TO:   Martin Smith	FROM:    Martin John
         National Secretary
DATE:     11 November 2005
I have given long and careful consideration to the position taken by the party over the vote at the PCS NEC to endorse the framework agreement on pensions reached through the Pubic Sector Forum. I voted for Mark Serwotka's paper to the executive against the; line of the party and. whatever the limited opportunity for proper discussion, I knew that this was the case,
! am also aware that, notwithstanding the disagreement about the tone of the article in SW 1974, the party position was supported at Party Council and has the support of a majority of comrades within the fraction. I still find myself m disagreement for the reasons set out below,
1. Within PCS the surprise concession was viewed as a victory. 1 argued unsuccessfully for a branch consultation. Nothing that has happened in PCS since leads me to conclude that l dropped the demand prematurely.
2. Nobody could have done more than Mark to bring the local authority schemes into the Public Sector Forum talks. Without support from UNISON this could not be achieved.
3. The vote was not a vote to accept a two-tier workforce but a difficult tactical decision. I believe it was correct on the basis that the concession made by the government removed, in the short term, the option of industrial action.
4. Whilst there is certainly a need for better organisation between the lefts in these unions, I certainly don't believe there was ever a genuine opportunity for Mark to appeal over the heads of the other leaders as some have argued.
5   We are right to warn that this is not the final position on public sector pensions. The exact pension benefits available in the future remain to be seen. There may yet be a fight.
6. There is also very likely to be confrontation over public sector pay, and industrial resistance to privatisation, in which Mark will play a crucial role. Whilst we should be critical, this is no time to be led by the sectarians into a break with him.

These are clearly serious points of disagreement. I do not believe it will therefore be possible to continue to play a leading role within the fraction. I have also, for the last five years, acted as a dose adviser to Mark and publicly arguing a position I obviously did not fully share would make this very difficult.
After twenty seven years in the party it is with regret that I have decided to resign. In a different period such a decision would be a sure sign of a permanent political break. With important battles ahead, and the exciting challenge posed by Respect, that is not how I view this. I look forward to an opportunity to renew my association with the party in the future on the basis of a sufficient agreement over industrial work.

Yours in solidarity