GCHQ

HC Deb 19 March 1986 vol 94 cc293-9 3.30 pm

Mr. Denis Healey (Leeds, East)

(by private notice) asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on his recent discussions with the trade unions over GCHQ.

The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Sir Geoffrey Howe)

Representatives of the Council of Civil Service Unions called on me yesterday at their request to discuss the Government's future intentions for staffing at GCHQ. I explained that the Government's decisions affecting GCHQ had been taken in the interests of national security to ensure that GCHQ's operations would, in future, be free from disruption. That objective had been achieved and there was no change in the Government's basic policy. The Government intended that this policy be applied as sympathetically as possible in individual cases.

Over 99 per cent. of GCHQ staff members accepted the revised terms of service. There is, however, a small number of union members at GCHQ who, from the outset, have not accepted the revised terms and conditions of service; they are the so-called B and C optants. They have been offered alternative jobs or premature retirement on redundancy terms.

A few of the staff who originally accepted the revised conditions of service and resigned from union membership, the so-called A optants, have subsequently rejoined. It follows from this that they are in breach of their conditions of service. In all fairness to the overwhelming majority who accepted and continued to honour these terms, they have been asked to honour their original commitment by resigning from the unions they have rejoined. If they fail to so do, they will be subject to disciplinary procedures.

The union representatives asked me yesterday whether these staff would be liable to dismissal as a result of disciplinary proceedings. I informed them that disciplinary matters at GCHQ were, of course, the responsibility of the director of GCHQ and that he had informed the head of the Civil Service that he did not regard dismissal as an appropriate penalty in the proposed proceedings for those who had rejoined the union in the circumstances of the past months, unless there were factors of which he was unaware. I stressed the importance of this explanation which was welcomed by the union representatives.

For all but the small number of people to whom I have so far been referring, the restructuring at GCHQ, designed to meet the special requirements of that organisation, is of course going ahead in consultation with the Government Communications Staff Federation. This will bring real benefit not only to the management of the operation but also to the overwhelming majority of GCHQ staff who have, I repeat, accepted the revised terms of service.

Mr. Healey

Can the Foreign Secretary explain to the House his dogged determination to continue shooting himself in the foot on this issue? After all, the wounds which he caused himself two years ago must still be causing him some discomfort. Can he explain why, two years after failing to carry out the fearful threat which he made to loyal members of GCHQ who had exercised their natural right to belong to trade unions, he suddenly revived the threat a few days ago and now has withdrawn it five days later? Can he explain that extraordinary conduct, which really has made him a laughing stock in the country and has also made him extremely offensive in the trade union movement?

Finally, now that The Lancet has published devastating evidence showing that the use of the polygraph, which I believe the right hon. and learned Gentleman has introduced into GCHQ, is much more likely to incriminate innocent people than to detect the guilty, will he now withdraw that American technological gimmick and treat the members of GCHQ as the honest and dedicated public servants they are?

Sir Geoffrey Howe

I join the right hon. Gentleman in at least one thing—in paying tribute to the devotion with which the overwhelming majority of staff at GCHQ have continued to serve throughout the changes that have taken place. I repudiate his suggestion that today's question, or anything else that we have been concerned with, has anything whatever to do with the polygraph, which has not been introduced at GCHQ. He will remember that it was the subject of a recommendation by the Security Commission some years ago.

I also acknowledge that the only other observation that the right hon. Gentleman made was to select from his ample repertoire two or three terms of vulgar abuse. He has made no points of substance, because the Government have achieved their basic objective at GCHQ, which was to free that organisation from the threat of future disruption while dealing sympathetically with the individuals concerned.

Mr. Charles Irving (Cheltenham)

I have supported all those in GCHQ who have suffered greatly over the past two years since that unfortunate debate, when the matter first came to the attention of the House, which I described as shameful—something which I can never withdraw. But it is reasonable to welcome the flexibility which has been introduced into the situation at GCHQ, some might consider at a slightly later hour. I welcome the statement made by my right hon. and learned Friend. It is right that the matter in its fullest content should remain on the table until after the European Court has come to some decision. I hope then that the revision of the situation can take place in a more reasonable and sensible context. I share the thoughts that have been expressed on the misery and the damage that has been done to family upon family in my constituency. It gives me no pleasure to say it. But it is a disgrace and it should not have happened at the beginning at all. But it is not unreasonable to pay some tribute to my right hon. and learned Friend for making a full and reasonable statement which is far more flexible than we have ever seen before.

Sir Geoffrey Howe

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, because I fully understand, and have always understood, the extent to which this matter, which is of great importance to national security, has also involved difficult considerations for individuals which my hon. Friend, as one of the Members of Parliament closely concerned, has always had in mind. I acknowledge with gratitude the tribute that he has paid to the good sense of my statement today, which affords a reasonable basis for stability at GCHQ consistent with the continued safeguarding of national security.

Mr. David Steel (Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale)

Why does the Foreign Secretary keep denying that morale has been grievously injured at GCHQ? Will he give the House the figures of the turnover of staff in the past two years compared with any previous two years that he cares to choose, which will demonstrate that what has been said on both sides of the House is true? Does he agree that the most constructive thing that he could do now is give a categorical assurance of no dismissals at GCHQ in order to produce total stability there?

Sir Geoffrey Howe

I have nothing to add in respect of that last matter to what was said at the meeting yesterday which was concerned with that small group of people who had rejoined in the circumstances prevailing in recent months. On the more general question I must tell the right hon. Gentleman that I do not have statistics immediately available, but I understand that recruitment at GCHQ has been on a reasonable basis. There have been no problems, save in respect, as always, of certain highly specialised grades. That is one of the reasons why restructuring of the grades and pay structures at GCHQ is now being undertaken at the request of the staff federation.

Sir Antony Buck (Colchester, North)

Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that this has been an unfortunate saga? However, looking to the future, which is what we all ought to do, can he assure the House that the new structure will properly provide for safeguarding the position and legitimate interests of the employees at this headquarters?

Sir Geoffrey Howe

I am grateful to my hon. and learned Friend for that observation. I can assure him that the restructuring which is taking place at GCHQ is designed to improve the operation of the headquarters as is necessary and improve the pay and conditions of the staff, as can be achieved by restructuring from about 100 grades to about 15 grades in rather different circumstances. That restructuring is available for all those who are serving at GCHQ on the new terms and conditions of service.

Mr. James Callaghan (Cardiff, South and Penarth)

The Foreign Secretary has paid tribute to the loyalty of the people at GCHQ. Does he not realise that this disgraceful episode in the Government's record will not be wiped out until every member of GCHQ who desires to join a Civil Service trade union shall be free to do so without fear of intimidation, disciplinary action or dismissal?

Sir Geofrey Howe

I recognise that the view asserted by the right hon. Gentleman, with his characteristic clarity, is a view strongly held. However, alongside that we must set the Government's clear conviction that it was necessary to make changes in the terms and conditions of service at GCHQ in order to assure continuity of operation in that organisation. It is easy now to remember that in the two years between 1979 and 1981 continuity of operation at GCHQ was interrupted seven times, over 10,000 working days were lost and, on one occasion, 25 per cent. of the staff were involved. That is the background against which we took our decision, putting ourselves in line incidentally, with that of a number of other members of the Western Alliance.

Sir John Biggs-Davison (Epping Forest)

Although GCHQ comes under a civil Department, is it not in reality an essential arm of the national defence? That being so, and although I am a trade unionist myself—[Laughter.]—which the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) probably is not—may I ask my right hon. and learned Friend whether it would not be more appropriate to have some form of staff federation than a politically oriented trade union organisation?

Sir Geoffrey Howe

I acknowledge the force of the point made by my hon. Friend. It is for precisely that reason that the Government Communications Staff Federation has now been formed at GCHQ. It is in response to that federation that the current changes are being undertaken. My hon. Friend is quite correct.

Mr. Merlyn Rees (Morley and Leeds, South)

Did we understand the Foreign Secretary to say that, despite the announcement by the Prime Minister two years ago, the polygraph is not to be introduced at Cheltenham?

Sir Geoffrey Howe

The right hon. Gentleman will recall that, following the recommendations of the Security Commission after the Prime case, recommendations were then made for experimental tests to be carried out. There have been no final recommendations as a result of those tests. There is no introduction of the polygraph at GCHQ now.

Mr. Andrew MacKay (Berkshire, East)

Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that most people in this country would consider that the first duty of any Government is to protect national security. In the light of what my right hon. and learned Friend has outlined today, can he guarantee that that will take place?

Sir Geoffrey Howe

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for reminding me of the importance of national security. It was, indeed, for that reason that the original decision was taken and is being upheld.

Mr. John Evans (St. Helens, North)

Why does not the Foreign Secretary come clean and admit that the reason why he withdrew the Prime Minister's threat to sack trade unionists at GCHQ was that he knew that there would be massive solidarity action by the rest of the trade union movement the moment one trade unionist was sacked? Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman recognise that the real issue is the restoration of trade union rights at GCHQ, and that if he does not restore them, the next Labour Government certainly will?

Sir Geoffrey Howe

I recognise that this is an issue on which different opinions are held in different parts of the House. I recognise that that is the policy to which the Labour party is committed. It is our policy, which has been implemented, to secure the withdrawal of trade unionism from GCHQ, and that policy has been carried through and accepted by 99 per cent. of the membership. No doubt that is one of the issues that will be relevant at the next election.

Mr. Albert McQuarrie (Banff and Buchan)

To what extent have the Government achieved their objective of ending union membership at GCHQ? Is it a fact that 99 per cent. of the people at GCHQ have accepted that approach?

Sir Geoffrey Howe

That is precisely the point that I have just made. The Government have achieved their basic objective, which was to free the GCHQ organisation from the threat of future disruption, and over 99 per cent. of the staff have accepted the new conditions.

Mr. Bob Edwards (Wolverhampton, South-East)

Is the Foreign Secretary aware that, at a meeting of the Assembly of the Council of Europe, a respected Swiss Member of Parliament suggested that the whole British delegation should be removed because of this massive violation of human rights? Should we not be ashamed that such a situation should ever arise?

Sir Geoffrey Howe

I am not aware of the point raised by the hon. Gentleman, but I have no doubt that several people have expressed a diversity of views on the matter. The Government feel no sense of shame about it, having taken steps to protect national security at an important security agency in line with steps adopted by several of our allies in the Western Alliance.

Mr. John Gorst (Hendon, North)

I congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend on the tact and diplomacy with which he has proceeded so far. Does he have any evidence in the past two years that those who have retained union membership have constituted any threat to national security? Secondly, will my right hon. and learned Friend leave the situation as it is at the moment until the European Court of Human Rights has pronounced on the matter?

Sir Geoffrey Howe

The first question raised by my hon. Friend relates to details about some individuals. I cannot advance evidence that the individuals concerned have been guilty of any misconduct of the sort about which my hon. Friend complains. That is no part of my case. With regard to my hon. Friend's second point, the announcement that I have made is intended to provide for the stability and security of arrangements at GCHQ for the foreseeable future.

Mr. Ian Wrigglesworth (Stockton, South)

But does not the Foreign Secretary accept that the saga of GCHQ has already done enormous damage to national security, in the attention that it has drawn to the operations that are carried out there and the harm that it has caused to the morale of the staff working there? Before the matter comes before the European Court of Human Rights, and before we have a further damaging episode in this terrible story, will not the right hon. and learned Gentleman think again?

Sir Geoffrey Howe

I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's general view of the matter. He must remember that it may never come before the European Court of Human Rights, because the case has not yet been accepted.

Mr. Andrew Faulds (Warley, East)

When the right hon. and learned Gentleman comes to contemplate his sins of omission and commission as he presents his moral passport to St. Peter, among his many achievements will he not come to consider this episode in his career as disgraceful and dishonourable and forced upon him by his limited and ignorant leader?

Sir Geoffrey Howe

I do not think that when the time comes to present myself before the judgment of St. Peter I shall be much fortified by the advice of St. Andrew.

Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory (Wells)

What would my right hon. and learned Friend do if the employees who have rejoined a trade union at GCHQ were to grow in number and form a significant minority of the people working there? At that point, would my right hon. and learned Friend feel his original aim of preventing industrial disruption at GCHQ was threatened? What would he do about it?

Sir Geoffrey Howe

The point raised by my hon. Friend would postulate an entirely different situation from the present one. It was clear to everyone present at the meeting yesterday that the meeting was concerned with the small group who had rejoined in the circumstances of past months.

Mr. Robert Adley (Christchurch)

Is it correct that a small number of people at GCHQ accepted the Government's money in return for certain obligations, and then appeared to renege on their obligations?

Sir Geoffrey Howe

The money was made available specifically in the context of the removal of certain statutory rights at GCHQ. It is certainly the case that a small group, known as the A optant rejoiners, who had originally accepted the Government's offer, subsequently changed their minds and sought to rejoin the unions. In those circumstances we have made these announcements.

Mr. Tam Dalyell (Linlithgow)

If the Foreign Secretary's answer to my right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Callaghan) about the continuity of operation from 1979 to 1981 is anything approaching the whole truth, why did he not make his announcement about trade unions until January 1984? Does he recollect that I tabled questions about GCHQ on 19 December 1983—long before most hon. Members had heard that there was a dispute? Why was a member of the intelligence services sent to a Labour party meeting on 12 January 1984 at Ardrossan Saltcoats to ask me clearly from where I had information about the sinking of that ship?

Mr. Speaker

Order. Will the hon. Gentleman please not go into the detail? We are dealing with the unions, nothing else.

Mr. Dalyell

Briefly, regarding the unions, was it not a dereliction of duty—if what the Foreign Secretary told my right hon. Friend about 1979–81 is anything like true—to do nothing about the matter until the spring of 1984? Why did he suddenly make the announcement without consulting his Cabinet colleagues?

Sir Geoffrey Howe

The hon. Gentleman has had his question answered many times on previous occasions. I cannot begin to recall now the questions that he asked three years ago on matters unrelated to this topic.

Several Hon. Members

rose——

Mr. Speaker

Order. We must move on.

Mr. Healey

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. [Interruption.] No, this is a point of order. You will recall, Sir, that during the last few minutes the Foreign Secretary has made two incompatible statements to the House. First, he said that the polygraph has not been introduced into GCHQ, and secondly that it has been introduced for experimental purposes and that the decision has not yet been taken whether it will be introduced permanently. Could you give him an opportunity to clear up the confusion, and to tell us which of those statements is true?

Mr. Speaker

I would be responsible only if the polygraph were introduced in the House. However, I shall allow the right hon. and learned Gentleman to respond.

Sir Geoffrey Howe

There is no possible mystery about what I said. I said that, on the recommendations of the Security Commission, a pilot scheme had been undertaken involving the polygraph, the results of which are still being carefully considered.