During ADC 2023, the president of PCS, Fran Heathcote, in her capacity as Left Unity Organiser, sent a message to a closed WhatsApp group encouraging speakers to come in on the organising strategy motion to avoid getting to motion A50.

This message was screenshot and leaked to the political opponents of Left Unity, who then raised a point of order the following day at the conference. Concerns have been raised about this issue, and until now, Left Unity members have played by the ‘Queensberry rules’, maintaining their silence, whilst our opponents have used the issue to try to impact the current General Secretary election process.

The Left Unity National Committee want to pay credit to those Left Unity members, including Fran, who have kept their silence and their integrity regarding the rule 10 process, in the face of sustained attack from individuals who have sought to gain political advantage from it.

Most Left Unity members would reasonably expect that private WhatsApp chat groups between trusted individuals should be a safe space for those members to share concerns and discussion about specific issues, without fear of them being shared in the public domain, to be used by those who want to damage Left Unity.

Following the recent article on the subject by our opponents, and subsequent video, Left Unity now feels we have little option but to respond, to set the record straight.

What was A50 about?

A50 was a motion which related to who the NEC decides to send to represent PCS at the TUC LGBT+ Committee.

What was A50 not about?

Despite postings and videos to the contrary, A50 was not about the regeneration of Proud.

The first instruction tells the NEC to:

Immediately write to the TUC withdrawing its nomination for the TUC LGBT+ committee

Submit the PCS Proud nomination for the TUC LGBT+ committee to be co-opted into the vacant seat in the General category (A)

Why was the NEC opposed?

There are two reasons:

The core issue raised in motion A50, related directly to a Rule 10 (PCS disciplinary process) investigation under the rules of the union.

Both the moving and seconding branch had members within them who knew about the Rule 10 investigation. Discussion of the motion would have the meant that there was a strong possibility that issues relating to an ongoing rule 10 investigation could have been revealed very publicly at ADC.

Rule 10 investigations are treated in strict confidence. When the NEC discuss a rule 10 investigation, all full-time staff, except the SFTOs are told to leave the meeting. Strict confidence is maintained because, by its very nature, a rule 10 investigation is dealing with the behaviours and conduct of a PCS member/ members, and the employer could use this information (were it made public) to take action against, or even dismiss that member. Everyone should be aware of the term “bringing the Civil Service into disrepute”.

Even the National Standing Orders Committee (who deal with the appropriateness of motions for the ADC agenda) could not be made aware of the detail behind motion A50, as this would have been a breach of confidence of the Rule 10 disciplinary process. This meant they were unaware that they may have to subject the motion for legal advice, which would have caused the motion to be removed from the conference agenda.

The president was obviously aware of all of this. Her concern was that by debating the motion, someone could have, inadvertently or intentionally, identified people who had a right to anonymity.

This could have damaged the individual, or PCS. Left Unity members of the NEC follow the rules scrupulously to ensure that there is no breach of confidentiality.

The second reason is that it was clear to the NEC that, if carried, the motion could not be implemented.

The motion instructed the NEC to immediately write to the TUC withdrawing its nomination to the TUC LGBT+ Committee, something the NEC did immediately following the carriage of the motion, but it also instructs the NEC to submit the Proud nomination to be co-opted into the vacant seat.

The General Secretary had raised this issue with the TUC, prior to the conference, to see if, in the event of the motion being carried, this would be possible.

The TUC had responded, making clear that in the event of PCS withdrawing the NEC nomination, the position would remain vacant. They would not be calling out to co-opt. PCS now has no representation on this committee as a result of the carriage of A50, and the NEC agreed candidate, a lesbian member of PCS Proud, has been blocked from taking up post by those who claim to wish to defend LGBT+ rights.

The president and general secretary raised A50 with the Standing Orders Committee (NSOC), not once, but three times, prior to ADC, in an attempt to prevent the motion being debated, knowing that the instructions could not be implemented. Obviously, when meeting the NSOC, what they could not do was refer to any details of the rule 10 complaint, which meant that the NSOC were not persuaded to withdraw the motion.

Fran’s ‘crime’ was to try to protect all PCS members’ rights to confidentiality under the rule 10 process and to ensure that the rules of the union could not be breached.

Fran’s proud record on equality

Fran has a proud record on issues of equality, speaking at the TUC in 2022 and 2023, to make clear PCS policy on the issue of trans rights.

Both speeches have been praised across the movement for making clear the challenges around the issue, but also the progress that PCS is making.

She has been working with the various equality strands to develop pan-equality structures, chairing our first pan-equality seminar in January and encouraging more diversity amongst our reps to increase the grassroots strength of PCS.

She has been fighting discrimination and injustice, industrially, through collective bargaining, and striving for greater participation in the union’s democratic structures by members of all under-represented groups.

Has the issue been weaponised?

Yes. Both the moving and seconding branches have members who were clearly aware of the ongoing rule 10, the need for confidentiality and the NEC’s inability to reveal the detailed reasons for their position.

A further motion by the same branch was withdrawn by the NSOC after taking legal advice, stating that the carriage of such a motion could be in breach of a number of legal rights, leaving PCS open to legal challenge.

It is clear that during the nomination period for the General Secretary election, this issue has been once again highlighted, in particular by our opponents’ supporters in the HMRC group, in an effort to damage Fran’s candidacy.

It appears lost on those who seek to weaponise the issue, that not only have they prevented another PCS Proud member sitting on the TUC LGBT+ committee, but that it was only Fran’s waving of speakers in the guillotine section at conference, that enabled the motion to be debated at all.

The speed with which the message, sent to a closed WhatsApp group, was screenshot and shared, leaves little doubt of the intention.

The vast majority of Left Unity members, but clearly not all, have seen this for what it is.

We hope that this sheds further light on, and brings closure to, what has been a difficult, and much-misrepresented issue, and that any fair-minded assessment would conclude that Fran acted to try to protect the position of the affected individuals, and the union.

PCS LUNC