The Independent Left want to change how the union is run, not just the people at the top. This has been reflected in our slogan “For a fighting, rank-and-file controlled union” as long as the IL has existed. If PCS is to survive and thrive it must be genuinely democratic, drawing on members and reps’ knowledge to build the campaigns that can meet all our contemporary challenges. 

Extending democracy within PCS is a crucial part of why we exist. We believe a more democratic union, which holds its leaders accountable, helps make us more than the sum of our parts as reps and activists more effectively than one with detached and unaccountable leaders and FTOs.

When the Coalition for Change won the NEC elections in 2024, of which IL was a part, but did not win the Presidency (retained by Martin Cavanagh of Left Unity), the union was thrust into a constitutional crisis. Papers were put to the NEC by the General Secretary and legitimate alternative motions to deliver what we were elected to do (our democratic mandate!) were regularly ruled out of order by the President. Amendments to papers proposed by the General Secretary would also be ruled out of order; the message was often ‘take it or leave it’. 

Most acutely this arose regarding the levy and the National Campaign, an issue where IL and others wanted to make amendments to the levy that was in place ahead of building a sustainable alternative to it, but were prevented from doing so, and where discussion of a campaign of action against the coming cuts was blocked. Why was this possible? The rules as they stand: 
· Require the NEC to have a two-thirds majority to overturn the procedural decisions of the President regarding the NEC like ruling a motion out of order; 
· Allow the President unilateral power to rule on anything where he deems the PCS rulebook is silent, whether it is or isn’t;
· Enable the President to simply refuse to let the NEC to carry out business from its first meeting if it doesn’t have a ⅔ majority to pass new Standing Orders

This sounds both egregiously anti-democratic and mind-bogglingly convoluted because it is! Motions A16, A17 and A18 seek to change this potential for abuse of power going forward, regardless of who whole the presidency or the NEC. All delegates who believe in a democratic, fighting union should support!

ADC 2024 passed Motion A87 and instructed the NEC to review the current approach to branch ADC entitlement. The reason was clear, at present delegate entitlement broadly follows a linear path of an additional delegate per 500 members until a branch has over 1500 members, where its delegate entitlement per 500 members halves, with branches only gaining an additional delegate per 1000 members.

Motion A87 had been brought to conference by HMRC branches most negatively affected by this rule. Their branches had been merged due to office closures and the result for their branches was they were able to send fewer people to conference, unfairly and completely arbitrarily. In the IL, we listen when legitimate concerns are raised when it comes to union rank-and-file democracy and so A13 this year seeks to right this wrong, while also tackling the issue of branches who do not send anyone to conference at present.

The motion also requires the NEC to develop and implement a strategy to improve ADC attendance for those that send zero delegates. It notes the rulebook allows branches to work together and send a consortium of delegates, so it includes the possibility to encourage branches with a single rep or advocate to work with more organised branches to encourage those potential attendees, as well as providing better, more comprehensive training opportunities for them. Motion A13 seeks to tackle two lingering wrongs of conference underrepresentation, so delegates should support it wholeheartedly!