1. Chair’s Opening Remarks - Karen Bolger (Branch President)

2. Adoption of the agenda

3. Apologies

4. Appointment of tellers

5. AGM 2022 Record of decisions

6. Branch Annual Report (Click here)

7. Branch nominations (See below)

8. Home Office Group nominations (See below)

9. PCS National nominations (See below)

10. Motions for debate (See below)

11. Nomination for Honorary Life Membership

(i)Derek Mellor -In recognition of exceptional service to the Branch

Carried unanimously 

12. Any other business

Nominations

PCS Home Office Merseyside Branch nominations

Properly-received nominations for branch posts

President - Karen Bolger

Vice President - Kris Rowe

Secretary - Phil Mount

Assistant Secretary – Jacqueline Hughes

Organiser - Adam Holmes

Assistant Organiser – Vacant

Treasurer – Helen Gilbert

All elected unopposed.

Branch Executive Committee members (15)

Chris Smith, Dean Barron, Clare Kay, Philip Brightmore, Mark Spencer-Scragg, Appi Koovory, Andrew Nixon, Elizabeth Robinson, Simon Porter, Elizabeth Johnson, Julie Coughlin, Andrew Mabbs, Martin Snape, Emma Mooney (1 vacancy)

Auditors (2 posts)

Jonathon Evans, (1 vacancy)

Delegates to PCS Home Office Group Conference (5)

Karen Bolger, Helen Gilbert, Kris Rowe, Mark Spencer-Scragg, (1 vacancy)

Delegates to PCS National Conference (5)

Kris Rowe, Adam Holmes, Helen Gilbert, Mark Spencer-Scragg, (1 vacancy)

All elected unopposed

PCS Home Office Group Nominations

Properly-received nominations for Home Office Group posts

President

James Cox (Croydon)

Assistant Group Secretary

Philip Mount (Merseyside)

Karen Alderson (HMPO Northern)

Rebecca Hunter (DBS)

Group Executive Committee members

Adam Holmes (Merseyside)

Jacqueline Halsall-Hughes (Merseyside)

Anne-Louise Mckeon-Williams

Jordan David

Malcolm Speechley

Phil Mount (Merseyside)

Simon Porter (Merseyside)

All nominations agreed.

PCS National nominations

Properly-received nominations for national posts

President

Fran Heathcote - DWP Tyneside & Northumbria

Vice Presidents (4)

Martin Cavanagh – DWP Wirral, Kevin McHugh – HMRC Benton Park, Hannah David - Historic England & English Heritage, Jackie Green – MOJ Bradford

All nominations agreed.

National Executive Committee members (30)

Mark Baker – DCLG Bristol & South West

Paula Brown – HSE National

Bridget Corcoran – DWP Tyneside & Northumbria

James Cox – Home Office Croydon

Chris Dando – Dsg South West

Felicity Flynn – MOJ Associated Offices

Ginnette Ganchuk – HMPPS

Angela Grant – DWP Wirral

Austin Harney - MOJ Associated Offices

Ros Hewitt – MOJ HQ

Tracy Hylton – HMRC Liverpool

Pete Jackson – DWP Birmingham South

John Jamieson – Registers of Scotland

Claire Keenan – R&C Stratford

Ian Lawther - HMRC East Midlands

John Livingstone – DWP Glasgow

Liz McGachey – DWP Glasgow

Jas McGuinness – Maximus CHDA

Lorna Merry – HMRC Bucks & Oxon

Sarah Morton – DWP Liverpool

Marianne Owens – HMRC South Wales

Ian Pope – DWP Glasgow

Joshua Rampton MOJ Associated Offices

Mohammed Shafiq - DWP Manchester

Collette Smith - HMRC Liverpool

Steve Swainston – DWp Durham House

Steve Thorley – CPS East Midlands

Karen Watts – MOJ Wessex

Hector Wesley – HMRC Euston Tower

Paul Williams – DFT Nottingham

All nominations agreed.

Editorial Board (5)

Malcolm Clark - Scottish Government

Gemma Criddle - HMRC

Rebecca Hunter - DBS

Kevin McCafferty - DWP

Julian Sharpe - PSG UK Export Finance)

All nominations agreed.

Member Trustee (1)

Ian Albert

All nominations agreed.

Delegations to TUC Conferences

TUC

Davina Camadoo (DWP)

Ian College (HMRC)

Sarah Evans (DVLA)

Sharon King (MoJ)

Carol Revell (DWP)

Tracey Williams (DLUHC PINS)

Women's TUC

Sharon King - MOJ, Megan Hamblin - HMRC, Carol Revell - DWP

Youth TUC

Jo Pritchard (DWP), Georgia Stokoe (DWP)

Scottish TUC

Malcolm Clark - Scottish Government, Ruth Henderson - Scottish Government, Sharon King - MOJ, Steve West - DWP

Scottish Women's TUC

Ruth Henderson - Scottish Government, Sharon King – MOJ

All nominations agreed.

Motions relating to issues in the Home Office

Motion 1 (Agency Workers/Open and fair recruitment principles) Carried

This Conference notes that Motion A3 was carried at the 2018 Home Office Group Conference GEC to take forward a campaign highlighting the failure of the agency model in the Department, push for tighter rules governing the use of agency staff, encourage the Department to annually publish the total cost of the use of agency staff to the staff via internal intranet and to review the current use of agency posts across the Department and seek to regularise these posts to ‘Civil Service Status’ via fair and open competition mechanism.

Conference further notes that the GEC did write to the then Director General for HMPO setting out it’s opposition to the continued and significant use of Agency workers, and received only the department’s confirmation of its determination to continue the practice due to the flexibility it offered.

However, no campaign took off after this.

Conference still believes that the lack of job security for Agency workers is unacceptable and that the model of using agency staff has to be brought to a conclusion.

The Department still appears to be wedded to the use of agency staff and fails to learn the lessons of history. Furthermore, it appears to be the department’s preferred method of recruitment, particularly at AO grade, is now to recruit Agency workers with the full intention of applying to the Civil Service Commission for an exception to convert Agency members to

Fixed Term appointments and then to Permanent status after 12 months without any Open and Fair competitive process.

The Constitution Reform and Governance Act 2010 (CRAG) made the requirement for recruitment to the Civil Service to be on merit, after a fair and open competition a legal obligation. CRAG provides the Commission with its remit as the regulator of external Civil Service recruitment.

The Civil Service Commissions Recruitment Principles sets out that Appointments must be made on merit, through fair and open competition whenever suitable but there are 10 exceptions.

Furthermore, at grades AA-SCS1 departments are typically granted delegated authority to appoint by exception, in line with the terms set out by the Recruitment Principles, without requiring the Commission’s prior approval, only that they must report such appointments to the Commission via the quarterly compliance survey.

Exception 1 allows the department to make temporary appointments and the Commission gives the example of “An urgent appointment which provides resource whilst a fair and open competition takes place, or where resource is required for a short term, time limited project (for instance, the Census)

By definition, such appointments are exceptional.

Exception 10 allows for conversion to permanency of AA/ AO grades appointed via Exception 1 provided they have been in post for 12 months.

Conference believes exceptions are being used to circumvent the principle of Open and fair competition and to mask the department’s deep-rooted struggles to recruit at the AA/AO grades.

The GEC is therefore instructed to:

write to the department to request the number of Agency workers currently in post

write to the department and/or the Civil Service commission to request

the number of times each year since 2017 approval for Exceptions 1 and 10 have been requested by the department or reported to the Commission via the quarterly compliance survey.

the number of individual posts in each year since 2017 converted by exceptions 1 and 10.

And, the number of posts at AA/AO grade recruited traditionally through fair and open competition in the same period.

Report back to members on the figures reported

take forward a campaign highlighting the failure of the agency model in the Department

Push for tighter rules governing the use of agency staff

Encourage the Department to annually publish the total cost of the use of agency staff to the staff via internal intranet

Encourage the department to reaffirm it’s commitment to fair and open competition and to only use exceptions in truly exceptional circumstances.

Push for a review of the current use of agency posts across the Department and seek to regularise these posts to ‘Civil Service Status’ via fair and open competition.

Proposed by Home Office Merseyside Branch Executive Committee

Motion 2 Miscarriage Policy Carried

There are serious misgivings and possibly unlawful elements within the current Home Office policy on sickness, following a miscarriage. At present if a woman has the terrible misfortune of suffering a miscarriage under 24 weeks of pregnancy, she will only be entitled to 14 days special leave. Some women will find this sufficient, depending on individual circumstances, however for many women, the diagnosis of miscarriage is just the beginning of a very traumatic process, both physically and mentally. Many women will need to take additional sick leave following the initial 14 days special leave. If further absence is required, this is currently managed under the sickness absence management process, which could result in a disciplinary warning, and is currently completely separate from the current protection women are afforded under pregnancy, despite the obvious link.

The miscarriage association states that “if you need sick leave after a miscarriage (for physical or mental health reasons) it should be recorded as pregnancy-related sickness. This means that it should not be used against you in any way (for example as a reason to discipline you). You are able to self-certify that the leave is pregnancy related for the first 7 days. After this you will need a fit note from a GP or medical practitioner to certify that it is pregnancy related. There is no limit on sickness absence after miscarriage, so long as your GP or medical practitioner certifies that it’s pregnancy related”. The miscarriage association specifically state that sickness absence after a miscarriage is protected as pregnancy related sickness. They state that despite some “employers thinking that an employee can only take 2 weeks of pregnancy-related sickness following a miscarriage, it is up to the GP/medical professional to advise on time off following a miscarriage and whether the sickness is related to the pregnancy/miscarriage”. The miscarriage association state that employers who do not adhere to these rules risk being in breach of discrimination laws and could open themselves to legal action. They also state that “A woman will be entitled to any sick pay she is usually entitled to”.

Due to Home Office sickness policy’s absence of the above considerations and having a draconian policy which punishes women rather than lawfully protects them after a miscarriage, This Conference instructs the GEC do the following:

As part of the current review on attendance management in the Home Office,

conduct a complete review of the current policy on miscarriage under 24 weeks, consulting with, if necessary, the miscarriage association themselves, referring to the above quoted elements of their policy. With a view to ensure that following a miscarriage, women are given the same protections as afforded during pregnancy, if a medical professional/GP provides a fit note determining the absence is pregnancy related.

The GEC feedback the results of the consultation, and any steps which are being taken to have the Policy amended to reflect the proposals.

Proposed by Home Office Merseyside Branch Executive Committee

Motion 3 Progress on Motions Carried

After a motion is passed at conference, it’s then delegated to an appropriate member/members of the GEC for negotiation with the department. With respect, it is quite often however, that after conference, no more is heard of about a particular motion as no feedback report is provided. Or the department provide a response to the GEC which is accepted, feedback not provided to Conference, and the motion is then forgotten, lost in the ether.

Conference instruct the GEC to do the following:

Provide timely feedback to the Branch of the motion, at latest, October following conference, detailing where negotiations are up to and the GEC’s ongoing plan.

Where the motion cannot be negotiated/implemented, provide a detailed explanation to the Branch.

If no feedback is provided to the Branch, allowance made for the branch to resubmit the motion at a following year.

Proposed by Home Office Merseyside Branch Executive Committee

Motion 4 (Recruitment) Carried

That this Home Office Group Conference notes that the Home Office self-promotes on a platform of being a family-friendly employer. However, members are experiencing the opposite.

Conference also notes that often when a post is advertised there will often be a caveat that the applicant must be willing to work 5 days, Monday to Friday, which immediately deters a large proportion of potential staff, primarily women, who are carers more likely to have young children and some of whom cannot rely on family

for support nor can afford to put young children into childcare 5 days per week. The same women might have devoted their entire career to the department but in this way are prevented from progressing. Conference is aware that there is often a disclaimer in the small print suggesting that flexible working requests will be considered but the application and interview process is stressful enough and many people hesitate to put themselves through it in the knowledge that even if they’re successful, the working pattern that they need might be rejected.

Conference recognises that civil servants have been subjected to a combination of pay freezes or below inflation increases since 2010 so for many the only avenue to improve their remuneration is to consider applying for posts on promotion.

This Conference instructs the Group Executive Committee (GEC) to request data from the Home Office to establish how many of those recruited in 2021 and 2022 whether internally or externally, permanent or temporary, were placed directly into posts as part-time or part-year appointments. Should the figures be significantly out of step with the proportion of part-time or part-year workers across the department, or they are disproportionate when comparing directorates across the Home Office, the GEC are further instructed to seek talks with the department with a view to ensuring that the recruitment process is more fair and encourages more women and carers to apply for positions. If the said data isn’t available, the GEC are instructed to ask the department to begin collecting data this year and feed back to the GEC once a full years’ data is captured.

Proposed by Home Office Merseyside Branch Executive Committee

Motion 5 (Flexible Working) Carried

That this Home Office Group Conference notes that an increasing number of flexible working requests have been unreasonably rejected which, in the worst cases, have led to members having to resign their posts. The Home Office claims to be a family-friendly employer but the experience of many members suggests otherwise

This conference is aware that reasons given for refusal of many requests are staff shortages, leavers not being replaced or no further recruitment planned in the short term. It is rare that the consideration of a flexible working request will involve looking at swapping staff across business areas to help accommodate those submitting the requests. This conference does not believe it to be acceptable that considerations of such requests don’t embrace the wider business and whether the request can be accommodated elsewhere in the department.

This conference instructs the Group Executive Committee (GEC) to obtain data from the department of how many flexible working requests were made by staff in 2021 and 2022, how many of that total were rejected, and the reasons given. Should the number of refusals across the department or within directorates be considered unacceptable the GEC are further instructed to seek talks with the department to consider ways in which the process can be improved so that more requests are granted so helping with caring responsibilities and preventing members from having to resign their posts. If the said data is unavailable, the GEC are instructed to ask the department to begin collecting data this year and feed back to the GEC once a full years’ data is captured.

Proposed by Home Office Merseyside Branch Executive Committee

Motions relating to the national union

Motion 6 (Asylum Seekers / Refugee Victimisation) Carried

This ADC welcomes and support the initiatives of the NEC in defence of Asylum Seekers and Refugees due to the aggressive actions of the Westminster Government whose policies represent a danger to vulnerable refugees and asylum seekers and also interferences with home office asylum and refugee procedures.

The Pushback policy promoted last year by the Westminster Government coincided with unprecedented refugee deaths crossing the channel, with 27 taking place in the space of a week. The Pushback Policy instructed UK naval and public service workers to turn back overcrowded and unsafe boats in UK waters in conflict with international maritime law to save lives at risk at sea.

Conference applauds the actions of Home Office members and also the NEC, Care4Calais, Channel Rescue and Freedom From Torture for taking the Government to Judicial Review on the Pushback policy. The policy was withdrawn days before the Judicial Review commencing, which actions have undoubtedly saved lives.

There is no safe legal route for Asylum Seekers or refugees into the UK and the Government have continued to attack vulnerable people in flight using Rwanda as a “safe” third country to process Asylum seekers who enter the country crossing the channel (which the UK Government deem to be illegal). Conference understands that whilst initiating legal proceedings does expose PCS to a financial risk, the threat to vulnerable lives and the additional pressures this puts on Home Office staff is such that we fully support the actions of the NEC launching a Judicial Review on Rwanda Flights with Care4Calais.

PCS has presented considerable evidence in the Judicial Review from the UK High Commissioner for Rwanda, the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office refuting Rwanda’s status as a “safe” country, also raising concerns that refugees have been pressed into the Rwandan military for overseas operations. This is particularly vile since many asylum seekers are fleeing military repression or war zones. The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees also maintained in court that they did not consider Rwanda a safe country to send refugees to and called for an embargo on the policy.

The NEC are instructed to continue to closely monitor and challenge the current hostile actions of the Government in respect of Refugees and Asylum Seekers and continue to work with the Home Office Group in trying to establish safe and legal corridors into UK. ALL Asylum Seekers and Refugees are welcome here!

Proposed by Home Office Merseyside Branch Executive Committee