Levy

Philip Mount

Branch Secretary - Home Office Merseyside

philip.mount@homeoffice.gov.uk

Sent by email only

Stop the Levy Payments

Dear Philip,

Thank you for your email of 14 February 2025 and your request for a copy of the

National Executive Committee (NEC) roll calls (a record of how NEC members have

voted). I am receiving a high volume of requests from branches and members for a

copy of the relevant NEC roll calls.

You will note that I have, on numerous occasions, recommended that the strike levy

deductions are paused, on the basis that no national industrial action is planned. In

making the recommendation to pause the levy to the NEC, I was also clear that the

vast majority of PCS representatives in attendance at two senior lay representative

forums had also called for a suspension of the levy.

I also reminded the NEC at its meeting on 7 November 2024 that to carry on with the

levy, when there is no national action, undermines the core purpose of it. It is important

that the integrity of the levy is maintained, so that it is available to be used as

successfully as it was during our campaign of targeted national strike action in 2023.

In ensuring accountability and transparency, votes at NEC meetings are recorded in

the NEC record of decisions. Several NEC members, who share my views about the

levy, have insisted that there is a ‘roll call’ taken of the vote on that issue; meaning that

NEC members, as individuals, are required to declare how they voted.

I made a recommendation to the NEC that levy payments be paused on 12 August

2024, on 27 August 2024, then as soon as the issue could be revisited according to

the union’s rules, I again recommended pausing the levy on 4 December 2024. Each

time my recommendations were rejected by a majority on the NEC. On 14 February

2025, my recommendation was finally supported, by 25 votes to 8.

2

In response to your email, I am sharing the voting information with you, when a roll

call was requested, but you should be aware that the information regarding the roll call

vote taken on 14th February has not yet been signed off by the NEC, so is taken from

the written record of the vote that my office holds. This still needs to be verified by the

NEC at its next meeting in March.

During the NEC on the 27th August I recommended that we pause the levy and the

roll call in respect of that recommendation is as follows:

27 August 2024

VOTE

OUTCOME

LOST

FOR/AGAINST 15F/17A

Senior National

Officers

Cavanagh, Martin

President

FOR

Laidlaw, Bev

Deputy

President

AGAINST

Green, Jacqueline

Vice President

FOR

Semple, Dave

Vice President

AGAINST

Wesley, Hector

Vice President

AGAINST

NEC Members

Alderson, K FOR

Bishell, T AGAINST

Brittle, F AGAINST

Brown, P FOR

Cahill, S FOR

Chown, J Apologies Not present

Clarke, E AGAINST

Corcoran, B FOR

Criddle, G AGAINST

Dando, C FOR

Darcan, C FOR

3

Davidson, J No vote

recorded / not

present?

Not present

Day, C AGAINST

Dennis, A AGAINST

Grant, A FOR

Hamer, C AGAINST

Heemskerk, R AGAINST

Hewitt, R FOR

Lawther, I FOR

Lloyd, M AGAINST

Marks, C AGAINST

Marshall, J FOR

Martin, S FOR

Menezes-

Jackson, V

AGAINST

Morton, S FOR

Nurse, C FOR

Owens, M FOR

Ritchie, R AGAINST

Wright, A AGAINST

Young, R AGAINST

During the NEC meeting on the 4th December I recommended that we pause the

levy, the roll call in respect of that recommendation is as follows:

Senior National Officers Recorded vote 1 (4

December 2024)

Cavanagh, Martin

President

FOR

Laidlaw, Bev

Deputy President

AGAINST

Green, Jacqueline

Vice President

FOR

Semple, Dave

Vice President

AGAINST

Wesley, Hector AGAINST

5

During the NEC meeting on 14th February, as one NEC member who had previously

voted against pausing, had indicated the forthcoming elections might lead him to

now take a different view, myself and the President agreed to, once again and in

spite of the 3 month rule, test the NEC over their willingness to pause the levy. It was

agreed by a majority that we should revisit the issue. I then, once again,

recommended to the NEC that we pause the levy.

The roll call in respect of that recommendation is as follows:

Senior National Officers 14 February 2025

Cavanagh, Martin

President FOR

Laidlaw, Bev

Deputy President FOR

Green, Jacqueline

Vice President FOR

Semple, Dave

Vice President

AGAINST

Wesley, Hector

Vice President FOR

NEC Members

Alderson, K FOR

Bishell, T FOR

Brittle, F AGAINST

Brown, P FOR

Cahill, S FOR

Chown, J FOR

Clarke, E FOR

Corcoran, B FOR

Criddle, G AGAINST

Cox, J FOR

Dando, C FOR

Darcan, C FOR

Davidson, J FOR

Day, C FOR

Dennis, A Not present

Grant, A FOR

Hamer, C AGAINST

Heemskerk, R Not present

Hewitt, R FOR

Lawther, I FOR

Lloyd, M AGAINST

Marks, C FOR

6

Marshall, J FOR

Menezes-Jackson, V FOR

Morton, S FOR

Nurse, C FOR

Owens, M FOR

Ritchie, R AGAINST

Wright, A AGAINST

Young, R AGAINST

As Branch representatives, you are of course free to highlight the position taken by

NEC members to your members.

Yours Sincerely

Fran Heathcote

General Secretary

Letter 2 - 14 February 2025

Dear Martin,

We note with interest the decision today of the NEC to finally agree a pause to the levy. An issue our branch previously wrote to you about.

Over the last few months our branch Reps and members have been baffled by the decisions of the NEC to continue with the levy when it has become so unpopular with members.

It is now likely and unfortunately to be permanently damaged as a concept in the eyes of many members.

Given the importance of the issue to our members and elections around the corner the issue is likely to be spun each and every way. We would urge you to publish the roll calls from the last 2 NEC votes on the issue of pausing the levy in the interests of accountability.  

In solidarity,

Phil

Phil Mount | PCS Home Office Merseyside Branch Secretary | Room 1.19 | The Capital Building | New Hall Place | Liverpool L3 9PP

Letter 1 - October 15th 2024

Dear Martin,

I have been instructed by the PCS Home Office Merseyside Branch Executive Committee to write to you as National President setting out our Reps and members concerns with the recent actions or lack thereof by the NEC and the impact on our members and our membership more generally.

As you will be aware disappointingly as a branch and as a group we were unable to deliver a third successive mandate for industrial action in the spring. There will be multiple and not necessarily competing views on why that was but the message came loud and clear that after pay rises of between 7 and 11% last year the anger that had built up over many years of pitiful rises had waned.

As a branch we considered any prospects of re-balloting would rely on further anger being generated from the decisions of the incoming government. The 5% pay remit guidance came as something of a surprise and although not matching the PCS claim did not rile p the anger necessary to reengage our members with talks of further strikes.  

This was further compounded with Pay talks in the Home Office delivering rises of around 7.5% or higher. Questions generated by our members were not those of “what are PCS going to do about it?” but “when will we get it?”

Across 3 Pay meetings attended by hundreds of members the feedback was clear that the pay offer was acceptable to them and whilst explaining flaws with the shape of the offer there was no offer of negativity from members or Branch Reps either in terms of the offer. Members thanked PCS for what had been achieved both verbally and by dozens of messages in the side bar.

It was therefore very disappointing to see whilst we were having these positive engagements within the building individuals with no association with the Branch and referring to themselves or being supportive of “The Majority on the NEC” were handing out negative leaflets to members outside attacking the pay campaign, attacking the general secretary and the national president and giving a very negative message about pay and PCS as a whole. No doubt causing confusion in the minds of our members from what the top of PCS were telling them and what their local reps were saying and indeed what the reality is.

This is pretty embarrassing for us as a union. To add further embarrassment during our pay meetings many members brought up the issue of why they were continuing to be charged a levy on top of their membership fees when we have no mandate for further industrial action. We had to say that as a group and as a branch we have made representations that the levy should be paused, that the Elected General Secretary had put those proposals to the NEC but the NEC has rejected them with no consultation of our members.

The leaflet also laughably said it was this so called majority on the NEC who wanted to urgently review the levy despite not only reports form the NEC meetings showing the opposite but also hearing directly from members of their group in forums such as the SLR Forums recently stating how it must continue.

We have grown over the last few years to become one of, if not the biggest, branch in the union and the Branch felt it was important we had a voice and stated our concerns formally. Our analysises of membership data shows month on month we are losing members citing the cost or simply cancelling their direct debits.

The NEC needs to reflect the view of the membership and show we are on their side and in touch with reality on big issues such as pay not serving as a vehicle for political grievances.  

The Negative messaging needs to stop as do the attacks on the Elected General Secretary and National President. There are elections and balloting periods for all that.

If not we will lose the trust of our members.

Regards

Phil Mount

Phil Mount | PCS Home Office Merseyside Branch Secretary | Room 1.19 | The Capital Building | New Hall Place | Liverpool L3 9PP