Category: News

Surprising precisely no-one, after more than seven weeks the Tory Ministers and the Cabinet Office have yet to provide any meaningful response to the reduced and weakened “interim” demands sent voluntarily by Mark Serwotka on behalf of PCS, and endorsed by the Socialist View/Left Unity-led NEC majority.

At a special NEC meeting on 19 February, it was agreed that the General Secretary would write to the Cabinet Office with a list of demands for the PCS National Campaign, in line with Conference policy and laying out a comprehensive bargaining position. This list featured amongst other things the 10% pay claim (including appropriate underpins), equal pay, swift pay scale progression, as well as an end to the age discrimination inherent in redundancy “tapering” and in the imposed 2015 pension changes. A letter containing these demands was sent on 27^th February, and brought before the early March NEC.

Fast forward to the NEC meeting on 26^th March, when NEC members were presented with a paper outlining how Mark and the recently-created NEC Senior Officers’ Committee had agreed and sent a reduced list of interim demands to the Cabinet Office on 23^rd March, one day before the arranged negotiating meeting to lay out the PCS National Claim. The SOC had done this without informing the NEC of their intentions, or seeking NEC approval to change and materially weaken our bargaining demands without prompting from the Cabinet Office. The paper brought before the NEC (three days after this letter was sent, and two days after the meeting with the Cabinet Office) simply asked for the NEC’s retroactive endorsement of this position.

The reduced interim demands read:

1. A suspension of the delegated pay process, and an immediate above inflation pay increase for all staff implemented across the civil service from the centre.
2. A 2% reduction in pension contributions.
3. No changes to the CSCS for at least a year.
4. A moratorium on office closures and redundancies.
5. National bargaining machinery for key coronavirus related issues not resolved at departmental level, including enhanced safety measures for those staff who are required to come into work during the coming period.

The letter explained that PCS expected to be able to return to the full demands at some unspecified future point. The General Secretary explained to the NEC that this decision had been taken because there just wouldn’t be time to negotiate a full list of demands whilst the coronavirus emergency is ongoing. This, notably, was his own assertion and forecast of events, and not as a result of the government rejecting or even querying our initial demands. It’s also a baffling position to take, as having made our demands considerably more vague and less detailed, they could arguably take just as long to negotiate.

Broad Left Network members of the NEC mounted firm opposition to this course of action, which they maintain is a material departure from the democratically agreed national position, and a gross overreach of authority on behalf of the SOC. Voluntarily reducing demands before negotiations have started is a massive strategic error, and one that will drastically undermine our position of strength against the employer. Sending a list of comprehensive demands only to send a stripped-back version less than a month later communicates an unconfident and hesitant leadership, at a time when union membership is climbing due to the visible and excellent work being done by PCS reps on the ground to protect our members during the Covid-19 crisis. We should be pushing forward, not cringing back. The Socialist View and Left Unity-led majority on the NEC of course vociferously supported and agreed with the interim demands, whilst decrying any objection as opportunistic and corrupt.

Most worryingly was the significant reduction in the pay claim from a 10% rise to merely “above inflation.” BLN comrades pointed out that this was the bare minimum required to prevent a pay cut for our members, and so had effectively reduced our opening gambit on pay to the lowest possible value, from which the only place for the Tory government to negotiate us was down. It also wrongly communicates to the employer that 10% is not a carefully-decided and necessary increase, but an opportunistic punt, and that just above inflation would actually be sufficient. This is patently not the case; it is an insult to members who have now fought tirelessly in two unsuccessful ballots, and who will now face even more disadvantage for any action in future due to the weak capitulating of their leadership. It is stunningly short-sighted and naïve to simply hope against hope that, after toying with our new skeleton demands for as long as they can, the employer will turn around and give credible consideration to paying PCS members the 10% increase they need and deserve.

As mentioned, we are now more than seven weeks on from submission of the weakened “interim” demands, and have received only platitudes and placeholders from Michael Gove and his grinning acolytes – unless you count the Cabinet Office expressing the Ministers’ gratitude at the SOC’s “constructive approach” to negotiations as positive news which, as a fighting socialist organisation, the Broad Left Network do not. We’re sure that the Tory Government are thrilled by PCS’s newly meagre bargaining pitch, as it will make their job of oppressing the working class that much easier. Unfortunately for the Left Unity NEC majority, a pat on the back from the employer is not what our members want, and it certainly won’t pay anyone’s rent.

It is bad enough that Mark and the Senior Officers’ Committee altered and sent demands without a full and accountable vote of the NEC, thereby side-stepping both ADC and the elected leadership of PCS on such an important and fundamental issue. But on top of this undemocratic action, they have also weakened our bargaining strength with no reward to show for it, and almost certainly secured worse outcomes for our members in the long run.

Claimants and staff have a common interest:- an effective social safety net for all those affected by the crisis, and full protection for our members in providing the service

Workers and claimants are now facing the consequences of Tory austerity cuts, from health care workers having insufficient PPE and testing, to DWP not having the IT to enable staff to work from home safely,  sufficient permanent staffing to process and pay benefits to and the lack of cleaning materials and protocols to maintain social distancing and safety in the workplace.  

Given the enormity of the crisis in the DWP a left leaning leadership should want to ensure democracy involving elected branches, regions and the Group Executive Members.  This being important to ensure members and claimant needs are fully understood and acted on.  The response from the SV faction of DWP has been the opposite.   The GEC was sidelined for example to one emergency meeting before Easter and with another only being taking place as part of the scheduled meetings for the year .   In contrast the Yorkshire and Humber Region with BLN supporters have been organising weekly meetings and using social media to engage reps more frequently.  

At the emergency Group Executive Meeting the lack of democracy was further highlighted when the SP and BLN supporters motion was ruled out of order by the SV Group President on the grounds that it mentioned the death of a DWP member – too sensitive an issue.  That ruling was really cover in our view to prevent a discussion and debate on key demands and details to hold them to account. 

In fact their own recommendations only appeared 6 minutes before the meeting and was the first time most of us including the officers had seen the demands that the GEC was going to vote on. At the meeting BLN attempted to amend the recommendations but our amendments were ruled out as being too detailed. Only small amendments were allowed. When it came to the vote the Group President rather than allowing a decision on those amendments put their recommendations to the meeting for agreement which meant all amendments fell when their motion was carried.  

Our demands clearly influenced the SV approach but SV did not go far enough. We wanted an additional 20,000 permanent staff and protocols developed covering the following points:

* A clear road map that lays out the immediate steps DWP is taking to enable every single DWP worker to work from home unless this agreed by TUS as impossible or in cases of domestic violence.

* An agreement that where a member of staff who stays at home cannot work, for example, due to childcare needs, they are placed on paid special leave.

* A definition of “key worker”, with the object of the union being to minimise the number of members counted as key workers, whilst taking account of the crucial work members of all grades and from all business areas may be able to perform in delivering front line benefits, as an emergency measure.

* An agreed list of critical tasks which require staff to attend an office, on condition that proper equipment is provided and the explicit commitment that staff remain on paid special leave in all cases where this is not adhered to.

* An agreed list of offices which should remain open to deliver crucial services to the vulnerable which cannot be delivered by staff working from home.

* A cast iron guarantee that DWP will not seek to use the Covid crisis to bring in agency staff, with all the dangers – including risks to health and safety – that this implies.

In absence of this protocol or until it is established, we also wanted the GEC to support branches with the task of conducting updated risk assessments across every building to ensure capacity limits are updated to take account of the need for social distancing.  

We recognise the employer may not agree to those demands and consequently there needed to be a threat if the demands could not be met so we demanded Branches must be supported to serve Section 44 notices and prepare walkouts where social distancing is not respected and where consultation is not satisfactory to ensure the safety of staff.  

We also pushed the GEC to bring outsourced contracts back in house must be a priority. This means supporting branches to recruit to the union staff from Interserve, G4S and other privatised services delivered in DWP buildings. 

The BLN motion sort also to instruct Group Officers to keep the GEC fully informed about negotiations, including by the organising of telekits to ensure GEC members are able to play a full role in shaping the demands and strategy we adopt over the coming period. Where it becomes clear that our demands will not be agreed, we also demanded an emergency GEC should be called and Group Officers should propose our next steps. This should include consideration of responses under the Health and Safety at Work Act, the Employment Rights Act and strike action if necessary.

The Tory government have had to acknowledge the key role played by PCS members in delivering vital services alongside the rest of the public sector and also low paid private sector workers and the “extraordinary efforts” we are making.

Extraordinary efforts that have been made very much more difficult as a result of the year on year cuts and under-funding that have impacted on our staffing levels and ability to deliver services. PCS reps are having to respond to the crisis management trying to undo over a decade of austerity – recruiting extra staff, trying to get decent IT equipment so that our members can work safely from home at the same time as fighting to keep our workplaces safe.

It is critical that the trade union movement clearly stand up for the working class and our communities and demand and fight for what is needed to get us through this pandemic. Mass pressure on the Tory Government can help deliver what is needed – as we have seen with widespread outcry over demands over income for workers who face the temporary or permanent loss of their jobs and income forced the government to introduce some measures.  However there are still many who fall through the gaps in these measures and in many cases the Tories are letting big business off the hook who should be paying their workers.

The trade union movement should be at the forefront in developing the demands that are needed to support the working class, protect our health and safety and fully resource the services that are needed. We have had to fight hard for our private sector members in our workplaces to get the same protection and their normal pay and conditions when they are unable to be in the workplace, as our public sector members.

It is surprising to see that just at the point when our arguments about how vital the work that our members do is really hitting home, that Serwotka and co are promoting the idea that we park our key policies and instead put forward watered down demands at this time of crisis.  We do not trust the Tories and their sudden commitment to public services and heaping praise on our members, to remember all this when the pandemic is over. And in any case fine words butter no parsnips.

The worries our members normally face day in day out over low pay, lack of staff, high workloads, threats to close offices and losing their jobs still remain and make it even more difficult to deliver services in the even more stressful, pressurised crisis we are working in. It should be straightforward to put forward demands to address these concerns.so that our members can focus on delivering public services. 

Our union could play a key role as we did in 2011 in giving a lead and uniting public sector trade union members. A straightforward call for a 10% pay rise for all public sector workers would reduce the need for lengthy talks and recognise members are working flat out delivering vital public services despite our pay being held down for years.  We need investment in full staffing levels for the public sector and the equipment that is needed to deliver services safely. Planned cuts like the office closure programme should be reversed and stopped and the threat removed recognising the fact that jobs and services are needed in local communities to deal with the coronavirus crisis but also into the future. Trade unions should be demanding that no workers furloughed or laid off during the crisis should lose their overall pay and also for a substantial rise in benefits linked to a rise in the national minimum wage to £12 per hour (£15 in London)

We cannot afford to have the leaders of our movement lining up behind the national effort and its failed leadership under Tories whose primary focus is protecting the interests of big business and not the 99% in our workplaces and communities. We need to provide a lead to the working class and articulate the demands on what is necessary to protect people and deliver the services. We cannot shy away from demanding the resources that are needed to undo the damage that decades of cuts have made to deal with this crisis but also for quality public services to deliver our vital services into the future.

We’d like to thank everyone for all of the support the BLN has received so far and are pleased to announce our recommended candidates for the forthcoming NEC elections. We’d encourage everyone who wants to see real change in PCS to nominate and support the candidates recommended by the BLN – and would encourage everyone to share the attached leaflet which explains why the BLN is standing candidates and what we want to do

President: Marion Lloyd

Vice Presidents: Fiona Brittle, Sarah Brown, Zita Holbourne, Dave Semple

NEC Members: Angela Appleby, Dave Bartlett, Rebecca Borland, Fiona Brittle, Sarah Brown, Clive Bryant, Kevin Denman, Gill Foxton, Paul Guinnane, Rachel Heemskerk, Kris Hendry, Tom Lowry, Marion Lloyd, Nick Parker, Dave Rees, Rob Ritchie, Dave Semple, Roger Thomas, Saorsa-Amatheia Tweedale, Dave Vickers, Hector Wesley, Katrine Williams, Craig Worswick, Colin Young

With the possibility of a change of government, it is important that the Campaign for Tax Justice is reinvigorated by PCS.

The Tax Justice Campaign is undoubtedly one of the most important campaigns over the last decade. In the early days of austerity, almost every political commentator and journalist slavishly regurgitated the Tory line – that austerity was an economic necessity rather than a political choice. PCS, thanks to the work of Left Unity, launched a campaign which successfully challenged this narrative, bringing the impact of tax fraud into public consciousness.

The Tax Justice Campaign was based on academic research commissioned by PCS which demonstrated that the UK tax gap (the difference between tax due and tax collected) amounted to £120 bn per annum, which was predominantly comprised of corporate tax avoidance and evasion. At this time the UK Chancellor, George Osborne, argued that the UK Budget Deficit (around £100 bn when the Tories came to power) necessitated cuts in public expenditure, bringing about the start of the government’s austerity programme.

The PCS argument was clear – if the government closed the tax gap, it could wipe out the budget deficit and in doing so make arguments for austerity redundant. The government’s refusal to do so clearly demonstrated that rather than being an economic necessity, austerity was simply an instrument via which working class people were forced to subsidise rampant corporate tax fraud.

In practice, this means that the Tory attacks on public services & social security, which have been so damaging to the British working class, were all carried out so that people like Philip Green could spend £150 million on a new yacht. For PCS members, the same thing applies – office closures, redundancies, pay restraint and attacks on terms & conditions are all being thrust upon PCS members purely to enable the government to continue lining their City friends’ pockets with billions of pounds of public money.

BLN believes the PCS Tax Justice Campaign is still as relevant as ever and in the context of the current Labour Party consultation being run by the NEC, it should form the basis of the key political demands.

 Namely, the BLN believes these demands are for the government to simplify tax law and in doing so close tax loopholes, particularly in relation to offshore activities. Similarly, the government must invest in HMRC to ensure that the department is equipped to close the tax gap, which would include ending the current office closure programme, instead focussing on the reintroduction of local compliance offices as these will allow HMRC officers to visit businesses in all parts of the country. This is the only way to ensure that business practices are compliant with tax law.

BLN welcomes the long-standing support the Tax Justice Campaign has received from Jeremy Corbyn & John McDonnell, but we also recognise the fact that throughout the UK, councils led by the Labour right-wing have been enthusiastically implementing Tory austerity measures for a decade – and that same position will undoubtedly be pursued at a national level, should the Blairites regain control of the party. Similarly, the anti-austerity sentiment expressed by the SNP, Liberals & Greens is undermined by all three parties’ willingness to impose the Tory austerity programme wherever they hold power.

If we’ve learned anything from the last decade, it is that PCS members and more broadly, the UK working class, cannot rely on the rhetoric of political parties to ensure that the economy is run to benefit anyone other than the capitalist class. PCS must build the anti-austerity movement amongst its membership, alongside campaigning for this at the TUC and within the wider working class, in order to ensure that any incoming government takes action to close the tax gap.

PCS members have a unique contribution to make to develop policy in this area. Our members operate the tax system and can contribute ideas for legislation, policy changes and a different operational approach. The PCS Revenue & Customs Group, alongside the NEC, must continue to lobby opposition politicians on these issues makes sure that Tax Justice is high on the agenda of an incoming government.  Ultimately, the UK ranks as one of the most unequal nations in Europe. PCS has to lead the fight to end austerity to ensure that any future government is forced to implement PCS policies, including public ownership of energy and utilities and a progressive tax system that redistributes wealth and income in favour of working people and their families.  

LU General Secretary Election – Where we stand

The Broad Left Network (BLN) is an open group formed recently by socialists within Left Unity who want to ensure that both Left Unity and PCS are run in an open democratic manner, by the members, for the members on a fighting, democratic socialist programme

GS Election Arrangements are Unacceptable

We supported Marion Lloyd in the LU election to be the LU General Secretary candidate. Marion received a number of nominations but has withdrawn from the election. This is because of the way the election is being run by the LUNC majority. The election is not fair, is not democratic and is not being run in accordance with LU rules and long-established practices: –

* Individuals arbitrarily removed from membership and from participation in this election. 

* Candidates not being required to undertake to “recommend and campaign” for the successful candidate in line with rule 12.1 – Mark Serwotka has made it clear he will stand no matter what.

* Email voting brought in after the start of the nomination process to help the candidate supported by the LUNC majority. This is a new voting   arrangement not previously used, not agreed by the LU membership and not even put to the full LUNC. To change the voting arrangements in this way, after the election has already started is undemocratic and unprecedented. We have no trust in this LU election which is being run by the LUNC majority in a way that benefits their candidate. 

Two Candidates to Choose From

With Marion Lloyd’s withdrawal LU members will have two candidates to choose from – Hector Wesley and Mark Serwotka. 

As General Secretary for over 20 years Mark Serwotka has increasingly centralised power and decision making, with a consequential weakening of elected lay rep control of the union. We are opposed to this. Additionally, there are a number of other issues which we disagree with him over, including pay strategy, organising, gender recognition rights and political strategy.

Mark Serwotka, a member of Left Unity, decided to back non-LU member Lynn Henderson for AGS against Chris Baugh, the official Left Unity candidate. This raises questions about whether he is actually eligible to stand inside Left Unity to become the official LU candidate.  His campaign against the official LU candidate, Chris Baugh, led to a split in the LU vote and an AGS victory for the Independent Left candidate. 

As a long-standing lay rep within PCS, Hector Wesley understands the need for lay control. He supports Left Unity, stands for inclusivity, and is not in agreement with the way in which LU is being run by the LUNC.

Given the choice between Mark Serwotka and Hector Wesley the BLN understands if those who supported Marion Lloyd in this election wish to vote for Hector Wesley – as a protest about the way the SV/SWP have abused their majority position on the LUNC to corrupt the election and to oppose the increasing centralisation of power and decision making in the union under Mark Serwotka. 

The Fight Goes On 

The election for the LU GS candidate has once again – as it did with the AGS election – shown how far the SV/SWP supporters have taken LU from its traditions as a fighting, democratic and inclusive rank and file organisation. Under their control LU has become an extension of the PCS bureaucracy, with no room for genuine discussion and differences. We are opposed to these developments and those responsible.

Support the BLN

In the months ahead we’ll be continuing to put forward positive proposals for taking the left and socialist ideas in PCS forward on a whole range of issue including Pay, Equality, Organising/Bargaining, Democracy, Climate Change and political strategy.

We remain determined to rebuild a left and a left unity based on a fighting campaigning programme to put us in the best position to protect jobs, pay and conditions. Part of this must be to support policies and work to stop the centralisation of power and ensure that our union is run and controlled by lay members and support candidates who we believe will fight for these ideas.

The Senior Lay Reps Forum called for the 6^th August meets at an important time. It can be the platform for continuing the national pay campaign in 2019 and preparing the ground for a successful national ballot in the future. The latest national pay ballot recorded the biggest ever vote in favour of industrial action. This was testament to the strenuous efforts of PCS reps and the anger of members towards the continued pay cap. The failure to achieve the legal threshold of 50% has been exploited by the employer. A further year of pay restraint has been imposed on the civil service and related areas. Departments are being encouraged to trade pay increases above the cap in return for further attacks upon terms and conditions. The government has announced a relaxation of the pay cap for many parts of the public sector, including the Senior Civil Service, but not for the overwhelming majority of civil servants. The contempt shown towards their own employees has caused a real anger amongst PCS members.

Conference in May debated pay at some length. The NEC motion was narrowly carried after a card vote but many reservations were raised about the failure to achieve the 50% in two successive ballots and the need for PCS to consider all tactics that can help us secure a legal mandate in future. The degree to which PCS decides to carry out aggregated or disaggregated votes is a tactical question and should be considered in future ballots. It should be noted that had PCS conducted disaggregated ballots in 2019 a significant number of employer groups would now have a legal mandate to fight on pay. These include HMRC, HMCTS, Rural Payments Agency, Land Registry, DVSA, Natural England, Health and Safety Executive, ACAS, Official Solicitor and 11 other important NDPBs which constitute a significant proportion of PCS members balloted.

The Senior Lay Reps Forum is a chance to receive reports from delegated areas but more importantly, to discuss how PCS nationally can both support and actively coordinate a response in the 2019 pay round. Groups facing increases in line with the pay cap and attempts by the employer to link pay to attacks on conditions need to be consulting members to reject and support action. The example set by members in MOJ gives confidence we can resist these further attacks on conditions. The NEC will need to work closely with groups and national branches in consulting members and continuing to apply the maximum pressure in 2019.

We need to prepare a further national ballot that increases our chances of winning the legal mandate we need to break the cap, resist attacks on terms and conditions and restore our right to bargain pay with the government. This should include the option of disaggregated ballots where the group and branch consider it will increase the turnout and vote for action. In view of the continued attacks upon jobs and offices in a number of major departments and the further and latest threat to redundancy payments and pensions, it is blindingly obvious we need to ensure any future national ballot links pay to these other vital members issues.

It is an abiding weakness in our national pay campaign message that we have yet to draw up and present a clear programme of national, targeted and sustained industrial action that can be supported by a levy from members and financed from the Fighting Fund. This work needs to be completed in readiness for a future national ballot.

Rebuilding our organisation from the workplace up is fundamental to preparing the ground for winning a legal mandate. This needs to complement the strategy highlighted above. PCS needs to work as closely as possible with other civil service unions to register our objection to a further year of pay cuts for civil servants and work on joint campaign activities wherever possible. We also need to use the platform we have at the TUC, STUC and WTUC to build for the coordinated campaign and industrial action of public sector unions in line with TUC congress policy.

The Broad Left Network welcomes this vital discussion at the Senior Lay Reps Forum. With an open and honest assessment of where we are, we can maintain pressure on pay in 2019 and prepare the ground to win the decisive legal mandate vital for reversing the decline in members pay and winning the union’s demands.

I have decided to withdraw from the election process to determine the Left Unity candidate for General Secretary – the official PCS election process is being run later this year. I have discussed with supporters of the Broad Left Network who fully endorse my decision which has not been an easy one to make. This statement is to explain why I have come to this view

I have always been proud to be a member of Left Unity. Like others I helped to build Left Unity and develop its programme. I have helped develop strong democratic traditions and accountability. This has enabled debate and discussion to try to ensure our approach is inclusive and encompasses the best of everything and everybody.

I believe that these things that I and many others fought for are now being undermined –  and undermined in a way which does not help us to act in the best interests of our members in a very challenging period.

It is becoming clear that the General Secretary election process being run by the Left Unity National Committee (LUNC) is not being run in line with our agreed rules and practices. It is not being run in a democratic fashion.

I have raised my concerns about these undemocratic practices in a letter (attached) to Lorna Merry and Gordon Rowntree (Chair and Secretary of Left Unity). Despite reminding them, I have not even had an acknowledgment let alone a response. 

The Left Unity National Committee has the responsibility to ensure that the Left Unity elections are run in accordance with LU rules and the process is equal and fair for all candidates. In this election they have knowingly and deliberately failed to carry out the role that is expected of them. 

*  It seems that a significant number of Left Unity members have been denied a vote. l have challenged the fact that members have been denied a vote in this election. Those members who were identified as not paying their subscriptions, despite a valid Standing Order form being provided in good faith and in good time, were not informed of this until the 9^th June 2019. Despite this the majority on the LUNC have insisted on enforcing a deadline of 31^st May when clearly a longer period could have been provided to maximise participation within the timeframe of the election process.

* I and several others have challenged the LUNC majority decision to remove the obligation on all candidates in LU elections to give an undertaking “that they will recommend and campaign” for the successful LU candidate in the PCS ballot. (Rule 12.1).  I believe all candidates should be required to give this undertaking if they wish to be a Left Unity candidate. 

* I have protested about the attempt by several LU Group convenors to introduce new, unagreed voting arrangements at the nomination meetings. These new arrangements have never happened before and are contrary to LU rules. At the Glasgow meeting the convenor and his supporters who were in a minority walked out when his attempt to impose new voting arrangements was challenged. Different rules have been used in different areas, with email voting invited in some and not in others. The LU National Secretary has now sent out a confused email suggesting that some meetings should be re-run with different rules at less than 4 days’ notice. The voting arrangements set out in advance of this election have now been completely changed in the final week leading up to the close of nominations.

This all leads to my concerns that the LU election process is therefore being run to benefit the preferred candidate of the SV/SWP majority on the LUNC – Mark Serwotka – and that their control of Left Unity is being misused in this election. 

My decision to stand for the LU nomination for General Secretary was explained when I announced my candidature, including how we grow the union and its strength:

•  Proactively pursuing our bargaining agenda and linking in our organising and campaigning work

•  An independent political voice

•  Equality in Practice

I remain absolutely committed to the programme l set out. However, if I continue to participate in this election, with no evidence it will be run in line with LU rules and practise, l will give validity to a deeply flawed process. It is being run in an entirely different manner to all other LU internal elections and out with the established rules. I am not prepared to legitimise this undemocratic process. 

I have explained my concerns to Hector Wesley, who has put his name forward as a candidate, and informed him of my decision to withdraw. 

I have received support from the Broad Left Network (BLN) and from many individual members. I am grateful for their efforts in securing a growing number of nominations for me at LU Group meetings. This has not been an easy decision for me to take, but I cannot go along with the fundamentally undemocratic running of this election which run counter to the values, the democratic and inclusive traditions and rules of Left Unity.

I continue to have absolute faith in our members and the future of PCS. I hope everyone will oppose this blatant attack on democracy and work with me to rebuild a left and Left Unity based on a fighting campaigning programme to put us in the best position to protect jobs, pay and conditions. Part of this must be to work to stop the centralisation of power and ensure that our union is run and controlled by lay members for the members. 

That work must start now!

Since announcing our support for Marion Lloyd’s intention to seek the Left Unity nomination for PCS General Secretary, BLN has been delighted to see positive responses from members across the union.  Not only is Marion a highly-experienced lay activist who has an exemplary track record of delivering for PCS members, but she is also a dedicated socialist and organiser who is standing on the basis of a political programme designed to increase participation throughout our union and improve the lives of all PCS members. The positive response to Marion’s candidacy clearly demonstrates that members support BLN’s campaign for fundamental changes within PCS, alongside members’ rejection of the personality politics and attacks on democracy which have come to characterise Mark Serwotka’s election campaign and more broadly, the Socialist View’s approach to trade unionism.

BLN organises within LU and as such, is happy to accept democratic decisions arrived at by LU members. However, BLN has grave concerns regarding the integrity of the current nomination process, which if left unresolved, will lead to serious questions regarding the validity of its outcome.

Upon the announcement of Marion’s candidacy, the convenors of both the Fylde and West of Scotland LU Groups announced unprecedented changes to the nomination process, whereby members who were unable to attend the nomination meeting would be allowed to vote via email.

To be clear on this point, the LU constitution states as follows “12.2 Nominations will be sought from Geographical Groups for all PCS Election Slates and National Committee posts and must be carried at a properly convened meeting of a Geographical Group.” In practice, there is no constitutional provision to allow members who did not attend to vote on any decision taken by any LU Geographical Group, which is consistent with practices at any meeting, be that within LU, PCS or any other organisation.

The SV claims that this move was designed to increase participation in the nomination process, however this is the very same SV who used their majority on the LU National Committee to retrospectively announce that in order to be deemed eligible to participate in the LU GS nomination process, members would need to be fully paid up by 31st May. Not only did this announcement breach the LU Constitution (which states at 12.4 that the cut-off date is 30th September), but it gave those members who had genuine problems with their subs no opportunity to resolve this prior to being deemed ineligible to vote. This has disenfranchised a number of LU activists and in taking these steps, it is clear that the SV has no interest in democratic participation but rather has made a determination that these actions will provide an electoral benefit to Mark Serwotka.

Unlike the SV, the BLN is genuinely committed to improving the democratic processes within LU and recognises that there are many valid reasons why LU members cannot attend important meetings. However it is completely unacceptable for convenors to unilaterally announce changes to voting regulations some three or four days prior to meetings. It is clear that the proper place to review LU’s democratic structures as at the LU AGM.

Unfortunately, the SV’s contempt for democracy led to farcical scenes at the West of Scotland nomination meeting where, in a move reminiscent of Marion Chambers, the convenor refused to allow votes to take place on a total of four separate proposals. Significantly, one of these proposals was to put the question of inclusion of email votes to the meeting. SV attendees claimed that the meeting had no authority to vote on this as the convenor was acting under direct instruction from the LU National Committee, however the LU Secretary, Gordon Rowntree, has stated in writing that “how those nominations are sought is usually left for areas to decide”.

Clearly, there was no such instruction from the LU National Committee to include email votes and as such the West of Scotland meeting, per Gordon Rowntree’s written confirmation, had every right to vote on the matter. The real reason this vote was blocked was because the SV was concerned that the West of Scotland meeting was set to nominate Marion Lloyd.

When it became clear that attendees would not drop the call for a vote, the convenor announced that he was suspending the meeting. Given that the convenor has no authority to unilaterally suspend a properly convened meeting, demands were made to put this to a vote and once again, the convenor refused. The convenor then walked out of the meeting. As a result, a vote was taken on the question of suspension and it was agreed that the meeting should continue. The remaining SV supporters disagreed with this outcome, and left. Following this there was a full & proper debate, consistent with LU regulations, concluding with the West of Scotland Group voting to nominate Marion Lloyd.

BLN has no doubt that the SV will currently be considering how to use its majority on the LU National Committee to rule this result out of order, however the SV should take note that there is absolutely no constitutional basis for doing so. Should the LU National Committee make such a ruling, it will call the validity of the LU nomination process into major doubt.

Left Unity Candidate

Left Unity is holding an election to decide our General Secretary candidate. I am putting my name forward with the support of the Broad Left Network – a newly formed group within Left Unity.

Please attend your local LU group meeting and nominate me.

About Me

I have been active in the union for more than thirty years and helped build the left. I have represented members at all levels of our union – locally and nationally. I am currently a member of the PCS National Executive Committee. 

I have worked in Government Departments including the Ministry of Defence, both Employment and Social Security (now DWP), the private sector and now latterly in BEIS (Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy)- where I am the Group President.

I have a huge amount of experience as a negotiator. I have led many successful disputes including, most recently, strike action to prevent the closure of the Sheffield BIS office and protect jobs. 

I have been a member of PCS Left Unity/CPSA Broad Left, all my working life.  I am a socialist and a member of the Socialist Party.

Left Unity – Change is Needed

I am appalled at the way the Socialist View/SWP majority on the Left Unity National Committee has completely undermined the basic traditions of Left Unity as an open, inclusive and democratic organisation. Members are attacked for holding and expressing views that are different to theirs. Support for non-LU candidates against official LU candidates is tolerated and even encouraged. 

This cannot go on. Change is necessary to reclaim Left Unity as a broad based, open organisation where debate is encouraged and where the official candidates elected in a fair election by LU members are fully supported. 

PCS is a Great Union – We Can Do Better

I am proud to be a member of PCS but am concerned at the way in which control and decision making has become increasingly top down and centralised. We need to reassert elected lay control at all levels over all major decisions affecting us. 

I know that our union and members have been singled out by successive governments. This had had a huge impact on us with membership nearly halved and wage cuts in real terms by about 20% There is a disconnect between organisation/recruitment and the bargaining agenda and the needs of our members. This has to be put right. We must grow the union and its strength; linking bargaining with campaigning and organising, in my experience is vital to grow our union and therefore our strength.

An Independent Political Voice

I believe we need a strong political voice. This should be expressed currently by supporting the Corbyn leadership and anti-austerity agenda. But we must remain politically independent and put the needs of our members and our policies first.

Equality in Practise

I am totally committed to an equality agenda which puts equality truly at the centre of our bargaining agenda and also proactively campaigns for the rights of all our members – women, black, LGBTQ+ and disabled members. It is not enough to adopt a top down approach to equality, for example through the appointment/election of women to positions at the top of the union- though the record here should be much better. Only 30% of the delegates to the 2019 annual delegate conference were women, it’s at this level that urgent change is required ensuring equal representation of all members – the barriers in the way of this need to be identified and removed. 

My Pledge

I will be issuing more detailed explanations of what I stand for – some of which can be found on the BLN website. But I want to conclude this launch statement with a promise. “I will seek no material gain from being elected General Secretary. I will take no more than my current wages, the rest I will give back to the union.”