PCS 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

Public money used for private profit

In May 2025, HMRC moved from multiple Facilities Management (FM) contracts to one contract for the West of the UK – awarded to Sodexo – and one contract for the East of the UK – awarded to Mitie. This new model was termed by HMRC as ‘Next Generation Facilities Management’. Six months later the reality has been a backlog of repairs, offices being temporarily closed and FM staff resignations.

The new contract brings together ‘hard FM’ (maintenance and repairs) with ‘soft FM’ (cleaning, reception, cafe) to reduce the number of contracts required. This was supposed to deliver savings for HMRC. It does appear that the winning bids from Sodexo and Mitie come in at a lower cost to HMRC compared to the five previous contracts.

But cheaper is rarely better. It’s important to look at what the contracts are actually delivering to understand if HMRC is getting value for money. HMRC sets standards for hard and soft FM that are supposed to be met under the contract. If these standards are met then the contracts work.

On ‘hard FM’, key performance indicators aren’t being met. Statutory requirements aren’t being completed. Without sign off for the statutory safety of offices, they will have to be closed to staff. HMRC is then left paying rent on buildings it can’t use. Other repairs are mounting up too – broken doors, cracked windows, fallen ceiling tiles, broken taps, broken toilets, faulty plug sockets, the list goes on. Every one of these is another hindrance on the ability of HMRC staff to do their jobs effectively.

On ‘soft FM’, standards are barely met or not met. This isn’t the fault of the hard working staff – they are doing as much of the thankless cleaning and tidying at humanly possible. The problem is the cuts to headcount and hours available that are imposed from the top. Not enough FM staff means the workload is too much for those that remain and not everything can be done. The FM staff suffer the pressure of being expected to delivery the impossible, and HMRC staff suffer the consequences of unclean offices. The only winners are the companies siphoning taxpayer money into shareholder dividends. So much for being the ‘next generation’.

Ebenezer Sodexo cancels Christmas for staff

Even this isn’t bad enough for Sodexo. They are going a step further by seeking to make soft FM staff redundant all across the sites they have responsibility for. Fewer staff will make an already difficult job next to impossible for these staff. This decision is a mistake driven by corporate greed.

But consider the timing – the redundancy consultation is being conducted so that it’s completed by 19 December. What kind of Christmas will Sodexo soft FM staff, when they may not have a role in 2026?

PCS has members in Sodexo. PCS has correctly sought to intervene to support these members. Sodexo don’t recognise PCS and refuse to engage with PCS. There’s mounting evidence that Sodexo are ignoring their own redundancy HR policy and possibly employment law as well.

PCS has raised concerns with HMRC. Sodexo have assured HMRC they will still be able to meet key performance indicators, so HMRC have decided this isn’t their problem. All too often HMRC has tried to wash its hands of responsibility for privatised services. It was this attitude that allowed the Concentrix debacle to happen (see https://bln.org.uk/2025/07/08/fight-back-against-hmrcs-outsourcing-plans/). It was HMRC that suffered the reputational damage and the consequences. PCS must continue to pressure HMRC to intervene before the damage is done by Sodexo.

Mitie now implementing staff cuts

Even as PCS is looking to intervene at Sodexo, Mitie have made the disgraceful decision to make its own cuts. Little information has been shared with PCS about Mitie’s plans. Mitie what don’t recognise PCS and refuse to engage with PCS. Once again the HMRC says this is a matter for the private contractor and they can’t (or rather they won’t) intervene. 

The implication is that HMRC will have at least 100 fewer cleaning staff at offices in 2026. This would be bad at any times, but it comes even as HMRC seeks to restack it’s offices to increase capacity for people. So more members in offices using the facilities, more desks to clean, fewer staff at Sodexo and Mitie to deliver the essential services. HMRC is putting cost savings ahead of staff health and welfare.

No lessons learned by HMRC

In 2001, nearly all Inland Revenue and Customs & Excise buildings were sold to Mapeley and then leased back from Mapeley. Even at the time of this arrangement, it was controversial. Mapeley were based in Jersey so the profits of made on the contract weren’t taxable in the UK.

As time went on, Mapeley proved to be an unreliable landlord for HMRC. Repairs were slow or just not completed. The Office of Budget Responsibility reviewed the contract and found HMRC only made ‘savings’ from office closures – and those savings were inevitably offset by other costs like redundancy payments.

Time and again, HMRC has entered into contracts with the private sector that don’t deliver benefits. Whether it’s Mapeley, Concentrix, Fujitsu, Sodexo or Mitie, the private sector is a parasite on the public sector.

This Labour government stood for election in 2024 on a manifesto that included the following: 

“Labour will learn the lessons from the collapse of Carillion and bring about the biggest wave of in-sourcing of public services in a generation. A Labour Government will end the Tories’ ideological drive to privatise our public services, extend the Freedom of Information Act to apply to private companies that hold contracts to provide public services, exclusively with regard to information relevant to those contracts, to ensure any outsourced contracts are transparent and accountable for delivery. We will also extend the Freedom of Information Act to publicly funded employers’ associations, where not already covered.”

This manifesto promise – like many others – has been ignored. Along with disgusting attacks on migrants, pensioners, the disabled and the watering down of it’s promises to the trade unions, Labour is once again affirming it’s position as a representative of bankrupt British Capitalism. 

Fight back! 

This threat to members’ jobs and conditions cannot be allowed to go unanswered. So what can be done? Here is what the BLN says:

The HMRC GEC should publicly call on HMRC to end the ‘Next Generation’ FM contracts and bring the services in-house.

Current staff at Sodexo and Mitie working in HMRC offices need to be offered roles in HMRC – earning the rates of pay and terms and conditions negotiated by PCS and expected for all HMRC staff.

Every PCS branch in HMRC Group needs to recruit the hard and soft FM staff in their office into PCS. Union membership is their best protection against exploitation.

Every PCS branch in HMRC Group should organise meetings of HMRC and FM members. The meetings should be used to fully brief members about the situation in FM, and gather the views and the fighting ideas of our members.

While the ‘Next Generation’ FM contracts remain in place, the HMRC GEC must organise to seek recognition rights with Sodexo and Mitie for the staff working at HMRC offices.

At this year’s PCS Annual Delegate Conference, delegates voted to carry Motion A383 which called on the NEC to “proceed to a ballot by no later than mid-September 2025 if there is not satisfactory progress made to meeting our demands”.

The Left Unity controlled NEC has deliberately undermined the demands of motion A383 – instead of delivering a campaign, the NEC has caused even more damage to members’ hopes of a genuine campaign on pay.

There is action taking place in every part of PCS for campaigns related to the national campaign – including the Left Unity controlled DWP – and yet Left Unity have been very clear that the NEC does not consider this action to be evidence that members will support a national campaign. Members are actively campaigning and winning on pay and yet the NEC is using the fact that not enough members turned up to hastily arranged activist forums during a peak leave period as justification to once again effectively cancel any effort to build a national campaign.

The Broad Left Network has said throughout this period that Left Unity never intended to fight a campaign on pay and while they are in control of the NEC, the campaign will remain “paused” as it has for the entire duration of Fran Heathcote’s tenure as General Secretary.

Left Unity-controlled NEC capitulates to the employer

An article published on 01 August 2025 on the PCS website states the following:

“The union is not balloting members on offers within the limits of the remit, as the NEC has already determined that offers at this level will not be sufficient to protect members’ living standards, provide restoration for the erosion of pay levels in recent years and address the structural problems associated with low pay.”

In the September pay meetings arranged by branches, NEC speakers advised members that despite their awareness that the pay remit was not satisfactory, they instructed talks at delegate level knowing that negotiators could not accept the offer. Pay negotiators instead worked to achieve the best deal with the little they had to work with. This was an unnecessary capitulation to the Labour government by the Left Unity-led NEC. PCS could win much more in national talks and through direct action, yet the Left Unity-led NEC does not show a willingness to fight a Labour government for better pay.

A return to national bargaining is necessary and the pay remit should have been formally rejected – in action, not just words, and the leadership should have prepared for a serious dispute. Talks at delegated level result in vast inequalities across the civil service, where each department negotiates its own pay and terms of conditions. This has been in effect for more than three decades since Thatcher’s Conservative government waged its war on the civil service unions.

If the timeline of A383 was followed, PCS branches nationally should now have already balloted for strike action but the message coming from the leadership of the union is one of defeat. It is the same old tired excuses that members aren’t up for the fight, that they can’t afford to strike and aren’t willing to ballot. We heard the same in 2023 when again the Left Unity-led NEC capitulated and accepted a pay award with a one-off pro-rata payment of £1,500. This effectively ended the hard-won gains by reps and members on the ground to achieve a strike ballot in their workplaces. It did not provide a significant increase in pay, nor did it achieve pay restoration for the sharp drop in wages since 2010.

An end to the national campaign could be the start of action for HMRC.

HMRC Group conference Motion A45 states the following:

“Develop a campaign utilising bargaining, political leverage and industrial leverage to achieve our pay demands. Hopefully this will be as part of a reinvigorated civil service wide national campaign, but our Group must be prepared to ‘go it alone’ on pay if the National Campaign remains “paused” as it has been throughout the tenure of the current General Secretary”

It is clear from the decision in October that the NEC has no intention to win the desperately needed increase to the 2025/26 pay remit. In both the October and November NEC, Left Unity majority voted not to reopen the debate on the national campaign, preventing the BLN motion to build for a ballot in 2026 being heard. In both the October and November papers, the General Secretary provided no plan or comment whatsoever on how to prepare members for a ballot – it seems the leadership are content to pronounce members unready and leave things as they are. HMRC GEC, and our members, are not.

At the December GEC meeting, the Broad Left Network took the position that the GEC must agree to carry out the demands of A45 and conduct its own ballot on 2025 pay. This included the GEC to urgently submit a claim to the National Disputes Committee (NDC) to engage in a ballot of its members on 2025 pay. This position was agreed as part of the campaign and communications paper, setting the stage for a renewed battle on pay in 2026.

The Broad Left Network continues to demand:

Pay

• A fully consolidated pay rise of at least 10%
• £18 per hour minimum wage
• Pay restoration for money lost since 2010
• London pay entitlement of at least £5,000
• All fully funded centrally and not at the expense of jobs or conditions.

Jobs

• Oppose privatisation – End the planned pilot of the Managed Service Provider;
• End the use of Brook Street labour and give permanent posts to all those that want one.
• Insourcing of Facilities Management and Security staff;
• No cuts to the CSG headcount.

Working conditions

• Implement a four day working week with no loss of pay;
• End mandatory office attendance expectations;
• Ensure correct grading – we should all receive the proper remuneration for the work we do;
• End the long hours culture – ensure all workloads are manageable;
• Introduce a collective agreement to protect members from micromanagement;
• Introduce a collective agreement for ethical use of Artificial Intelligence in HMRC, ensuring any benefits will advantage members such as through reduced workloads and a shorter working week;
• Rebuild Employee Relations in HMRC – ensure meaningful consultation with PCS at all levels.

Security staff in the Houses of Parliament who are members of the PCS took strike action last week on Budget Day. These members do essential work keeping Parliament, and everyone in it, safe 24 hours a day, 365 days a year, yet face vicious attacks on their pay, conditions, and rights from the same institution they keep safe. Last week marked their fourth day of industrial action, demanding the restoration of their original 8-hour shifts and the return of six days of annual leave lost when management imposed 12-hour shifts without consultation. They are also fighting for a fair pay rise after years of stagnation and for action to tackle a widening ethnicity pay gap. Members were forced into industrial action because the employer refused to come to the table or engage in serious talks with the union.

This comes at a time when the cost of living is being driven through the roof, with energy, water, rent, food, and transport all hitting record highs while pay stagnates. Meanwhile, MPs’ pay has risen much faster than the average public-sector wage (many also with extremely lucrative second jobs), exposing the glaring inequality between those making the decisions and those keeping Parliament running. Workers are expected to accept these attacks quietly, endure longer hours, lower real terms pay, reduced leave, and growing workloads.

The strike on Budget Day sent a clear message. Workers refuse to stay quiet while governments of all parties push through austerity, cut pay, and attack public services. As the Labour government stood in Parliament announcing its budget, workers were out on the picket line, taking industrial action showing the fight against the politics that attack their working and living conditions.

I am a member of the sister PCS branch in Parliament and stood on the picket line, alongside other members and MPs in solidarity with their dispute.

The challenges faced by Parliamentary security staff are not unique. PCS members across the civil service and public sector are facing the same attacks on pay, conditions, and rights. Parliamentary security staff are part of a wider wave of industrial disputes across PCS. Civilian staff at the Met police, workers at the Tate Modern and Britain, British library and others are taking strike action demanding an end to pay stagnation, casualisation, and attacks on terms and conditions.

The growing wave of industrial disputes shows the mood to fight is there!

PCS needs a fighting, coordinated approach that links the many disputes breaking out across the union into a single, coordinated national campaign capable of fighting against austerity, real-terms pay cuts, and attacks on conditions. Members are showing, and telling us, that they are ready to organise and take action and we need leadership who can harness and build that mood rather than hold it back!

No new dates for strike action have been announced, though there are plans for action on New Year’s Eve. You can support your fellow PCS members by joining any future picket lines.

As an increasing number of workers move into dispute, the need for a bold national campaign under a fighting, democratic leadership is even more pressing. If you want to join us in fighting for that, join BLN.

Virtually every part of the UK civil service is currently faced with redundancies and office closures. The Cabinet Office, Foreign & Commonwealth Office, the Department for Business and Trade and others have already launched exit schemes to cut thousands of jobs across the civil service. The Department for Health and Social Care (DHSC) is probably unique, however, in having launched an exit scheme, and then had to revisit it to cut more jobs.

Plans launched by Keir Starmer, Wes Streeting and the Labour government seek to reorganise the NHS, involve a bonfire of jobs, which could in the end cost as much as £1bn across NHS England and DHSC. Both have been given permission to overspend on existing NHS budgets, not to improve services, but to pay for contract terminations. Meanwhile some of the cuts take aim at bodies like the Integrated Care Boards, with cuts of up to 50%, the third reorganisation in a decade of how the NHS ensures services are available to patients.

Eight months on from the Starmer/Streeting announcement that NHS England would be dissolved and folded in to the DHSC, senior leaders still cannot outline a new structure, nor can they show how a restructure and job cuts to the value of hundreds of millions will improve healthcare for millions or take the pressure off hardpressed civil servants and healthcare workers. The sole concrete accomplishment seems to have been the creation of yet more executive “leadership” posts on salaries of up to £210,000!

So far, PCS’ public comments, the largest union for civil servants and the largest union in DHSC, has been limited to terse articles referencing consultation with the union, without criticising yet another attack on the NHS.

What a difference a decade makes: where is the PCS alternative?

BLN has repeatedly argued that – contrary to the existing leadership of the union’s National Executive Committee, under Fran Heathcote and Martin Cavanagh – the current Labour government is no friend of workers, and that their plans are not aimed at fixing the welfare state, fixing the NHS, fixing the cost of living crisis, fixing public services and the rest. They proved within weeks, with the attack on Winter Fuel Allowance, that they serve big business.

Our approach must be to ready the union’s members for battle across the UK civil service, across devolved areas (who will be impacted by cuts through Barnet Formula consequentials as well as by choices of their devolved administrations) and across the private sector. The recent thumping victory of the YES vote to retain the union’s political fund points in one of the directions, which we called for across our branches and regions.

A decade ago, under the 2010-2015 coalition government and its swingeing cuts, eviscerating civil service jobs, PCS was at the forefront of creating the “PCS Alternative”, a pamphlet built from the lived experience of our members, that showed the harm that would be done by the government’s attacks and posed an alternative to austerity cuts. In individual areas from Aviation to Scottish Social Security, we involved tens of thousands of members in a massive political debate on everything from benefit sanctions to decarbonisation, from tax justice to energy democracy.

Starmer’s Labour government, after 18 months in power, is getting off very lightly from the current leadership of PCS. Very little member-facing work is being done to connect the government’s anti-worker policies, and their attacks on the civil service and the NHS, to the lived experience of our union’s members. Of rising prices, of job cuts, of a recession by stealth for working people. This could be a crucial part of mobilising members to fight in their own defence. 

The illusion must be decisively broken that we either suck up whatever Labour dish out to us, or we wake up with Nigel Farage as Prime Minister. The truth is quite the reverse. 

If the trade unions do not act and function as a pole of attraction, we are guaranteed to see a massive backlash against Labour, including votes for Reform. A new PCS Alternative, this time to Labour’s austerity, and a serious political strategy that focuses upon preparing the union to stand and support candidates in elections who will stand up for our members and for our public services, are crucial weapons in the fight with a vicious Labour government. The current PCS leadership are letting us sleepwalk into that fight.

Political strategy and industrial strategy are linked

A revamped political strategy, one that begins from the perspective of what is being done to our members’ jobs, to the public services they deliver and to their communities, would be a huge step. The positive response this would receive from tens of thousands of union members would give the lie to the argument, put forward repeatedly by Cavanagh and Heathcote at the NEC, that there is no mood to fight.

Most recently the deliberate Heathcote/Cavanagh demobilisation of the union can be seen in Members’ Briefing MB-01-25, which essentially pronounced dead the union’s national campaign on pay, jobs and hybrid. This campaign was endorsed and demanded by the union’s annual delegate conference in May, based on a motion written by BLN supporters and carried through many branches AND the NEC, which for one year (May ‘24 to May ‘25) was held by the majority left coalition, although most of the things we actually sought to do were vetoed by Cavanagh as President.

We simply do not believe that there is no mood to fight. 

There is confusion. Members are deeply worried. There has been no leadership from the union’s National Executive Committee for years, especially since they shut down the strike wave in June 2023. It was this betrayal which brought a majority-left NEC to office in May 2024. There was still little leadership on display as any time momentum began to build, the President, Cavanagh, simply vetoed the next steps, and no side had a two-thirds majority to override him. And the below-inflation pay awards and job cuts keep on coming.

Cavanagh and Heathcote, whose control of the NEC is absolute, have worked through the union’s full time officers and National Disputes Committee to block moves towards action in areas such as the Department for Education and HM Revenue and Customs, further creating the illusion of an ebb in the mood of members to struggle. This is openly echoed by the supporters of Cavanagh and Heathcote on the NEC, especially in areas such as DHSC, Ministry of Justice and the Home Office, who talk down the willingness of members to fight.

In the DWP, which is the biggest PCS Group, the leadership has been pushed into action on pay by the pressure of reps and members. In a consultative ballot,  80.5% voted for strike action on a 52.3% turnout. After considerable delay a statutory strike ballot will start 5 January to force management to re-open negotiations on the already imposed 2025 pay settlement – aimed not at challenging the overall amount but to secure more money for the lowest paid grades, which does of course beg the question as to why the PCS leadership are not embarking on a national ballot to increase the pay pot. An opportunity wasted. Despite the limited nature of the pay demands, the disregarding of the 2025 DWP Conference motion A1 on pay, and the fact that many other important issues – such as office closures and hybrid working – are not included, we shall be working for a massive yes vote in this ballot.

In reality, it is the responsibility of trade union leaders to lead. If we understand that a fight is the only way to defend members and to stop the flood of job cuts, of office closures and – we anticipate – yet more real-terms pay cuts, then it is our responsibility to prepare for that fight and to give members the confidence that they can fight and they can win. We need to relearn the techniques of years gone by.

Clear briefings of reps laying out the steps to a significant strike campaign, including demands that will resonate with members. 

Meetings that seek to mobilise this crucial rep layer of the union. 

A strategy to coordinate disputes that are already live, and there seem to be plenty just now. 

A strategy to be able to ballot for and call massively disruptive strike action and to pay for targeted strike action, to force the government to move. 

Well-written materials that put forward the needed arguments as to why we need to fight and how we can win, as we called for and actually got agreed at the NEC in January 2025 – with not a single leaflet being produced afterwards to start the process of readying members.

These lessons seem to have been lost. Given the enormous pressure on our members, there is scope to change all this in very short order. All it takes is an NEC decision. Except for motions proposed by BLN supporters and allies in the Independent Left, this kind of about turn is not anywhere on the NEC agenda, including in the meeting just yesterday of Wednesday 19 November. “Campaign” papers from the General Secretary propose nothing, they are for noting only.

As BLN supporters across PCS prepare for our annual conference this December, we call on all those who want a fighting, democratic union to come to our conference to discuss with us how we coordinate across existing disputes, how we escalate disputes to win them, and how we bring the vast majority of other PCS members into these fights – on pay, on jobs, on hybrid working, on office closures and plenty else that matters to all of us. We urge you to join the Broad Left Network and help us to build the fight back against Labour austerity.