2026 PCS Home Office Merseyside Branch Annual General Meeting

The AGM will be held on Wednesday 4th March at 11:30am-12:30pm using MS Teams.

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

2.               Adoption of the agenda

3.               Apologies

4.               Appointment of tellers

5.               AGM 2025 Record of decisions

6.               Branch Annual Report 

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.           Any other business

Branch Officers - All elected

President - Karen Bolger

Vice President - Kris Rowe

Secretary - Phil Mount

Assistant Secretary – Mark Spencer-Scragg

Organiser – Jacqueline Halsall-Hughes

Assistant Organiser – Sophie Ford

Treasurer – Andrew Nixon

Branch Executive Committee members - All elected

Dean Barron

Clare Kay

Phil Brightmore

Simon Porter

Andrew Mabbs

Chris Helm

Paul Jobson

Ben Ramsdale

Charlotte Hopley - New

Rochelle Upton - New

Jonathan Naylor - New

Claire Weston - New

Kieran Jones - New

Tess Penman - New

Victoria Hodson - New

John Carmody - New

Jivvel Mensah - New

Jack Miller - New

Andrew Clements - New

Fiona Unwin - New

*This year, we made a plea for more members to stand as reps. At one-point during the nominations period we were looking at 24 candidates for 18 positions and were looking at needing an election for the first time in more than a decade.

Due to an election being unexpected the timeline we set out for nominations didn't leave much time to hold an

election. There would have been a very short window to receive election statements from candidates and run the ballot of less than 2 weeks. Due to withdrawals this reduced to 19 and the current Branch committee made a decision to elect all nominees without an election. In addition to the short window, recent experience has shown us that there will be be resignations during the year and we don't want to discourage members who have stepped forward. Due to a late additional nomination, we are now at 20 (+2).
The committee also agreed that Next year we will insert a larger window between close of nominations and AGM to ensure if needed we can accommodate an election.

Auditors (2 posts)

(2 vacancies)

Once againm we had no nominees for Branch auditors.

PCS Home Office Group Conference Delegates (7)

1. Karen Bolger

2. Ben Ramsdale

3. Kris Rowe

4. Sophie Ford

5. Mark Spencer-Scragg

6. Paul Jobson

7. Lindsay Melia

8. Charlotte Hopley

*Branch have made a request for a trainee delegate position so all 8 can attend this year 

PCS National Conference Delegates (7)

1. Phil Mount

2. Ben Ramsdale

3. Mark Spencer-Scragg

4. Charlotte Hopley

5. Lindsay Melia

6. Kris Rowe

7. Vacant

PCS Home Office Group Executive Committee nominations

Group Executive Committee member – Andrew Mabbs

Group Executive Committee member – Simon Porter

Group Executive Committee member – Mark Spencer-Scragg

Group Executive Committee member – Paul Jobson

Motions

Motions relating to the Home Office Merseyside Branch

Motion 1 

This branch AGM notes:

1.The attacks on hotels housing vulnerable refugees this year.

2.The deepening divisions in our communities.

3.That hate crime in England and Wales is on the rise for first time in three years.

4.The increase of racially aggravated attacks and the sexual assaults of women. We

note the attacks in Walsall, in Oldbury and in Wolverhampton.

5.That the Office for National Statistics - Crime in England and Wales statistics for

2025 show that 739,000 women reported a sexual assault. These figures show yet

another increase in the trend that we have seen in the data over the last decade.

The Government’s official statistics for crime outcomes from 2024 – 2025 show that

during that time 2.6% of sexual assaults reported resulted in a charge.

6.That in the racist anti-migrant attacks of 2024, over 40% of those arrested in the

riots had previously been reported for domestic abuse. Riots that were motivated by

a false rhetoric of concern for women’s and girls’ safety.

7.In August of this year, more than 100 women’s right groups known as the End

Violence Women Coalition wrote a joint letter to the PM calling for urgent action

against the weaponisation of violence against women and girls by far-right groups

and mainstream politicians to further a racist, anti-migrant agenda.

8.The damage that is done by the far-right reinforcing the myth that the greatest risk

of gender-based violence comes from strangers in their anti-migrant “caring” about

women rhetoric.

9.The rise in far-right right activities this year has left families, women and children

living in temporary asylum accommodation afraid to leave their front door.

This branch AGM believes:

1. That the rhetoric of the far right is disingenuous in nature.

2. That the far right do not have ‘legitimate concerns’ and that their activities,

endorsed by mainstream politicians, risk normalising and enabling the spread of

racist narratives.

3.That the misinformation and false concern of the far right fails to keep women safe

and distracts and impedes the work of tackling violence against women and girls

(VAWG) which has been termed a national emergency by many.

4.That the far right’s activity in spreading false statistics and misinformation acts as a

barrier to justice for victims of VAWG.

5.That VAWG is a trade union issue as these crimes happen in the workplace as

much as every area of our society.

This branch AGM agrees:

1.To stand in solidarity with all victims of violence against women and girls, and to

stand in solidarity with migrants and refugees.

2.To support the Liverpool launch of Women Against the Far Right on 9th March

2026.

3.To promote the public meeting within our networks and encourage attendance and

engagement by our members.

(Proposed L. Melia, Seconded C. Hopley)

Motions relating to issues in the Home Office

Motion 2  Delivering the Green Agenda

Conference welcomes that Home Office Executive Committee (ExCo) has decided

that sustainability and climate security are strategic priorities for the department and

that climate change is now identified as a risk in the Home Office strategic risk

register. However, there is still much work to be done, and we need to drastically

reduce emissions, faster and at scale if we are serious about limiting the worst

impacts of climate change.

The climate crisis is no longer a future threat, we are facing it in the here and now.

As trade unionists, we all have a key role to play in Greening our workplaces,

pushing forward the green agenda and campaigning for a just transition. Climate

change is too big and important for us to not rise to the challenge.

Conference notes the contents of the Home Office Group annual report which states

“The green agenda in Home Office continued to be low profile in 2025”.

However, conference welcomes the stated intention of the GEC that this is an area

which they would like to grow and therefore calls on the GEC to:

 Engage with the department as a matter of urgency to either establish a

Home Office Forum to discuss ‘Green Issues’ or ensure that PCS is

represented on existing forums such as the Greening Government

Commitments (GGC) forum which meets quarterly to discuss progress

against targets.

 Create a Home Office Group Environmental Action Plan (GEAP) to establish

a strategy based on the Workplace Environmental Action Plan (WEAP)

template.

 Issue a branch bulletin to ask that all branches ensure that they have a

Branch Green Rep and those who already have a Green Rep are given

details of the Branch Reps forum on Green Issues and encouraged to be

active participants.

 Support branches to conduct Workplace Environmental Audits (WEA).

(Proposed L. Melia, Seconded C. Hopley)

Motion 3

Conference notes that:

Home Office Merseyside Branch has seen a 600% increase in Reasonable

Adjustment related casework from 2024-2025 and discussion with other

branches informs us that we are far from alone in this trend.

Our branch representatives report increased resistance to implementing

recommended and requested adjustments, and removal of existing adjustments

previously found to be reasonable.

Line managers are routinely failing (and indeed refusing) to follow Home Office

Reasonable Adjustments guidance which states at paragraph 74 that where a line

manager determines a requested/recommended/existing adjustment cannot be

accommodated they must inform the employee in writing why this is the case with

specific reference to the five bullet points in paragraph 25, which structures the

reasonableness test in line with ACAS guidance. This requires the refusing manager

to explain why the adjustment is not effective, not practicable, not cost-effective,

causes disruption, and/or creates a risk.

When adjustments are refused/removed, the member is faced with few

options to resolve the matter aside from raising a formal grievance. This is

something many are, understandably, reluctant to do. Those who do decide to

raise a grievance often face the unfair barrier of having to themselves find a

decision manager willing to take the case. This can lead to grievances not

being followed through and discrimination left unchallenged.

HO Merseyside branch has represented several members in their grievances

over the past 12 months, which PCS legal have also supported, where

managers have failed to implement reasonable adjustments. This could have

been avoided if managers were trained sufficiently and supported by their

senior managers to ensure RAs are correctly implemented.

Some managers do not appear to be aware of the seriousness of failing to

implement RAs and how this could result in disability discrimination.  

Conference instructs the GEC to:

Negotiate with the department to amend the Workplace Reasonable

Adjustments policy and guidance to create an appeals process when

reasonable adjustments are refused/removed; this should explicitly ensure the

appeal is handled by a suitable manager outside of the member's line-

management chain, who is impartial and was not involved in the decision

being appealed.

Negotiate with the department for senior management to take steps to ensure

their policy and associated guidance is followed, including issuing clear

instructions to that effect, in particular ensuring that reasons for

refusing/removing adjustments are laid out in writing with explicit reference to

the relevant reasonableness test, and to enforce this where required. To

support this, the GEC should gather evidence from branches to demonstrate

the widespread non-compliance with this policy.

(Proposed B. Ramsdale, Seconded J, Dalzell)

Motion 4.

Conference notes that:

Last year, conference passed Motion A2, instructing the GEC to gather and

build a base of evidence to show that managers are failing to correctly

implement the new Attendance Management Policy, in particular, by not

identifying a reasonable cause for concern to justify use of the formal

procedure. This was to prepare for the review of that policy due in October of

2025.

As of the time of writing this motion, several months after October 2025, that

review has yet to begin as the department is completing a review of another

policy which has delayed this review due to limited resources.

In Home Office Merseyside Branch, we continue to deal with a heavy

casework load where managers persist in treating hitting review points as a

cause for concern in and itself, despite this being clearly against policy.

While some training has been rolled out in some areas, this approach has

been patchy and has failed to meet our group's policy of comprehensive,

mandatory training and support for all managers which includes clear,

detailed, unambiguous instructions with examples for avoidance of doubt.

This continues to cause unnecessary stress to members and create more

work for branch representatives.

Conference instructs the GEC to:

Report back to branches as soon as practicable after conference on the

evidence gathering undertaken in pursuit of Group Motion A2 from 2025 and

the trends and issues identified.

Keep pressure on the department to ensure that the review of the Attendance

Management Policy begins as soon as possible and is completed during

2026.

Continue to apply pressure on the department to roll out comprehensive,

mandatory training and support for all managers on the new policy; to include

clear, detailed, unambiguous instructions with examples for avoidance of

doubt.

Continue to push for improvements in the policy that move from a punitive to a

supportive approach.

(Proposed B. Ramsdale, Seconded J, Dalzell)

Motion 5.

Conference notes the increasing use of AI within the department and more staff are

not only being trained on it but relying on it. AI is starting to encompass every area of

the Home Office, including national security. Whilst AI is currently in its infancy, the

technology is growing rapidly, and job security could therefore be an issue in the

years to come.

Conference therefore instructs the incoming GEC to have an individual, whether

AGS or ordinary member, to be solely responsible for engaging with the employer

around the use of AI, and to gather data on its use and what it could potentially mean

to job security in the future. This person should meet with all areas of the business

that are users and potential users of AI, determine how much AI is used in that role

and whether it is proportionate to that role. This person should seek to speak to

policy so there is a clear framework in place, so managers and staff understand its

use, limitations and what legal obligations, if any, there are around its use.

(Proposed S. Porter, Seconded A.Mabbs)

Motions relating to the national union

Motion 6 World on Fire: Fund our Fire and Rescue Service

After over a decade of austerity our Fire and Rescue Service is at breaking point. 

The demands on firefighters are rising fast, with climate change creating more extreme 

wildfires, flooding, and severe weather. Yet the service responsible for protecting us is 

being asked to do more with less.

Over the past 14 years, the service has been hit by devastating cuts:

•         Nearly 12,000 frontline firefighter roles have been lost

•         82 fire stations and 17 control rooms have closed

•         More than 200 fire engines have been removed from the frontline in England

At the same time, the absence of national standards means the emergency response people 

receive when they call 999 depends on where they live. Across the board, response times

 have slowed: today, the first fire engine arrives at a fire on average 3 minutes later than 

it did in the 1990s. Delays, reduced crew sizes and fewer resources are putting lives at risk.

Demand on the fire service is only growing. Data from the Ministry of Housing, Communities 

and Local Government (MHCLG) for the number of incidents attended by a fire and rescue 

service in 2025 shows a 25% increase over the past decade.

Central government funding has been cut by 20% since 2010. The latest three-year

financial settlement has failed to increase the amount of funding available for the fire

and rescue service.

As a result, fire and rescue services across the UK are facing huge budget deficits.

Without urgent intervention, more frontline cuts will be inevitable, and communities

will be less safe.

Conference therefore instructs the NEC to:

1)Work with FBU and Environmental and tax justice groups to support the FBU’s

calls for:

•Significant new central government funding for the fire and rescue service, to

ensure sufficient firefighters, emergency fire control staff and specialist resources to

meet wildfire and flooding risks.

•Investment in frontline resources so firefighters can continue to keep communities

safe.

•Introducing national standards to guarantee a safe and reliable response,

regardless of postcode.

•A statutory duty for fire services in England to respond to flooding, consistent with

the arrangements that already exist in Scotland, Northern Ireland, and Wales.

•A UK-wide wildfire resilience strategy, developed with the Fire Brigades Union and

other stakeholders, ensuring consistent standards for planning, training, and

response.

2)Work with the Trade Union Coordinating Group, PCS Parliamentary team, and

PCS Parliamentary Group to lobby MPs to support the calls outlined above and

oppose cuts to local fire and rescue services.

(Proposed L. Melia, Seconded C. Hopley)

Motion 7

In 2019 PCS Union, Parliament, over 50 local councils and over 190 cultural

institutions declared a Climate Emergency. Whilst some progress has been made,

the response has not been adequate in proportion to the scale of the emergency we

face.

Conference is dismayed by the findings of the National Security Assessment report

‘Global biodiversity loss, ecosystem collapse and national security’ which

acknowledged global biodiversity loss and ecosystem collapse as a critical threat to

the UK’s national security, economy and public order.

The climate and nature crisis is a multi-pronged emergency impacting all aspects of

British life, from national security to the food supply.

On 27th November, ten of the UK’s leading experts briefed an invited audience of

over 1,200 politicians and leaders from business, culture, faith, sport and the media

with the latest implications for health, food, national security and the economy.

When independent experts set out credible evidence of escalating national risk,

those in public office have a responsibility to ensure the public is informed and

prepared.

Conference believes that the Government should launch a science-led national

emergency response to climate and nature breakdown showing the same leadership

and determination as in WW2 and during the financial crisis.

The Climate and Nature Bill is the most comprehensive response to the briefing. This

cross-party, science led legislation would initiate a national emergency response by

making the UK’s international commitment to the global 1.5C carbon budget legally

binding (the Paris Agreement) as well as the UK’s commitment to halting and

reversing nature loss by 2030 (the Montreal Agreement). The CAN Bill is supported

by many of the scientists who delivered the National Emergency Briefing.

Key proposals in the CAN Bill

•Create a joined-up plan—as the crises in climate and nature are deeply intertwined,

requiring a plan that considers both together.

•Cut emissions in line with our international 2015 Paris Agreement-aligned Nationally

Determined Contributions (NDCs)—expanded to include international aviation and

shipping.

•Halt and reverse ecosystem decline in nature across the UK by 2030—in line with

the mission of the 2022 Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework.

•Take responsibility for Britain’s overseas footprints—both emissions and ecological.

•Prioritise nature in decision-making—and end fossil fuel production and imports as

rapidly as possible.

•Ensure no-one and no community is left behind in the nature-positive just transition

needed—through fairness provisions.

•Involve the public—giving people a say in finding a fair way forward through a

Climate and Nature Assembly.

Conference welcomes the vital work by cross-party MPs to address the climate and

nature crisis including many from the PCS Parliamentary Group.

Conference instructs the NEC to:

•Support the call for a televised version of the National Emergency Briefing.

•Work with the PCS Parliamentary Team, Trade Union Co-ordinating Group (TUCG)

and PCS Parliamentary Group to lobby MPs to support the Climate and Nature Bill

and encourage MPs to join the Climate and Nature Crisis Caucus.

•Support climate change campaigns by working with campaign groups such as Zero

Hour, National Emergency briefing, and Climate Coalition.

(Proposed L. Melia, Seconded C. Hopley)