Role of the NSOC

The PCS National Standing Orders Committee (NSOC) plays a vital and constitutionally protected role within our trade union. As the democratically elected body – made up of lay activists within our union who carry out their duties diligently and in their own time – responsible for interpreting and applying the union’s rules and standing orders, NSOC must be able to carry out its duties free from interference, pressure, or influence from any individual, group, or faction.

The independence of the NSOC is not optional; it is essential to the foundational democratic principles of our union.

NSOC ensures that our annual conference, the primary policy making body of our union, is held in accordance with the democratic structures and rules adopted by our members, and ensures its business is conducted fairly, and transparently. In upholding these procedures, the NSOC safeguards the integrity of our decision‑making processes and protects the rights of all members to participate on an equal footing.

The committee’s duty is not to reflect the preferences of any particular interest, but to uphold the union’s rules as they are written and agreed by the membership. This includes making impartial judgements on the admissibility of motions. Such decisions may not always please all parties, but they must always be made based on the established rules and not political expediency or external pressure.

The NSOC has come under attack from certain factions within the union; and has faced unjustifiable allegations that they have exercised Rule 6.22(g) of the union’s rules “to seek justification for not hearing motions”.

Where Rule 6.22(g) is concerned, the union’s solicitors quite rightly recognise the role of the National Standing Orders Committee as a “duty” – and like any duty, it comes with the threat of negligence claims for which the NSOC are not indemnified.  A considerable burden, for which NSOC receive no facility time whatsoever.

Rule 6.22(g) is there to protect the union from costly legal action which, even when we win, would routinely cost the union in the region of £60,000 per case to defend. Considering the factions proposing to play fast and loose with members’ subscriptions, are being led by the General Treasurer, John Moloney, this is deeply concerning. The idea that the union should ignore the risk that publication could lead to wasting huge amounts of our members’ subscriptions, would be at best cavalier, and at worst negligent.

Far from being undemocratic, Rule 6.22(g) has actually democratised the protection of the interests of the union and its members. Prior to the existence of this rule, all it took for a motion to be excluded from the conference agenda was for the General Secretary and the President to decide to exclude it.

It is important for current day activists to understand that before this rule existed, the then General Secretary, Barry Reamsbottom, and President, Marion Chambers, ruled out hundreds of branch motions, without taking any legal advice, prior to the SOC formally receiving the motions, and with no intimation or explanation to the branches that they were doing so.

This was corrected at the next annual conference, where a single motion managed to get past the bogus proceedings of Reamsbottom to amend the constitution which was X Marked. After Conference A marked the motion on a reference back, Chambers closed the conference to prevent it being debated. From the fallout of these actions, effectively Left Unity was formed and the union we know today was built.

With the creation of Rule 6.22(g) all those years ago, PCS has vested the duty of excluding motions on legal grounds to a democratically elected committee; in the process, requiring them to seek professional legal advice and, if a motion does need to be excluded, requiring the committee to provide the branch with a copy of that legal advice.

Remember Rule 6.22(g) allows the NSOC the power to refer motions for legal advice to protect both our reps and PCS from possible legal action; therefore,the idea that Rule 6.22(g) should “be reformed or removed”, as these factions suggest, would do nothing but result in the increased likelihood of a barrage of expensive court cases – a heavy price for members to pay, just so a couple of narrow minded factions can showboat at the union’s national conference.

Publication of Conference motions and legal advice

As in previous years, the NSOC has this year excluded a number of motions from the conference agenda based on the legal advice it was obliged to take under Rule 6.22(g).

Scandalously, the PCS Independent Left has chosen to throw all respect for the union’s legal obligations, its rules, its democracy and its elected NSOC out of the window.

They have published an article, entiled “Trans liberation: The motions the union is too scared to publish”.

In doing so, two of the motions that were excluded by the NSOC from the agenda, together with the legal advice justifying their exclusion, have been placed in the public domain.

Rule 6.22 (g) is a clearly necessary safeguard to protect the union, its activists and its members from exposure to litigation.  At no stage has anybody anywhere in the history of PCS and its predecessors suggested that the rule was not necessary – it was simply democratised in the early years of PCS by removing the power from the General Secretary and National President and giving it to the NSOC.

The irony is, that Independent Left refused to join that historic democratic shift, fuelled by the outrage of delegates at ADC all those years ago, and yet now the and others seek to remove the protections afforded by 6.22(g).

The actions of the Independent Left are reckless in the extreme and are a clear indication of why the union is not safe in the hands of the Coalition for Change.

Coalition of Chaos

In short, these narrow factions are proposing nothing less than a scandalous waste of members’ subscription money, seemingly driven by the extremely arrogant belief that legally they know better than the foremost Trade Union solicitors in the country and leading employment law barristers (of course, the legal advice now in the public domain confirms that the approach taken by the NSOC and NEC on the substantive issue covered by these motions has been right all along!).

These factions want you to trust them with the leadership and future of your union. The “Coalition for Change” is nothing more than a coalition for chaos hell bent on running your union into the ground.

Attacks on the NSOC, and the attempts by certain factions to undermine or influence it, come from groups that have repeatedly shown they value democracy only when it aligns with their own sectarian interests or those of the political party to which they are beholden. To claim they are in any way “independent” is an attempt to insult PCS members’ judgement and intelligence.  There is no democratic decision that they disagree with that they are prepared to abide by.

These baseless attacks from these politically aligned factions risk weakening the democratic foundations of PCS and should be met with nothing but sheer contempt.

The Democracy Alliance therefore reaffirms our full support for the committee’s independence, and recognise its duty to apply our rules consistently, transparently, and without fear or favour.

The Democracy Alliance believes that respecting the autonomy, duties and authority of NSOC is not optional and dependent on whether we agree with their decision-making.

We maintain that in upholding the autonomy, duties and authority of NSOC we strengthen our collective commitment to democracy, fairness, and the rulebook that both protects us and binds us together as a union.

From 16th April to 8th May we have the opportunity to vote to re-elect Democracy Alliance candidates to the PCS NEC.

Click on the image to download.

Click here to download

The PCS NEC met on 4 March 2026 and considered the latest state of play in the national campaign and discussions within the union regarding the fighting fund. This article updates Left Unity members on both issues, highlighting the benefits of having an industrially serious Democracy Alliance led leadership of PCS; and the dangers of allowing a sectarian and shallow leadership represented by our opponents.

PROGRESS ON PAY AT DELEGATED LEVEL

The NEC received a report of good progress on pay at delegated level in a number of areas.

In the Scottish Sector, a two-year deal has been secured across the various employing units containing broadly a 4.25% pay rise in year one; followed by a 3.5% in year two; along with a guarantee of no compulsory redundancies for the duration of the deal. Members have accepted the deal in ballots.

In Natural England a two-year deal has been secured containing a 7% increase in year one and a 5.1% increase in year two.  Members have accepted the deal in a ballot.

In the Home Office, a three-year deal has been secured containing minimum increases of 6% in year one, 5.5% in the year two and 4% in year three.  Members are currently being balloted on this offer with a recommendation from the Group Executive Committee (GEC) to accept.

In the Ministry for Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG), a one-year deal has been secured containing an average increase of 6%, plus £300 non-consolidated. Members are being balloted on the offer with a recommendation from the Branch Executive Committee (BEC) to accept.

Securing these deals in a difficult climate, should be welcomed by members across the union, achieved by PCS activists and staff working together in these bargaining areas.

It is worth noting that these deals have been struck by activists representing opinion ranging from various factions and to none across the political spectrum in our union.

It indicates that, when faced with hardheaded industrial judgements at delegated level, activists from all factions in the union are capable of making serious decisions on behalf of members. Should a breakthrough be made in talks on pay in the national campaign, however, it will be interesting to see if that same degree of serious judgement translates to national level among some quarters.

Indeed it was disappointing to see Independent Left members, and their allies, attempt to persuade Home Office members to reject the large increases on offer in case it led to job cuts in London, even though Home Office negotiators explained that this had not been a factor within the proposed deal. It is this sort of manipulation of our members’ interests, for short-term factional gain, that leads to disillusionment amongst members and activists.

It is the same logic that saw thousands of low-paid PCS members continue to pay the levy, despite no action being taken, when these individuals gained a majority on the NEC last year – always putting the narrow interests of their factions before the needs of our members. 

NATIONAL TALKS

The NEC received a report on the latest position in talks with the Cabinet Office. 

The government has stated its intention to publish public sector pay review body reports on 1 April 2026. They are also intending to align the publication of the civil service pay remit guidance to that date. Talks at national level in this period have therefore focused primarily on pay.

The report indicated that we have now convinced the Cabinet Office of the need for greater coherence of pay across the civil service and its related areas. We also appear to have convinced the employer that any prioritisation must put the interests of the three lowest paid grades first.  It seems that the arguments that we have put to the employer, supported by the academic work commissioned by the Democracy Alliance led NEC, which make the case that pay restoration and good pay in the civil service will pay for itself in the medium turn, have hit home.  While this is welcome, the key task going forward will be to convince the Treasury to provide funding.

There are, however, some positive signs.  The deals secured in Natural England, the Home Office and the MHCLG, indicate that a more generous view is being taken by the Treasury on pay business cases. If the Cabinet Office is to be taken at its word, it seems logical to conclude that they will seek to implement cohesion across other bargaining units on similar terms.

This progress in talks has been dismissed and rubbished at every stage by our political opponents, telling anyone that will listen that things will never change and that the leadership are deluded. Whilst nobody is under any illusions that there is still a long way to go, and there are no guarantees, it is this cynicism that leaves our members with little hope of ever winning improvements.. Left Unity will work together with branches to make the necessary progress on pay, whilst being prepared for an industrial response should the talks not make the gains that our members so badly need. This is what a responsible leadership does.

FIGHTING FUND

At the NEC meeting on 4 March 2026, the General Secretary also reported on internal discussions regarding the fighting fund, specifically how she had sought to take forward the terms of Motion A85 from the 2025 PCS Annual Delegate Conference (ADC).

To re-cap, the motion was a motion of censure on last year’s NEC for continuing to collect the levy when it was clear that no national targeted action would take place. That decision clearly caused a huge degree of anger amongst members and, accordingly, Conference voted for the censure.

However, the motion also contained a positive view on how matters could be moved forward by seeking a consensus on a rule change that would enable us to build a sustainable fighting fund; which could alleviate the need for future levies.

The motion committed the union to a consultation on the fighting fund….“with a view to replacing the current flat rate 50p from members monthly subscriptions paid directly into the general Fighting Fund with an appropriate percentage figure that will generate a long term regular growth in income to the Fighting Fund.” 

Any rule change requires a two thirds majority on the Conference floor.  Achieving that is always difficult.  Achieving that when there is a fair degree of animosity between the union’s political factions is even more difficult.

The General Secretary therefore, attempted to open discussions with the various factions within the union to try to secure a consensus view capable of securing a two thirds majority at ADC.  The responses to her constructive approach really do paint a picture..

With regard to Left Unity and the PCS Democrats, the discussions were productive, and despite genuine points of strategy being raised, an agreed approach was in sight..  However, that has not been the case elsewhere.

In an extraordinary response given the constructive nature of the approach, the Broad Left Network (BLN), the Alliance for Change and the Rank & File Network, have refused to engage.  The BLN sent a written response that they then published on their website, rubbishing a process designed to help the union build a sustainable fighting fund.

It is worth considering the BLN response and exposing its disingenuous nature.

The BLN claim that the approach to the levy by the union’s leadership has been cynical; and, incredibly, that the levy was introduced with little meaningful consultation, discussion or explanation.  These are complete fabrications.   

Members voted for the introduction of the levy in a ballot having been given full information on how the levy would work and what it would be used for.  They were further balloted on every proposed pause or reintroduction of the levy with one very notable and revealing exception – that was the year that the BLN and their allies had a majority on the NEC and they continued to collect the levy despite knowing no action would take place, in the process denying members a vote on the issue.  We would suggest that they look in the mirror before levelling accusations of cynicism. 

The current Democracy Alliance led NEC has thankfully put right their wrong by holding true to our manifesto commitment and giving members the opportunity to reclaim the levy.

The BLN also stated that agreement should be required by Conference before any levy is activated.  This is at odds with their repeated assertions that members are chomping at the bit for a national campaign.  If they are, why would we make them wait for a Conference decision before giving them the ability to fight?  The BLN appear to constantly whine about bureaucracy whilst being its greatest advocates when push comes to shove.

Finally with regard to the BLN, their position appears to be that the NEC should formulate a rule change and table it, without any discussions first on trying to reach a consensus among the factions.  This is either hopelessly politically naive or completely disingenuous. 

They surely know that this would be the quickest way to sink any prospect of a motion attaining a two thirds majority in the current political climate within our union.  It is clearly a wrecking tactic which puts their narrow sectarian interest of “defeating” the NEC on the Conference floor before the interests of PCS members and their ability to fight industrial campaigns supported by their union through a sustainable fighting fund.

With regard to the Independent Left (IL), discussions initially appeared to be heading in the right direction.  There appeared to be common ground in the run up to Christmas, but those discussions now seem to have gone backward.

The key point of contention raised by the IL appears to be that they believe that the increase of contributions to the fighting fund can be found within existing subscription payments.  Adopting that approach would clearly breach Conference policy as set out in Motion A85.  The motion makes clear that the rule change should replace the current 50p figure with a percentage figure; and the current rule makes clear that the 50p contribution is in addition to existing subscriptions.

The IL have suggested that the union’s staffing costs can be reduced and that money generated could be used for the fighting fund.  This is clearly a continuation of their attack on the General Secretary’s staffing changes made last year, which they falsely claimed breached the union’s policy that staff payroll costs should come in at approximately 33% of membership income.  Despite a year of false claims and noise on the issue, the IL and their political allies fell silent when the union’s Financial Report, presented by the Assistant General Secretary, confirmed that those costs had come in at under 33% following the staffing changes.

The IL’s position also conveniently ignores the enormous staffing reductions that have taken place within PCS over the past 15 years or so.  That pain was necessary due to falling membership as government cuts hit; and as a result of the check-off removal.  Much of the complaining about those staff reductions came directly from the IL and their political allies, stating that the union was not providing enough resources. 

They cannot have it both ways.  More cuts means less resources and would jeopardise the operational effectiveness of the union.

Finally in respect of the IL’s position, they claim that the Fighting Fund has been deliberately run down.  This is simply untrue.

During the last period of national industrial action, the union spent £6.5 million on strike pay.  We won significant concessions as a result, including:

• a more than doubling of the pay remit
• a £1500 lump sum
• the withdrawal of cuts to our members redundancy terms by one third
• further talks on pay

The then Democracy Alliance led NEC agreed to put a proposal to members that the action be paused, the levy be paused, the concessions be banked and the further talks be entered into to try to make further progress.  

Members voted overwhelmingly 90% majority in favour of the NEC’s position.  The NEC was conscious that we had £1 million left in the fighting fund at that point; and that the vast majority of the other unions, who had been in a battle with the government, had settled.

Despite all of this, the IL and their political allies relentlessly attacked the NEC and the membership decision, while hopelessly failing to explain what alternative course of action should be followed.

This is significant when considering the IL proposal that the additional contributions to the fighting fund should come from existing resources.  If we were to follow their logic in a national campaign, £6.5 million would need to come from existing running costs, meaning that the union would need to find 21.6% savings on its current running costs.

Further though, given that the IL rubbished the concessions won, that would not be enough.  If we assume that doubling those concessions would find favour with the IL (not confirmed by any stretch given their consistent and historical opposition to any hard-headed industrial deal), that would mean that £13 million of strike pay would be required, so PCS would need to find 43.2% of savings from its current budgets.

This is a deeply flawed approach and illustrates the chasm between the IL’s rhetoric and what they are actually prepared to do.  If they want the campaign they say they want, they need to have the courage to have the discussion with members and win their support for it.  That they are not prepared to do so speaks volumes.

With consensus on a rule change therefore now looking highly unlikely at this stage, the General Secretary reported that discussions had taken place with the moving and seconding branches of Motion A85 to discuss the position.  Those Branches have adopted the sensible position that they do not believe that the NEC should seek to bring a motion to this year’s Conference; and instead allow further time for discussions and consultations to try to reach a consensus position.

Left Unity and the Democracy Alliance led NEC concur with that view.  It would be completely reckless to put a motion knowing it will fail; thereby leaving us hamstrung for a further three years.

Left Unity is committed to continuing discussions to reach a consensus; as is the General Secretary.  She has committed to bringing forward proposals on a consultation process after this years’ Conference with the aim of establishing a consensus capable of securing a two thirds majority at Conference 2027.

Left Unity, and our PCS Democrat allies, will continue to play our part in trying to build the consensus needed within the union to help us build a sustainable fighting fund.  We urge all other factions to do the same.  In doing so, we urge them to stop putting their narrow sectarian interests above the class interest.

NEC elections are key

In light of their recent behaviour it is clear that if our opponents were to regain a majority on the NEC, we would be consigning our members to another year of chaos, such as we experienced over the levy, and constant obstruction to getting business progressed on the issues that matter to members throughout 2025/26.

Let’s work together to re-elect a Democracy Alliance NEC that works in the interests of our members – United, we are always stronger.

Please propose the Democracy Alliance NEC slate at your branch AGM.

Please nominate the following Left Unity candidates for the HMRC GEC at your AGM.

Please nominate the following candidates for the DWP GEC at your branch AGM