§ 1. Mr. Dalyellasked the Secretary of State for Employment what recent discussions he has had with the International Labour Organisation about the withdrawal of trade union rights at Government Communications Headquarters.
§ The Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Tom King)The International Labour Organisation has written in connection with the report on GCHQ by the Committee on Freedom of Association. The Government will be responding to this report within the next few weeks.
§ Mr. DalyellCan the Secretary of State explain to the ILO why, if there was a real, serious threat to national security, the Government took no action for three long years after the events of which they complain? How could competent Ministers allow themselves to be involved in such dereliction of duty?
§ Mr. KingI see that the hon. Gentleman recognises that there is a case for taking action because of the deliberate campaign to damage defence readiness, which was part of the Civil Service dispute. I believe that the time scale shows the lengths to which the Government went to see whether alternative routes were available.
§ Mr. BudgenWhen the Government said at the beginning of the dispute that they would be bound by the domestic legal process, did they mean that they would not accept the jurisdiction of the European Court of Human Rights in this matter?
§ Mr. KingThe question of being bound by the domestic legal process had relevance to the request from the trade unions for a stay of any further action with regard to the employees affected at GCHQ.
§ Mr. WrigglesworthWill the Secretary of State therefore give an assurance that national security will not be used as a pretext for banning trade unions in other Government Departments?
§ Mr. KingI think that that assurance has been given very clearly indeed throughout the main generality of the Civil Service. The hon. Gentleman will be aware of the specific provision of convention 151, that
employees whose duties are of a highly confidential nature should be determined by national laws and regulations.
§ Mr. Bill WalkerWhen my right hon. Friend meets bodies, such as the ILO, will he point out that GCHQ is 142 unique in that a vital part of its work is carried out within our intelligence framework, that the individuals working there understand and have always understood that and that that is why they never took action in the past? Is he aware that when I represented them 20 years ago they would not even have considered such action?
§ Mr. KingYes, but the Opposition never seem to accept that. They fail to recognise that it was the boast of the Civil Service unions during the campaign, to quote an actual campaign document, that
The use of selective strike action by members in sensitive areas is a key part of our campaign. Our ultimate success depends upon the extent to which … defence readiness is hampered.
§ Mr. PrescottIs the Secretary of State aware that ballots can still take place at GCHQ, that in a recent ballot an individual was elected by 89 per cent. of the participants to represent them in pay negotiations, that that is a far greater proportion than the 85 per cent. required for a closed shop, but that the individual has nevertheless been forced to resign? Does the right hon. Gentleman intend to continue to encourage management to conduct ballots until it finds someone acceptable to it and to the Secretary of State?
§ Mr. KingThe internal affairs of GCHQ are a matter for my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs. I suspect, however, that it would be interesting to know exactly who were the participants in that ballot.
§ Mr. DalyellOn a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I shall seek to raise the matter on the Adjournment at the earliest opportunity.