major papers the night before NEC and National Disputes Committee (NDC) meetings, meaning that elected members are always under pressure of time to respond to her latest delaying tactics, instead of getting out to build and organise amongst members. NEC members do not have 100% facility time, nor a large staff of paid officials to write up our proposals. We have to do this ourselves, in non-work time.
• The General Secretary has provided no update on progress towards giving representatives access to members’ data in line with A226 carried at ADC 2025, despite repeated requests.
• The General Secretary has failed to comply with the instruction to issue communications to members explaining the decisions and actions taken by the NEC so far, including writing to the Cabinet Office to submit a pay claim and demand national talks.

Instead of doing these things, the General Secretary claims her contract gives her powers that it does not. Her contract of employment is clear – she must follow the instructions of the NEC.

NEC meeting of 11 June 2026

On 11 June 2026 the General Secretary and a minority of NEC members ‘walked out’ of an online NEC meeting, that had been convened and proper notice given to all.

The General Secretary or one of her staff then closed the Zoom meeting, attempting to de-rail a scheduled NEC meeting which was still quorate.

To be clear that there is nothing in the rules that allows her to end NEC meetings. Nor is walking out an adult thing to do.

Before the Zoom meeting was shut down, the General Secretary cited rules that she believed were being broken. These were related to the NEC’s democratic decision to agree standing orders which would facilitate the ability of the NEC to implement conference decisions. The paper to move the standing orders is always in the name of the President.

Extraordinarily, the General Secretary did not issue the paper put by the president but replaced it with her own, that ignored the ruling by the President. When the President permitted the moving of an amendment to that paper, the General Secretary and 12 out of 35 NEC members walked out.

It is not the role of the General Secretary to interpret the rules. This power under Supplementary Rule 11.6 is reserved to the President (on matters of interpretation) and to the NEC (in cases where the rules are silent). Instead, when the General Secretary could not get majority support for her approach, she sabotaged the NEC meeting, and had it closed when she did not have authority to do this.

As President, Bev Laidlaw instructed that the NEC reconvene in a different Zoom meeting room to continue with business. The majority of the NEC did so and at that meeting, we agreed important actions, including a national Cost of Living campaign and a response, in line with Conference policy to the Equality and Human Rights Commission’s Code of Practice for services, public functions and associations, and the danger in which it puts some of our members.

We and the elected majority on the National Executive Committee now call on the General Secretary to cease acting against the democratically elected leadership and to work with us to action the policies agreed by our Conference.

We want every single member to know that this NEC answers to Conference and it answers to members, as per the rule book. We are fighting hard to do the work of members and call on the General Secretary to do the same.

We want Fran Heathcote to urgently meet with us to discuss and agree a way in which we can work together in the interests of members and for the elected NEC to retain the “management and control of the union, and the handling of its whole affairs,” as provided for Principal Rule 8 of the union’s rules.

This is your union and you deserve better than the General Secretary’s power plays. We have serious work to do, and we hope that the General Secretary can act in a serious manner and that together we work to achieve what you deserve and need.

Bev Laidlaw PCS President      Dave Semple  PCS Deputy President

PCS members in Northern Ireland have shown the kind of courage and clarity the entire PCS Union needs. When Sodexo attempted to slash the working week of staff such as, cleaners, receptionists and porters by one day — a 20% cut in income — workers refused to accept it. They organised, they voted, and they took strike action with total unity.

This dispute is not a local anomaly. It is a symptom of a national crisis in outsourced Facilities Management (FM) across the civil service estate — a crisis driven by corporate greed and enabled by HMRC’s refusal to take responsibility for the contracts it funds.

Sodexo: A Multinational Profiting from Poverty Pay

Sodexo is not a struggling employer. It is a global corporation with:

• €28.056 billion in revenue in 2025
• €785 million in net profit
• A portfolio of major public‑sector contracts, including:

– London Underground

– British Transport Police

– Metropolitan Police

– Avon & Somerset Police

– HMRC

This is a company built on public money. Yet it treats the lowest‑paid workers as disposable. While shareholders enjoy rising profits, Sodexo demands that low‑paid workers absorb cuts, redundancies and impossible workloads.

This is exploitation, plain and simple.

What Sodexo Is Doing to Workers

Across civil service buildings, Sodexo is:

• Cutting contracted hours
• Forcing job amalgamations
• Reducing income for already low‑paid staff
• Imposing workloads that cannot be met safely
• Threatening redundancies
• Refusing to recognise PCS
• Refusing to engage with union reps
• Ignoring basic HR and consultation standards

These are not isolated incidents. They are part of a deliberate business model: cut labour, squeeze workers, protect profit.

And the people paying the price are some of the lowest‑paid and most marginalised workers in the public sector.

The Human Reality: Low Pay, High Pressure, No Security

Many FM workers are migrants, women, or workers in precarious circumstances. They are already among the lowest‑paid in the civil service estate.

Cutting their hours by 20% is not a “business adjustment”. It is an attack on their ability to pay rent, feed their families and survive.

These workers keep our buildings clean, safe and operational. Without them, HMRC offices simply could not function.

Yet they are treated as if they are invisible.

PCS rejects this entirely.

The Cost‑of‑Living Crisis: Workers Are Paying While the Government Breaks Its Promises

The last year has been one of the most punishing periods for working‑class households in over a decade. While corporations like Sodexo post billions in revenue and hundreds of millions in profit, the people who clean our offices, keep our buildings safe, and hold the civil service together are being squeezed from every direction.

The rising cost of living falls hardest on the lowest‑paid — including the FM workers Sodexo is targeting for cuts. Cleaners, receptionists and porters already spend a higher proportion of their income on food, rent, utilities and transport. A 20% cut to their working week is not just unfair — it is economically devastating.

And this is where the political betrayal becomes impossible to ignore.

The Labour government was elected on a promise to reverse the outsourcing disaster and deliver “the biggest wave of in‑sourcing of public services in a generation.” They pledged to learn the lessons of Carillion, end the race to the bottom, and ensure public money delivered public good.

Instead, we have:

• Outsourced FM contracts collapsing
• Workers pushed into poverty
• Repairs left undone and buildings becoming unsafe
• Cleaning standards collapsing under impossible workloads
• Private companies extracting profit from essential services
• HMRC refusing to intervene
• And the government quietly shelving its in‑sourcing commitments
• Workers were promised stability. They were promised fairness. They were promised a government that would rebuild public services, not hand them over to corporations whose business model depends on cutting wages and hollowing out staffing.

The cost‑of‑living crisis has exposed the truth: outsourcing is incompatible with economic justice. You cannot protect workers’ living standards while allowing private contractors to slash jobs, cut hours and drive down pay.

Northern Ireland’s Sodexo workers are not just fighting for their own livelihoods — they are fighting against a political and economic model that has failed the entire working class.

Their struggle is part of the wider fight for dignity, security and public ownership.

HMRC’s Role: A Contracting Authority That Pretends It Has No Power

HMRC repeatedly claims that FM cuts are “a matter for the contractor”. This is not true.

As a government department spending public money, HMRC has clear responsibilities:

• To ensure value for money
• To monitor performance and safety standards
• To intervene when contractors fail
• To ensure that workforce treatment does not undermine service delivery
• To protect the health and safety of everyone in its buildings

Instead, HMRC has chosen to look away.

When Sodexo cuts staff, HMRC shrugs. When cleaning standards collapse, HMRC shrugs. When statutory safety checks are missed, HMRC shrugs. When workers face poverty, HMRC shrugs.

This is not neutrality — it is complicity.

Public Money, Private Profit: HMRC Has Learned Nothing

Outsourcing in HMRC has a long and disastrous history:

• Mapeley
• Concentrix
• Fujitsu
• And now Sodexo and Mitie

Every time, the pattern is the same:

• Private companies underbid
• Services collapse
• Workers suffer
• HMRC denies responsibility
• Taxpayers foot the bill

The current FM contracts are simply the latest chapter in a long‑running failure.

What PCS and the BLN Say Must Happen

1. End the failing FM contracts HMRC must terminate contracts that do not deliver safe, clean, functioning workplaces.
2. Bring FM services back in‑house Insourcing is the only sustainable, ethical and cost‑effective solution.
3. Offer Sodexo and Mitie workers HMRC jobs With HMRC pay, terms and conditions — not poverty wages.
4. Build PCS membership among FM workers Every branch must recruit FM staff. Their protection depends on collective strength.
5. Demand recognition rights PCS must secure bargaining rights with Sodexo and Mitie.
6. Support the Northern Ireland strike Their fight is the frontline of a national struggle.

This Is a Fight for the Future of Public Services

Sodexo’s behaviour is disgraceful. HMRC’s inaction is unacceptable. And the treatment of low‑paid FM workers is a stain on the civil service.

But Northern Ireland has shown what happens when workers stand together.

They refused to accept poverty wages. They refused to be intimidated. They organised. They took action. And they forced Sodexo to the table.

This is the power of PCS members. This is the power of collective action.

Show solidarity with these strikers by sending messages of support to nireland@pcs.org.uk

Want to help us build the strength of our union – Get involved and join the Broad Left Network

The PCS National Executive Committee met on 29^th May – the first meeting since the Left Coalition won a majority in this year’s National Elections.  At that meeting, it was agreed to reject the pay remit (published 21st of May), restate our demands and push the Cabinet Office for further talks. It also agreed, in line with conference policy (see motion here) carried only the week before, to launch a serious national campaign – a Cost-of-Living Campaign – on pay, jobs and conditions and to prepare for a strike ballot in the autumn if no progress is made in talks. 

A motion from the Left Coalition, moved by Deputy President, Dave Semple (see here) was overwhelmingly supported. This motion set out how we build a strong, united campaign across the union.

Conference instructs NEC to fight on Pay, Jobs and Conditions 

Conference motion A375 makes our demands clear:

• A real pay rise: At least 10% consolidated (meaning it counts towards pension) rise. A minimum wage of £18 per hour. 
• London weighting of at least £5,000. Restoration of pay and pensions lost over years of freezes and caps 
• National pay bargaining: One national system, not fragmented deals. Automatic pay progression restored 
• Shorter pay scales so people don’t spend years stuck at the bottom of their scale 
• Better working conditions: 35 days minimum annual leave. A 28-hour working week with no loss of pay 
• Job security: Protection of jobs, workloads, services, and offices. Protection of genuine hybrid/home working 
• Proper regulation of AI 

These are not “wish list” items – they are essential to protect members from falling living standards and working conditions

Why we rejected the Civil Service Pay Remit 

The Cabinet Office published the UK civil service pay remit for 2026/27 on the last day of our conference. This cap for the overall increase to spending on pay by each civil service department, executive agency or other body is 3.5%. Why is this unacceptable? 

Only 2% is new money — the rest must come from “savings”, meaning job cuts. 3.5% doesn’t come close to fixing years of low pay, pay freezes, and below-inflation rises. Even the government’s own inflation measure (CPI) predicts prices rising by at least 3.5% by the end of 2026 — meaning no real pay rise at all. 

The remit announcement also provides for some “flexibility” for increases to tackle specific issues which could mean increases above 3.5% for some, but the cost will need to be met from within existing funds i.e. there’s no new money and most likely will result in more job cuts. And there are more strings attached. This is simply not acceptable.

3.5% is not enough to address longstanding issues of low pay, or the impact of pay freezes and pay caps over years let alone the impact of the cost -of -living crisis – which is set to worsen. 

Pay “flexibility” in 2026/27: Myth Versus Reality – What Members Need to Know 

The General Secretary issued a statement welcoming parts of the remit. But here’s what she didn’t say: 

Lowest paid grades consigned to the minimum wage

Because the minimum wage has increased faster than civil service pay, the gap between AA and AO pay is minimal, if anything at all in some areas, and these rates are now in turn catching up with EO pay. This is known as pay compression.

This is causing huge discontent at these levels – after all why would anyone want to do extra work with no or very little extra pay. And at the minimum wage or thereabouts too. But the “solution” the government is proposing is a trap.

The government’s plan

Under the proposals contained in the Civil Service pay remit, a “Pay Compression Framework” is included. On the surface this sounds positive – compression at lower grades, especially between AA and AO, and between AO and EO, is a real and genuine concern for many. However, the method proposed does not come with additional money from Treasury, will permanently hold down consolidated AA pay to the National Minimum Wage (NMW) and raises the spectre of a 5% minimum differential being treated as a maximum in future years. Additionally, the remit is silent on the future of London Weighting, and it cannot be ruled out that whole approach will result in the AA grade being abolished.

The General Secretary’s statement frames the proposals in relation to AA’s as “career development”, but if the AA grade disappears, the work does not, meaning higher workloads for no extra pay for other grades and the potential of redundancy if AAs don’t want to be promoted. 

Higher grades get nothing meaningful, like all our members they too have endured years of pay freezes and pay caps and deserve better.

What the NEC decided instead

Despite the woeful 3.5% remit, the General Secretary proposed that we move immediately to delegated pay talks to “maximise” money i.e. employer by employer pay talks, essentially foregoing any national campaign. What a nonsense – 3.5% increase to pay bill is exactly that and does not mean that everyone will get a 10% pay rise nor introduce an £18 an hour minimum wage no matter how you square the maths.

The NEC said no to this suggestion. A short pause to delegated talks has been agreed whilst we make it clear that we reject the pay remit and further representations are made to the Cabinet Office – a task which has been made harder by Fran Heathcote’s message which indicated that it was not only acceptable but actually “quite good”. 

A new national negotiating team has been agreed, including the union’s newly elected President, Deputy President, together with the General Secretary and the Assistant General Secretary. Training and information for delegated negotiators and for activists more generally is in preparation and the first steps towards accomplishing the demand of three successive PCS annual delegate conferences have been taken: build a serious national campaign.

Co-ordinate with other unions

On 28 May, Unison, Unite and GMB unions rejected a 3.3% pay increase for local government workers. Unison has already announced that it intends to ballot, beginning in June. 

The NEU is opposing a 6.5% deal over three years and has announced an autumn strike ballot. We need to demand more from the Cabinet Office and we need to prepare for a serious national campaign on pay and the other issues agreed by conference. Co-ordinating with other unions moving into dispute will help us build the pressure and as such the NEC has now agreed to approach other unions for joint campaigning to strengthen our campaign.

What this campaign is about

The left-coalition led NEC is committed to fighting for fair pay, protecting jobs, improving working conditions including hybrid and other flexible working. We will challenge the Governments location strategy, protect pensions and resist the slow erosion of grades and professional standards. Members are tired of surrender and stagnation. This campaign is about turning that frustration into collective action.

 Build the BLN

If you want to know more and help us build this collective campaign – get in touch and join to help us build the Broad Left Network.

A decisive left majority win of 21:14 in the 2026 National elections provided a positive context to this year’s PCS conference. But winning the NEC was only one part of the battle – we had to win support for a fighting programme-a mandate for the new leadership.

And we did – on all the key issues we won the votes and we won the arguments on the conference floor. The “can’t do-won’t do” attitude of the Left Unity/Democracy Alliance defeated leadership was exposed and defeated by the BLN and our coalition partners. Our support on the floor, amongst the delegates was undeniable.

Build a serious campaign to save jobs, improve pay and defend conditions

The outgoing leadership made no attempt to launch a national campaign during their year in office. Their “do nothing” approach was demonstrated by their failure to provide any strategy of its own to conference setting out how were going to win on pay, jobs and the myriad of other issues faced by members. But delegates rejected this and voted to support motion A375 by 204 votes to 133. This was despite the NEC opposition and despite LU attacks on everything from the proposed timing of the struggle to the so-called “shopping list” of demands proposed.

Carrying A375 means that the new NEC will now develop a serious campaign on pay, jobs, pensions, conditions, will put our demands to the Cabinet Office and if progress is not made to move to a dispute, allied to other unions if possible.

The new Executive will meet this week (29^th May) to agree a negotiating and campaign strategy, taking account of conference policy and the 3.5% pay remit just announced by the government. Meanwhile, the General Secretary has wasted no time in undermining the policy just agreed and issued a briefing to members making no reference to the carriage of Motion A375 and one could be mistaken for thinking she was welcoming the details in the pay remit. Despite this, the left Coalition will ensure that the elected lay-member NEC will thoroughly debate the pay remit and set out a way forward to be discussed and decided by members and reps.

Taking On the Far Right

Motion A111, agreed by conference, sets out am ambitious strategy for tackling the threat of the far right:

“Conference believes…a party based on the organised working class that fights for anti-racist, anti-war, socialist policies is vital to prevent the far-right harnessing the growing anger of working-class people with Starmer’s Labour.”

The  NEC must now develop and implement a serious approach to take forward the PCS and the official TUC policy of “Workers’ unity, not division – jobs and homes, not racism”. This must prioritise our anti-austerity programme and, should Labour not implement policies to improve the lives of workers, including PCS members, the NEC is instructed to convene a conference with other unions to discuss the building of a political vehicle for workers.

This will be a major task in the year ahead. If the first priority for the new left NEC is launching a cost-of-living campaign, priority two must be developing an alternative political voice which represents our needs and stops the election in 2029 of a viciously pro-austerity, pro-billionaire, anti-public-sector, racist right-wing government that will spell disaster for working class people.

Urging an “anti-Reform” vote is not enough. We must mobilise the rage of working-class people against austerity behind a positive programme addressing the urgent needs of our communities and build an alternative.

Who Runs the Union

 A concentration of power and control in the hands of the bureaucracy has become a major feature of the Left Unity leadership. This, together with a lack of basic support for reps formed a series of major debates at conference. Delegate after delegate referenced the failure of the leadership to give effect to policy agreed last year enabling access by local reps to their membership data. A crucial tool if we are to organise and support members in our workplaces and branches.

Supporting motion A124 one delegate summed up the frustration felt by reps – “It would be a joy to be able to communicate with our members directly”. Conference agreed, against Left Unity opposition, and carried the motion on a card vote 66,339 to 45,035.

Access to members’ data to ensure branches are well organised, access to high-quality printed materials, access to up-to-date information so reps know how to answer members’ queries – all of these are either not being done at all or being done badly.

Conference carried motion A33 which clearly set out the need to defend our reps from management victimisation such as we have seen at Benton Park View and now in Wales. The left Coalition NEC will heed this call.

Conference Stands with Trans Members

Conference 2025 was a scene of outrage and controversy, as 10 motions relating to the Supreme Court judgment “For Women Scotland v Scottish Ministers” were barred from the agenda. This year, despite more motions being barred from the agenda, Proud, supported by the BLN, forced an emergency motion to be tabled and debated – and put at the top of the Equalities Section.

Motion A348 demanded unconditional support for trans members whose rights are threatened by the Supreme Court judgment and the statutory EHRC code of practice that was issued in the dying minutes of Conference. Despite opposition by LU branches, it sailed through with a clear majority accompanied by huge applause from delegates.

Key to the victory on A348 was the change of heart by the National Standing Orders Committee.  The NSOC has far too often bent to pressure exerted by the president and general secretary.

A change in the composition of the committee with two BLN members elected last year played a crucial role in ensuring that democracy prevailed at Conference this year. This year’s block vote elections secured a further two spots on the NSOC giving a 4-1 left majority on this committee.

Join The BLN

The new National Executive Committee, which includes thirteen BLN members, is determined to implement the fighting programme agreed by Conference and take a lead in challenging Labour’s austerity programme and the threat of the far right.

The BLN campaigned hard during the elections leading to the election of a left coalition led NEC. The BLN were responsible for many of the motions discussed at conference and ensuring their adoption. We are an open, democratic socialist group in the PCS. If you are not already a member, please join.

PCS democracy is being restricted…. again! Our Annual Delegate Conference. meets in May. Conference is a crucial event and the pinnacle of our union’s democracy, not least because it will determine our policies on pay, jobs and the myriad of issues that members up and down the country are faced with.

We sit on the National Standing Orders Committee (NSOC), a committee elected by members which determines the running order of branch’s motions to be debated at Conference. We stood with a team of candidates on the programme supported by the Coalition and the Broad Left network and were elected. Participating in this committee has been an eye opener.

We start from the position that all motions should be published, unless there is an exceptional reason why they shouldn’t be e.g. a motion is libellous or defamatory.

Following the disgraceful removal of motions from the agenda last year, we expected to have a battle to ensure all motions were published, let alone the order in which they would be debated. But we believe that a new, undemocratic precedent has been set and the rules are now being misused to remove motions and prevent debate because the current Left Unity/Democracy Alliance majority don’t want motions tabled on issues they don’t agree with.

This, in our view, does not sit well with the democratic traditions of our union. We must therefore disassociate ourselves with the actions of the majority of the NSOC and the actions of the General Secretary and President of this union (including unelected bureaucrats) and we want to set out why.

19 motions were sent for legal advice this year. This includes 10 motions on trans rights, 5 on issues that supposedly fall solely within the General Secretary’s terms of employment – including motions supporting victimised and sacked reps – and 4 relating to an amendment to Supplementary Rule 6.22(g). The NSOC is perfectly entitled to take legal advice,and we would defend that right. This is set outunder Supplementary Rule 6.22(g), which enables the NSOC to exclude from the conference agenda motions it considers may result in legal proceedings against the union. 

We believe motions should be put before conference where elected delegates can debate them and decide what they want to do with them. If a motion is carried, and when the motion is implemented, legal matters that could then bring PCS into conflict with the law is surely something for the National Executive Committee (NEC) to consider when they discuss how to implement the policy. Our policies on the anti-Trade Union laws are an example of this – we operate within the law but still campaign in line with union policy to get these abolished.

Our view is that there has been an increasing and unsettling misuse of Supplementary Rule 6.22(g), which has been used to strike out motions we consider neither libellous nor defamatory. This has been done to motions by the NSOC itself but also to motions which were accepted by NSOC yet still sent off for legal advice regardless and without NSOCagreement. This interference is unacceptable and can only lead us to conclude that the current Left Unity/Democracy Alliance majority disagrees with them and doesn’t want them discussed.

The motions on Trans+ rights, an issue on which the union’s leadership has a history of using undemocratic methods to undermine, have now been removed from the agenda, not published and will not be discussed. No legal advice has been received which confirms that these motions are either libellous or defamatory. They were sent for legal advice on the grounds that at some hypothetical point in the future the implementation of these motions (motions that have not even been discussed, let alone carried) might lead to legal action being taken against the union.  As we’ve already said, that is surely a matter for the elected NEC to take into account, if the motions are discussed and if they are carried!

Further examples of undemocratic interference include the facilitation of a meeting with the General Secretary and National President, ostensibly to discuss timetable arrangements. Not only was the meeting accommodated but they brought with them two unelected full-time officers. Between them they attempted to influence the decision-making of the NSOC.

They cynically argued that motions on the union’s National Campaign were factually incorrect and should be removed, that motions submitted by the union’s NEC should be placed in different sections, and that some motions – e.g. the allocation of full-time officer resource and union support for victimised reps – should be excluded because they undermined the General Secretary’s powers.

Meeting with the NSOC in this way is a privilege not afforded to branches and therefore shouldn’t be afforded to the NEC either. The NEC has the right to put forward motions (and it does put forward motions) like every other part of the union, the NSOC is elected by members, independent of any other committee or branch in the union and must be allowed to discuss free from pressure and interference.

Not content with having one bite at the cherry, the General Secretary and National President requested another meeting with the NSOC to raise further objections to other motions!

Unfortunately, this won’t come as a surprise to many because the General Secretary when she occupied the position of National President and whilst chairing national conference, was exposed attempting to orchestrate a filibuster to stop motions being debated – funnily enough these were also motions on trans rights.

We consider it important to expose these attempts to manipulate and undermine a conference agenda which includes motions the union’s leadership does not want tabled, debated or agreed. We also believe it important to report that on 22 April, each member of the NSOC received a letter from the General Secretary, in which she states that the NSOC deserves respect in light of the difficult task we have and that branches were going to be reminded to “respect the union’s legal obligations, its rules, its procedures, and its democracy””. We consider this an act of hypocrisy given the events reported above and we think the General Secretary should heed her own advice.

We believe the NSOC should prepare and publish the conference agenda without interference from the leadership or branches in advance of the requirements set out in Rules A14 to A16. There is a published timetable which enables any branch to meet with the NSOC, after the (proposed) Conference motions and order of business (SOC 1) is published. It is at that point meetings with branch delegates can take place to argue for changes with a final recourse to conference itself via a ‘reference back’

We have argued consistently that the issues which have come directly from our membership should be given priority. These are the issues which impact on their working lives and given the political and industrial situation it is crucial they are published and heard. It is increasingly evident that the Left Unity/Democracy Alliance union leadership will resort to undemocratic practices to ensure these issues are not given the prominence they deserve. 

We urge you to support motions on the agenda to amend supplementary rule 6.22g, use your vote in the national elections and block vote elections and elect candidates that are determined to fight for the interests of members.  

Zakk Brown

Craig Worswick

National Standing Orders Committee 

The recent DWP Group pay ballot achieved an 85% vote in favour of strike action on pay, but with a 37% turnout fell far short of the 50% threshold set by the 2016 anti-trade union laws. This means there is no legal mandate for the strike action which we need to achieve our pay demands.

It is disgraceful that Starmer has still failed to scrap this anti-union legislation. With this crisis in political representation our union should be giving the lead in challenging the Starmer Government.

But the key questions are why did we fail to breach the threshold, and what is to be done?

There is a strong mood for action on pay. That is clear from the members’ meetings that have taken place across the country and from the overwhelming yes vote in the ballot. 40,000 DWP members are facing the fourth year in a row on minimum wage, pay eroded by over a third, effects of chronic understaffing, and being forced to go back into the office an extra 20% of their working time. The need for an industrial fight back is clear, so why wasn’t the threshold achieved?

The PCS DWP Group leadership have pinned the blame largely on postage delays. More than a dozen delivery offices have reported having to prioritize parcels over letters, meaning post has been delayed in some areas over the 6-week ballot. However, this is unlikely to account for the 5,000 additional ballot papers needed to reach the 50% strike ballot threshold.

Too Little, Too Late

PCS conference back in May voted for a national campaign on the widest possible basis to re-win support for the key demands of a 10% pay rise, genuine hybrid working for all, opposition to job cuts and restoration of pension overpayments. But no national campaign has been forthcoming. Rather than challenge the Treasury pay remit the LU national leadership (which includes a number of DWP members) decided to meekly accept it.

The DWP Group conference also voted for a group campaign on pay for a 10% pay rise and a sliding scale of wages to stop our members repeatedly falling to minimum wage. Conference was clear that this needed to be done with the DWP union leadership working closely with branches and regions.

The pay ballot was planned to launch 5th Jan but was then delayed by a fortnight after a challenge from the employer. This meant members were being balloted on a pay rise over four months after it had hit their pay packets.

The demands put forward by the LU group leadership did not inspire members, and was not what conference instructed the GEC to campaign on. Instead of campaigning around our 10% pay demand, the GEC decided to demand that the employer submit a pay flexibility case to award more money to the lower grades and increase the pay gap between grades. Such a vague demand and loose strategy failed to inspire members.

Rather than challenge the Treasury pay remit the Left Unity DWP Group, like the LU national leadership, tried to fit their demands within the Treasury pay remit which could never deliver our policies on pay. Any genuine business case to address low pay in the department and ensure pay for all grades not sliding backwards would mean forcing DWP Management to challenge the Treasury.

In addition, members had been crying out for action on pay months prior yet the leadership did nothing to mobilise the membership to build for industrial action. When increased hybrid attendance was imposed, the leadership just sent out a survey and mounted no opposition to these changes nor to the office closures announced at 4 sites with entire directorates now being dissolved.

The membership is not a tap that can be turned on and off at the whims of a union leadership, as shown by the low turnout. To win, we need a serious, concerted campaign that inspires the confidence of members.

It is clear that in this badly organised and much delayed pay ballot members were not convinced in sufficient numbers of the union’s demands and had little confidence in the union’s leadership.

What next?

The issues of low pay have not gone away, nor has the understaffing, hybrid working restrictions, workloads, mandatory Saturday and late working, and a myriad of other issues.

We have DWP group conference policy for a fighting campaign on pay with concrete demands, for 30,000 new staff, for an end to the two-tier workforce that exists within the department from years of conditions being eroded. The policies are all there, but we need a leadership who will campaign for them, place demands on the employer, mobilise members to fight for them and work with branches to give reps the tools to do so.

Broad Left Network stands for a fighting, democratic union. We urge members to vote for candidates standing on the Coalition for Change slate at national level and in DWP. NEC candidates DWP candidates

Download leaflet

Following an approach from PCS officials about the fighting fund this is the response from the PCS Broad Left Network

Thank you for your email message on the fighting fund and apologies for the delayed response but you know that I’ve been away.

Having received your note, I subsequently confirmed that it was inviting the BLN to discuss with you the current fighting fund arrangements. As promised the BLN Steering Committee has now discussed and agreed our response.

It would have been helpful if you had included the proposals you have in mind since you indicated that you wanted to discuss these with us. If you can do that, then that would be great – I assume these proposals reflect the position of the union’s current leadership, but we remain unclear as to what that is.

Notwithstanding our recognition of your good intent, we do not believe it is appropriate for paid officials of PCS to be approaching the different political groups formed by the elected lay reps of the union to try and sort out an approach with no reference to the union’s NEC or other elected lay bodies. This method also excludes elected reps not in those political groups. This is not democratic. BLN assumes that you are acting under instructions from the General Secretary, and we’re concerned that this approach has never been discussed with the elected NEC.

In 2024, the General Secretary, using powers we don’t believe exist under rule, refused to table at the NEC, proposals agreed by the elected, coalition-led Finance Committee. She also more than once blocked or re-wrote papers submitted to the NEC by the elected Assistant General Secretary, who is also the treasurer of PCS. To then approach us a year later, presumably under instruction from the GS, to discuss a responsible approach to building the fighting fund, after the vitriol she and her Left Unity faction stirred up around the previous levy, is astounding.

We also find it very strange that, given the absolutely outrageous briefing sent to members in 2024, over the heads of the elected NEC and completely without democratic authority, by the General Secretary and her co-faction leader Martin Cavanagh, claiming that our finances are very healthy, that there is now this pressure to find a solution to a problem she and Left Unity denied existed. At the very minimum we would expect the £2.58m surplus reported to the November NEC to be redirected into the strike fund, while the elected lay leadership of PCS and the union’s Conference agree longer term solutions.

It would also be remiss of me not to point out that securing rep/membership support for changes to Fighting Fund rules is made more difficult by the appalling approach to the levy by the Left Unity/Democracy Alliance in the period leading up to the 2025 national elections. This followed Martin Cavanagh and Fran Heathcote blocking each and every attempt by the NEC Coalition majority to immediately lessen the impact of the levy on our lower paid members and to bring forward changes to secure better funding arrangements for the future. I first raised this at the NEC in July 2024. This was carried, but nothing taken forward. Moreover, they blocked all attempts to launch the badly needed national campaign to defend our pay, jobs and conditions and then argued against the levy (which they had introduced) being collected to support that campaign. To the contrary, the NEC Coalition Majority argued for the implementation of conference policy to build a serious campaign to win and exercise the mandates to strike which meant the levy had to continue to fund the campaign we were fighting for. Then worse, a cynical election bribe with Martin Cavanagh promising to refund levy payments, which has further discredited arguments for building the union’s strike funds.

We recognise that, against this background, it will not be easy to secure a Conference ⅔ majority to change the fighting fund rules. We also recognise that an agreed approach amongst leading activists and groups is likely to make this more easily attainable. We believe this is best achieved by an open, democratic discussion at the NEC with proposals from NEC members freely debated and without the restrictions that are all too often used by the current NEC majority to restrict debate.

Our position remains, in terms of the current fighting fund arrangements. We agree, they are not satisfactory, not least because the arrangements currently in place do not generate enough income to support ongoing strike pay/ hardship payment needs. Additionally, we agree that we must build the finances required to fund larger scale paid action. We would support increasing the regular payment(s) on a basis where the amount paid is dependent on salary earned, with protections put in place for our lower paid members. We would also want a commitment to the full examination of union income/expenditure to ensure our priorities are properly aligned with our needs re the fighting fund.

But we continue to recognise that a major piece of action may require topping up finances by means of a levy – an option we would want to retain. The “problem” of the current levy was not the idea of a levy itself, but the way in which the union leadership at the time (the Left Unity/Democracy Alliance), introduced it – with little meaningful consultation, discussion or explanation. We would support the development of a mechanism to activate a levy, but what this mechanism should be, requires thorough consultation with final agreement by Conference. We recognise this is difficult and requires work, but nothing about moving into a battle with the employer doesn’t and we have to be straightforward with our membership about this.

This outlines our position. As stated above, we would welcome details of the current union leadership’s proposals and would be prepared to participate in an open, democratic NEC discussion on the future fighting fund arrangements to try and achieve an agreed position. This discussion is long overdue, should have started when I first made proposals on this as it would have been better to have had something to put to branch AGMs.

Marion

Letter from PCS Bureaucracy