Report from the NEC of 8 October

The PCS National Executive Committee met on 8 October for its regular, now monthly, Zoom meeting. On the agenda were Covid-19, the national campaign, the strategic options for the union, and finance, along with other administrative matters.


Ahead of the first formal agenda item, the General Secretary noted that the Senior Officers were starting to scope out options for Conference. As previously reported, the NEC agreed that a physical conference but that contingency plans should be put in place. It was reported that the Brighton Centre was taking provisional bookings but that these were on a social distancing basis. This would have a potential impact on the number of delegates. The NEC was told to expect a detailed update in November and that a decision would likely be necessary in December.


The update paper presented to the NEC covered the correspondence between the General Secretary and the government and Cabinet Office over the previous threat to force Civil Servants back to the office. That situation resulted in a very public government U-turn in response to the worsening situation in relation to the virus.

The union sought feedback from reps and members regarding the situation, and it was reported that there was broad support for the union’s position. However, the position varied in devolved nations and in different groups, as well as a divergence of views between those in the workplace and those working from home; whilst the former still support the union’s stances, the majority was notably lower. There wasn’t overwhelming support for industrial action on a Civil Service-wide basis – meaning that the union will continue its current approach. However, it is urging that where any Group or National Branch considers the employer’s approach to be unsafe, they should consider industrial action.

John Moloney reported back on proposals from the Bargaining, Personnel and Policy Committee on homeworking and ‘future working.’ The paper included eight principles that the BPPC had agreed on the subject, to be put to the Civil Service and devolved administrations and other employers as the basis of future home working agreements. These included asserting that homeworking is and should be voluntary, that it’s a valid redundancy avoidance measure, ensuring that home workers don’t suffer a pay detriment based on where they live (e.g. if they live outside London but the team is based in London, they should still receive London-weighted pay), and measuring the carbon impact of home working.

A proposed amendment from members of the Broad Left Network argued that these principles should be noted rather than supported and implemented, asking for more information before agreeing anything. In moving it, they suggested that a voluntaristic model of home working presented pitfalls including the threat that reduced office numbers would be used as a rationale for office closures and the spectre of regional pay. The proposed alternative was union control over home working contracts and who could agree to homeworking.

The debate around this, including contributions from Independent Left NEC members, pointed out that putting the implementation of the principles on hold presented its own risk. Homeworking is a reality now and one that the union needs to get a better handle on it both in negotiations and from an organising standpoint, and so it is crucial to pin down protections for members around these issues. This didn’t mean that there weren’t more complex issues to draw out and develop positions on, but those positions wouldn’t be better handled by putting the matter on hold. It was also pointed out that a position of union control over homeworking would represent a level of organisational control over the workplace that PCS has never had under any leadership.

In the vote, the amendments fell.


The main focus of the discussion around the pay campaign was the pay petition, which has over 56,000 signatures but is only increasing in number very slowly. This makes reaching 100,000 signatures unlikely without a significant escalation of activity, and in turn makes it unlikely that the November NEC will take a decision to move to a national industrial action ballot.

Both on the Campaigns Committee and the Organising Committee, as well as in the NEC, IL members made the point that there were several significant barriers to the petition functioning as an organising structure test. The most obvious of these is the situation with Covid, which in Groups like HMRC has rendered face to face contact with a majority of members to discuss the issue all but impossible, but the fact that the facility to record on the Organising App that members have signed is only now available to branches means that the union is effectively chasing existing signatories to confirm their participation rather than seeking out new signatories. Doing this through bulk emails and phone calls also means that as a structure test the union can to a degree measure membership enthusiasm on pay but not branches’ engagement with the necessary work on the ground, since contact through CallHub is not being done on a branch basis and therefore isn’t an analogue to one-on-one conversations by lay activists.

The NEC agreed a series of actions which are aimed at stepping up activity and driving up the signatories on the petition. However, for the reasons above, it is difficult to see how the number of signatures maps onto ballot readiness. This is particularly true in an ongoing situation where a significant majority of members will remain working from home and we still don’t have a handle on how we organise them.

A list of proposed ‘PCS Locals’ was also circulated, and the NEC agreed to take these out to regional committees to develop them. The PCS Local model is about building cross-branch structures, like town committees, that allow joint campaigning on a geographical basis. This is something that the union does need to develop, to encourage wider organising and get past barriers to membership participation and narrow sectionalism. But again, the future of this initiative will be contingent on getting a handle on organising homeworkers. There is a potential argument that we could even develop PCS Locals where there are geographical concentrations of members living, rooting the union in communities and perhaps even invoking organising methods (post-pandemic) where activists knock on members’ doors to engage with them.

The paper also confirmed that the December meeting of the NEC would receive proposals on sectoral pay bargaining and single sectoral pay claims. A big part of this work, which the IL has argued in favour of for a long time but the union has resisted until now, will be establishing a database of pay scales across government which can be used to inform bargaining, legal considerations and campaign propaganda.


The NEC received a finance update from the Assistant General Secretary, who reported that subscription income was up due to a net increase in membership this year as opposed to the planning projections of a loss of 3,000 members due to past trends.

The main strain on PCS finances continues to be the deficits of the legacy staff pension schemes, potentially leading to an extra million pounds of expenditure in the coming years. At the same time, the government’s announcement that it will cease funding the Union Learning Fund in England next year will cause significant issues due to the money PCS had been drawing from this including the salaries of eight staff. Also on the horizon were the impact on membership, and therefore subscriptions, from job losses in the Culture Sector and redundancies in HMRC.

The main area of discussion was around the subscription rates for 2021. The NEC agreed to a 2% increase to the rate, alongside a 10p increase to the maximum subs rate. However, we raised the point that there was still a need for comprehensive subscription reform, as it was inherently unfair to have a structure that meant members at EO grade paid the same rate as Grade 7 members. This also potentially meant that we were missing a trick financially, when clearly this was a concern given the issues highlighted over the forecast for the union’s income.

Subscription reform was of course part of John Moloney’s election platform as Assistant General Secretary and he pledged to speak to the President and General Secretary in order to take forward that programme of work.

Strategic options for the union

We have previously reported on the special NEC where the questions for the future of the union were debated. The NEC signed off the final versions of the scoping paper to go to branches and the analysis of membership trends from the Organising and Education Committee that will accompany it. At the meeting of the OEC, the IL proposed several additions which were incorporated into that latter paper, to ensure that what goes to branches incorporated discussion of organising in outsourced areas, the impact of the localised disputes that we’ve seen in recent years on our membership, and our organising culture.

We would encourage all branches to fully consider the issues at hand and to put forward their own positions, without being bound by the ‘merger or restructure’ binary choice. The NEC will consider all responses in January and the IL still believes these should be available to any branch or member who wants to see them, but in the event that we lose that argument we also urge branches to publish and share their positions as well as providing them to the NEC.

The future of PCS – where are we heading?

On 30 September, the National Executive Committee met to discuss the strategic options for the future of PCS.

The NEC had previously agreed to commission scoping papers on the options for the union going forward. This was on the back of the news that not only had we not met our target of 200,000 members by 2020, but we actually had less members than when we set that target. We were also spending over 50% of subscription income on servicing the machinery of the union, including staff costs and a legacy pension deficit, rather than on members. In General Secretary Mark Serwotka’s eyes this left us only two options – to restructure, including the likely reduction of staff, or to merge with another union.

The debate at the NEC

With the date of the meeting set over a month in advance and the subject of the debate not likely to radically change at a moment’s notice, the papers were promised at least a week in advance. In the end, they came just like all NEC papers; two days before the meeting and with a 24-hour window for any proposed amendments. This didn’t bode well for the notion of a full, informed discussion at all levels of the union.

The General Secretary asked the NEC to endorse the draft scoping paper as the basis, with NEC members’ comments, for a final version to be agreed at our October meeting. He also recommended that the document was issued to branches, in line with the amendment that IL NEC members successfully moved previously to ensure that the debate happened openly rather than behind virtual closed doors at the top of the union.

His final recommendation was for “meetings of reps and members are held virtually in groups, regions and nations and equality forums, and encouraged in branches, to discuss the document, and a report of the meetings is provided to the NEC in January 2021.” We proposed an amendment, which was agreed, to make the involvement of branches more explicit rather than an optional extra.

We also put forward an additional recommendation that members, reps and branches were encouraged to submit additional or alternative options and that any submissions or discussion documents received be circulated to the whole union. The rationale of this was straightforward in that it sought to ensure the official position of the NEC didn’t monopolise the debate and all contributions to the discussion would have equal reach.

The objection to this from the General Secretary was that, whilst he agreed that submissions should be encouraged on as open a basis as possible, distribution of these across the union would be unwieldly. Our suggestion that a dedicated page on the website to publish contributions to the debate would suffice didn’t allay the opposition, and some NEC members voiced a more general discomfort at the idea of members and branches engaging in this debate on a horizontal basis even though it would still in this arrangement be mediated by the NEC.

There was also a suggestion made that there were, ultimately, only two options and nobody had clearly articulated a third. However, the debate shouldn’t be about a simplistic “option A or option B” choice, but about looking at the various strands where we can improve things – culturally, in lay structures, and in the machinery – with the ultimate aim of building real workplace power as the route to grow.

Ultimately, the block opposition by Left Unity meant that the amendment wouldn’t pass. The General Secretary did, however, agree to at least take on board the spirit of the amendment in terms of encouraging submissions and that once they were received the question of publishing them across the union might be revisited. Whether this will actually happen remains to be seen, as there is clearly not a great mood on the NEC to allow for branches to relate to each other except by going through the centre, but it at least leaves the door open to continue making the argument.

Beyond this, the bulk of the debate was members of Left Unity rebuffing a motion put forward by the Broad Left Network. The BLN motion argued that the scoping paper “attempts to push for particular policy aims” by “prejudicing a debate before it has been had.” This is certainly a view that is held wider, though in most instances the consensus was that the General Secretary supports a merger but wants to steer the debate in a very careful way, aware of the opposition to such a move. The BLN motion, however, appeared to suggest that the agenda was “weakening Group structures, of expanding multi-employer branches regardless of industrial logic and of the end of universal constituency elections in favour of fragmenting our election process.”

However, all it proposed was a further meeting of the NEC which would receive reports from consultations, costings and a financial paper, and a more detailed analysis of where we are. It was pointed out in response that the next meeting of the NEC would receive the final version of the scoping paper including a more fleshed out narrative from the organising committee as well as a financial paper from the Assistant General Secretary.

Scoping what, exactly?

One of the points that we raised was that the scoping paper didn’t actually scope out the options available in any detail. After four and a half pages of preamble, which was less an analysis of how we got here than a simple timeline, the paper finally got to the subject of restructure.

Here, rather than set out the possibilities in terms of the union’s staffing structure – how and where staffing resource could be redirected, what that could mean for organising capability, the possibilities for democratising the machinery of the union, and so on – the paper simply asserted that staffing reductions would be necessary. It then sidestepped the question of full-time structures to look at lay ones. Again, there was no attempt to set out the various possibilities and what they could mean but rather a set of open questions that hinted at the intent behind them but refused to spell that out or offer a rationale.

The section on a possible merger was even less substantive. It asserted that a merger could give us more industrial muscle whilst improving union services and amplifying our political voice but gave no rationale for why this might be the case. It then went on to insist on the transparency and democracy inherent to any merger process, clearly seeking to dampen down potential opposition early. The section ended by simply asking whether the exploration of a merger would be beneficial, the vaguest possible question since the paper offered no attempt to set out which unions could make industrial sense, the pros and cons, and the challenges we might face.

For the broad debate that the leadership claim to want among members, the draft scoping paper offered no substantive information. It is difficult to believe that this isn’t intentional; after all, it is far harder to set out what you think is the best way forward if you aren’t aware of all the possibilities and their various benefits and pitfalls. If all you can respond with is vagaries, then those running the consultation have much freer rein to interpret the answers in a way that suits them.

In response, it was suggested that this kind of detail would be drawn out of the responses to the initial paper, and that to offer it earlier would open the NEC to accusations to leading the debate in a certain way. This suggests, however, that only the options the NEC want will be detailed – meaning that the concern about responses being steered and interpreted in a way that best suits the leadership remains.

The Independent Left position

PCS Independent Left members on the NEC have made the point before that simply responding to the current circumstances on the basis of the union as a business doesn’t solve any of our problems. Over decades, unions have pursued top-down merger after merger, creating super unions such as Unite who can boast millions of members. It has done nothing to arrest the trend of declining trade union membership overall, a trend which is reflected in a generation gap – with workers on the cusp of retirement far more likely to be in a union and workers in the first decade or so of their working life overwhelmingly un-unionised. This is reflected by workers’ power, or lack thereof, in nearly all workplaces.

In PCS, 60% of union activists are over the age of 50. Our membership is overwhelmingly concentrated away from the areas of the civil service which are growing. Outsourced work, a considerable constituency across government, is in most cases effectively a greenfield site untouched by the union. Even in our areas of ‘strength,’ reps are buried under mountains of casework and there is no ingrained culture of grassroots organising and collective action to speak of. These things are fixable, but a merger will not fix them.

There are structural changes that we think will potentially make the union more accessible, democratic and dynamic, and that goes for the lay structures as well as the full-time structures. But if there is no attempt to sketch out the concrete rationale for this, then it will not be supported by reps. Whatever the benefits of the proposed branch structure changes that came out of the Strategic Review, trying to pass them through Conference as a revised model branch constitution engaged nobody and guaranteed that attempt to failure. The vagaries and unspoken agenda in the draft scoping paper is likely to fare no better. And if the structure of the full-time apparatus is off-limits, the idea of (for example) extending the election of paid officials not even thinkable, then what hope for a genuinely reformed union?

Almost unmentioned in the paper the NEC received was the question of the organising culture in the union.

An annex from the Organising and Education Committee offered a range of statistics and figures which should be of extreme interest, but there is still a substantive discussion that isn’t being had. To take one example, 52% of reps surveyed said that their involvement in organising was high or very high, yet 65% said competing priorities meant that they rarely had the time to speak to members face to face. This shows that ‘organising’ is primarily thought of as an administrative or executive function, and that the most basic building block of union power – face to face conversations with fellow workers – is something the culture of our union directs us away from. We are swamped with personal cases, or have a succession of meetings to attend, so simply don’t have the time.

The kind of change that the IL supports and has long argued for in PCS broadly falls into three strands:

  1. Reform of the union machinery. This means things like extending the election of full-time officials, a recall mechanism, transparent internal processes, rank and file control of industrial action, lay control of staff deployment, and so on.
  2. Lay structural change. There is a serious case for organising on an industrial rather than sectional basis, so that every member in a workplace is part of the same branch regardless of employer, whilst at the same time ensuring that negotiations with individual employers are led by democratically-elected lay reps as is currently the case with Groups and National Branches. This can’t be done without bringing the activists who populate the existing structures with us, and ensuring we protect what works and is effective. At the top of the union, the NEC is far less lay-led than most GECs, and there needs to be a serious conversation about how we can reverse that dynamic. Conference can also undoubtedly be made more accessible and inclusive in a way that ensures more business is done than currently.
  3. Building a real organising culture. Ultimately, the most effective way to grow the union is to build real power in the workplace. This means back-to-basics organising in a way which is only superficially reflected in the official stance of the union, and in many cases actively discouraged across PCS because “it’s not the way we do things,” or “we have to follow the correct procedures and escalation routes,” and so on. Building union power means encouraging genuine member participation in a way that shows them they are the union – identifying winnable issues in the workplace and taking them on through collective direct action. As long as the very notion of this is anathema to the culture in PCS, then we cannot hope to achieve the change we need.

These ideas can be greatly expanded upon, and this is something that the IL will be looking to do in the coming period in order to help shape the debate over the future of the union.

Report from the NEC 9 September

The National Executive Committee met via Zoom for a full day meeting on 9 September, following the government’s announcement that it intended to get 80% of civil servants back to the office. This issue was of course top of the agenda, though the meeting also discussed pay, pensions, the possibility of a virtual conference in 2020, and motions on various subjects.

Covid-19 and the return to the workplace

The NEC’s health and safety committee developed the Five Tests for Safe Working some months earlier as part of the efforts to protect members during the pandemic and resist any compulsory return to work. With the directive to Permanent Secretaries to fill up offices to their Covid-safe limits, however, the issue has taken on a renewed urgency.

This is a situation that continues to evolve day by day, with local lockdowns springing up in all sorts of places. It is clear that the government once again wishes to use the civil service as a political punching bag, forcing thousands of members who have been working effectively from home throughout the pandemic to return to potentially unsafe workplaces. This additionally puts pressure on those still working from the office who face finding it much harder to maintain social distancing and other appropriate measures.

The General Secretary’s recommendations to the NEC in response to this situation were that a senior lay reps meeting, an all reps meeting and a members’ survey are used to assess the mood of the membership – both nationally and by Group and branch – for collective action, alongside legal advice on collective and individual action. A special NEC would then be called to review the responses and take a decision on next steps.

Members of the PCS Independent Left on the NEC supported these recommendations, against a rival proposal put forward by members of the Broad Left Network. Their position differed in so much that it called for an indicative ballot rather than a survey, though only as an option following a special NEC which would receive reports from all bargaining areas and plans for an industrial response from the senior officers.

The major issue with the BLN response was that, whilst couched in radical language and heavily critical of the Left Unity majority on the NEC, it didn’t really offer anything new. Although Mark Serwotka had engaged in sabre rattling in the media about strike action, the reality of the situation was that the picture across different departments was incredibly mixed both in terms of who is and isn’t working from home, members’ attitudes to those situations, and even how hardline (or not) departments are being in regards to a return to the office.

It is, of course, vital that efforts to force members back into unsafe offices face fierce resistance. This is why IL members on the DWP Group Executive Committee argued, sadly unsuccessfully, for the recent ballot there to be statutory rather than indicative and to include agency and outsourced members. It is also why through the NEC’s health and safety and organising committees we have supported the development of the Five Tests for Safe Working not only as a guide for negotiators but as demands to organise members around and build membership support and participation.

Workplace power is the key to delivering effective industrial action, and an indicative ballot and a slogan is no shortcut to the necessary (often painstaking) work required to build that.

National campaign

On pay, the first recommendation put to the NEC were straightforward in that they simply built upon what was previously agreed. The pay petition launched on the government website is now at over 50,000 signatures and so the NEC was asked to agree the continuation of organizing work around this ahead of a decision on next steps in October or November. Those next steps, of course, would be the decision on whether to launch another national ballot.

More crucially, the second recommendation was to prepare potential sectoral pay claims, aiming to reduce the number of separate bargaining units that exist in the civil service as steps towards a single set of pay scales nationally. This is something that has existed in PCS policy for years, but has long taken a back seat to calls for an arbitrary percentage wise, so it’s welcome that as Assistant General Secretary John Moloney has helped to put this work back on the agenda and

push to make it finally happen.

Therefore, PCS Independent Left members on the NEC put forward an additional recommendation to ensure that the union actually collates the information on all of the different pay scales and the pay inequalities that exist across the union. This is information that PCS should already have, frankly, and both John and the IL NEC members have raised the need more broadly to keep a central record of the agreements and policies that have been made in various groups for reference.

From here, the debate around how we take forward the national campaign will move towards the question of a national strike ballot and what our industrial action strategy there looks like. In that debate, we will need an honest assessment of our strengths and weaknesses, and make sure that we communicate clearly to members ahead of time what an effective, targeted industrial action strategy looks like ahead of time in order to help win the argument that it is worth voting for action because we can win.

If we don’t do that, even if another Herculean effort by reps drags our turnout in a ballot above 50%, we risk being found wanting when it comes to actually delivering action that moves the government.

The NEC also received an update on the work being done to progress the fight for pensions justice – both the remedy to the age discrimination and the issue of members overpaying into their pensions by at least 2%. This includes potentially looking at mass employment tribunal claims alongside the collective actions including national negotiations and legal challenge. The detail of this is due to go to members through members’ briefings and other communications.


After taking the decision back in March that Conference wouldn’t go ahead in 2020, the NEC agreed to keep that decision under review and more recently that the options for a virtual conference or event would be explored. The result of that investigation came back to this meeting.

The paper argued that whilst a conference was technically possible, the difficulties in doing so for a minimal gain were such that it made more sense not to hold a conference in 2020. Though it was also recommended that we retain the option to hold an emergency single-issue conference if necessary, and that we plan for a physical conference in 2021 – but with contingency plans in case that isn’t possible.

The IL moved amendments to the paper to propose that we make arrangements for a conference in 2020, recognizing that whilst it will deviate from the standard conference arrangements it will at least allow for some form of democratic engagement – as well as a test of our digital systems for future online and/or hybrid events. We also proposed that plans for the 2021 conference included the use of digital and other means to increase participation and inclusion.

Both of our proposals were opposed by the General Secretary and the NEC majority, though in fairness when opposing the latter point there was acknowledgement of the need to look at the use of digital means to increase inclusion in the longer term. A commitment was therefore given that this would be taken into account both in contingency planning and in the discussions around the future of the union.

On the substantive issue of whether or not to hold a Conference, the clear dividing line of opinion was between Left Unity on one side and the IL and the Broad Left Network on the other. Since LU hold a majority, the recommendation to forgo any conference in 2020 was carried.


Every year around this time, the NEC agrees the timetable for elections and Conference in the following year. The IL moved two additional recommendations with the timetable – one to engage in the work to ensure members with workplace ballot addresses update them to their home, minimising potential disruption to the elections if home working and/or lockdown measures remain into the new year election period; and the other to ensure contingency plans are drawn up to ensure elections can go ahead even with a continuing pandemic.

Both motions were supported without opposition. This will hopefully mean that, even if we are no further forward in relation to the pandemic, we have minimised the risk of elections not being able to go ahead and the NEC and GECs sitting for another year without a vote on who makes up those committees.

Motions on Hong Kong and Trans Rights

As we previously reported, IL members had put forward a motion on the situation in Hong Kong and a motion on trans rights. The former motion sought to offer PCS’s solidarity to the Hong Kong Confederation of Trade Unions which fights for independent, rank and file led trade unions on the mainland as well as for democratic demands in Hong Kong and has seen many of its activists victimized by the HK government and arrested. The latter placed PCS firmly in opposition not only to the government scrapping reforms for the Gender Recognition Act but also to its overtures that it would actively discriminate against trans women in its policing of women’s spaces, as well as setting out steps for the union to defend trans members and trans people more broadly both in the workplace and in the political sphere.

After being deferred for the nearly three months due to lack of time to hear it in successive meetings, both motions were passed without opposition.

HMRC: Meet with PCS members for fair wages and conditions

HMRC must take urgent action to resolve the dispute between PCS members employed as cleaners at HM Revenue and Custom’s Birmingham and Merseyside sites and their employer, ISS.

Send a message to HMRC’s CEO so they know how many of us are behind these workers.

Why is this important?

PCS members are in dispute over low pay, unequal sick pay entitlement compared to directly employed HMRC staff and job insecurity.

All workers deserve the dignity and respect that employment usually provides. But the minimum wage is simply not enough to live on. Statutory sick pay rates are so low and only normally payable from the fourth day of illness, meaning staff routinely work when they are sick as they cannot afford not to.

These are dedicated staff whose skills, hard work and enthusiasm are crucial to keeping the UK’s tax offices safe, clean and functioning. In fact, the vital work they do has been recognised by their key worker status during the Covid-19 pandemic. They have continued to work throughout lockdown despite the personal risk to themselves and their families.

The PCS union have approached HMRC several times to urge them to meet their members’ just demands but HMRC has declined to do so.

Send a message to Jim Harra and show your support, here.


Save Ealing Tax Office from closure

Reverse plans to close Ealing tax office.


Why is this important?

HMRC’s ill-considered office closure plans, which they still euphemistically call ‘Building Our Future’, will have a particularly heavy impact on PCS members working in International House in Ealing.

Many members working in the office have been redeployed previously, some several times, before being based at Ealing having therefore already gone through the “torment” of earlier office closures. As a result many Ealing staff do not live in Ealing and this combined with a significant proportion of staff having caring responsibilities and/or disabilities – making it near impossible for them to commute to Stratford.

The closure of International House, if the work there is not relocated locally to another premises will mean that HMRC will no longer have a presence in Ealing, leading to a detrimental local socio economic impact in the area, the impact to the local economy could be as much as £1million per year.4

Sign the online petition now here.

Re-instate Erek Slater! International solidarity now!

PCS Independent Left held its Summer all members’ meeting on Saturday 25 June. A number of important items were discussed and a report will be published in due course.

The meeting also heard from a guest speaker, Erek Slater, a Chicago bus driver and trade union representative sacked for refusing to transport police to and arrested demonstrators from Black Lives Matter protests.  The meeting pledged its solidarity with Erek and will be raising awareness of his campaign throughout PCS and the wider movement.

Erek also spoke to Liverpool Trades Council (LTUC) recently and we include that video here along with LTUC’s statement which outlines the importance of Erek’s struggle for all workers and trade unionists.

LTUC statement here.

See for more information on his campaign.

Please share this and look out for further info, here, in the coming days.