Civil Service Unions (Hansard, 5 December 1988)

§ 54. Mr. Harry Barnes
To ask the Minister for the Civil Service when he last met representatives of the Civil Service unions; and what matters he discussed.

§ 55. Mr. Winnick
To ask the Minister for the Civil Service when he last met Civil Service unions; and what subjects were discussed.

§ 59. Mr. Allen
To ask the Minister for the Civil Service when he last met representatives of the Civil Service unions; and what matters were discussed.

§ Mr. Luce
I have meetings from time to time with representatives of Civil Service trade unions both centrally and during visits to Civil Service establishments. A wide variety of matters are raised.

§ Mr. Barnes
Did the Minister discuss the basic principles of trade unionism with the Civil Service trade unions which are to negotiate wages and conditions on behalf of their members under agreed and established procedures? Why are those rights denied to workers in GCHQ? The Government present themselves as dynamic and thrusting, but again they are reactionary in going back to legislation which this House got rid of some time before 1824, which had banned combination of workers.

§ Mr. Luce
Over the last four years the position on GCHQ has been made absolutely clear. It is only with security and intelligence organisations that the rules apply with regard to trade unions. GCHQ depends on continuity of service 24 hours a day flowing at all times in the national interest and in the interests of our national security. From 1979 to 1981, 10,000 working days were lost as a result of action. That was not acceptable in the interests of our national security. My right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary and his team have been taking pains over four years to deal with the real individual problems that have arisen as a result of the decision.

§ Mr. Winnick
Has the Minister heard from the Civil Service unions whether they intend to tell Mr. Gorbachev when he visits Britain that they are very much in favour of the basic rights being introduced in the Soviet Union at long last, while the Civil Service unions are trying to defend our existing rights, including the rights of people at GCHQ to belong to a trade union?

§ Mr. Luce
If the hon. Gentleman is seeking to draw an exact parallel between the conditions of trade unions in Britain and in the Eastern bloc, he had better go and live in the Eastern bloc and find out for himself.

§ Mr. Allen
Will the Minister comment on the scandal of the Intervention Board for Agricultural Produce computer programme—the private programme introduced for intervention board pricing? Will he make a statement in the very near future on how people who have been unduly affected by that computer catastrophe will be assisted?

§ Mr. Luce
As I understand the scheme to which the hon. Gentleman refers, it is principally a matter for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, to whom such questions should be directed.

§ Mr. Holt
Will my right hon. Friend say whether he has discussed the relocation of Civil Service departments in the north of England, particularly in the light of the report produced in June last year by two middle-ranking officials stating that in their opinion senior civil servants would not wish to live in the north of England?

§ Mr. Luce
Earlier this year my right hon. Friend the Paymaster General set out the framework of the Government's broad policy towards the relocation of civil servants in other parts of the country. As my hon. Friend is aware, four out of five civil servants work outside London, and there is now considerable encouragement to Departments, most of which are taking seriously the possibility—on the grounds of recruitment and retention and on other grounds—of moving more civil servants to other areas.

§ Mr. Soames
When my right hon. Friend next meets the Civil Service unions, will he pass on to them my admiration for the immense tact, discretion and thoroughness with which the DHSS office in Crawley deals with various matters? Will he tell them that it would be greatly in their interests to concentrate on trying to get their other members to behave in the way that their members in Crawley behave?

§ Mr. Luce
I am grateful for what my hon. Friend has said and for the tribute that he paid to offices in his constituency and the high standards of conduct of the civil servants there.

§ Dr. Marek
The Minister cannot get away from the great gulf that exists in the minds of the public in relation to GCHQ when they perceive their Prime Minister preaching and supporting free trade unions in Poland but abolishing free trade unions in Britain. If the free trade unions in Britain went to the Minister and said that they wished to negotiate a no-strike deal, with no holds barred, so that, to use the Minister's words, information could continue to flow and there would be no interruption in service, in return for being able to organise GCHQ freely, would he talk to them?

§ Mr. Luce
The hon. Gentleman is very familiar with the reasons for that. It is quite clear that the rule on trade unions applies only to security and intelligence institutions. GCHQ did have disruption, losing 10,000 working days between 1979 and 1981. The continuous free flow of information from that institution is essential in our national interest. It was on those grounds alone that the decision was taken. The decision applies only to security and intelligence institutions.