Employment Protection (Government Communications Headquarters) (Hansard, 6 March 1991)

§ Mr. David Winnick (Walsall, North)
I beg to move, That leave be given to bring in a Bill to provide for persons employed at the Government Communications Headquarters to have the right to belong to an independent trade union of their choice; and for connected purposes. The Bill would once again allow GCHQ employees to belong to an independent union of their choice. Just over seven years ago, on 25 January 1984, the then Foreign Secretary announced in the House that unions would be banned at GCHQ. Indeed, on 1 March this month, it was the seventh anniversary of the time limit given to the employees at GCHQ to sign what was described as an option form. That form states: I, … have read and understood General Notice 100/84 and wish to continue to be employed at GCHQ. I agree to resign from membership of any trade union to which I belong. I also undertake not to join a trade union or to engage in its affairs or to discuss with its officials my terms of employment or conditions of service or any other matter relating to my employment at GCHQ. I understand, however, that I may join a Departmental Staff Association approved for the time being by Director GCHQ. That was an infamous document, and no British citizen should be forced to sign such a document. No one should be surprised to learn that 25 January, when the Foreign Secretary announced the ban, and 1 March, when everyone had to sign that form in order to continue as an employee at GCHQ, are well remembered. This state of affairs is totally unacceptable to trade unions and the labour movement.
At the time of the ban, much was made by Ministers about industrial action that had occurred at GCHQ, particularly in 1979 and 1981. It was argued that the ban on union membership would ensure that there was no more disruption. The then Foreign Secretary, however, when trying to justify the ban, conceded that no threat to the nation's security resulted from industrial action that had taken place at GCHQ. Sir John Nott, Defence Secretary in 1981, said that an industrial dispute had not in any way affected operational capability.
Hon. Members may argue that, as we have just been through a war, that justifies even more the ban on union membership.

§ Mr. Ivor Stanbrook (Orpington)
indicated assent.

§ Mr. Winnick
I note that the hon. Member believes that.
Union membership was allowed of course at GCHQ in 1982 during the Falklands war. Sir Brian Tovey, then director general at GCHQ, sent a telegram to all the employees in Cheltenham and the outstation after the Falklands war. That telegram read: High level praise. There can be no doubt that this praise has been well deserved. It has been earned by hard and dedicated work by you as individuals. Less than two years after that telegram had been sent, the Government showed their thanks by taking away the basic right of those dedicated individuals to belong to an independent trade union.
It is no wonder that the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Sir C. Irving), who represents so many of the people who work at GCHQ and live in Cheltenham, was highly critical of the Government ban. He made a courageous speech in 287 the House when he said that there was never a hint of disruption at GCHQ during the Falklands campaign, and that to imply otherwise had hurt and infuriated the staff. He also said that the slur that union membership at GCHQ involved the risk of putting people's lives in danger was completely beyond the bounds of decency and truth.
In December 1989, the certification officer made a decision on the application for a Government communications staff federation—one can imagine what type of organisation that is. He considered whether that represented an independent trade union, and, not surprisingly, he came to the view that it was not an independent trade union at all. He said that the staff federation functions subject to the approval of the director at GCHQ.
I am myself an active trade unionist, and I believe that it was an impertinence in the first place that any such application was made. How can a staff association that is bound by the organisation in which the employees work be described as an independent trade union?
The International Labour Organisation, which largely functions under the auspices of the United Nations and works closely with it, has repeatedly called on the Government to rescind the ban and to negotiate with the unions. In recent weeks, we have heard much about binding Security Council resolutions. The House knows that I believed that those resolutions had to be implemented, but when the International Labour Organisation has told the Government that the ban is wrong and that they should negotiate with the unions surely it is only right and proper for the Government to take notice. The Government have completely ignored all its requests.
I imagine that the right hon. Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher), when Prime Minister, was the most enthusiastic member of the Cabinet urging a ban on union membership. We are told that since her departure various matters have been looked at and that there is a different kind of Government who are more caring and less dogmatic. They are even looking at the poll tax, for which we are told that nothing is ruled in and nothing is ruled out. No doubt we shall know more about that after tomorrow's by-election. If they are really a different kind of Government, why have they not rescinded the ban on union membership at GCHQ? If the right hon. Member for Finchley was largely responsible for that ban, as I believe she was, why will the Government not do away with that dogma and prejudice, because that is what it is?
Anyone who thinks that the issue will go away and that, as it arose seven years ago, it is a dead issue could not be more wrong. We intend to keep the issue very much alive. We intend to ensure that people are reminded, as they are year after year by the demonstrations at Cheltenham, that in January 1984 a basic right of British citizens was taken away. I understand that no Conservative Member wants to oppose the Bill. [Interruption.] If the ban is right, I hope that a Conservative Member will have the guts to stand up and defend it.
The ban should be removed now. This Tory Government remain the same as they always were, regardless of who leads them. If they do not remove the ban, the next Labour Government will do away with it and 288 will ensure that employees at GCHQ have the same rights as the rest of us to belong to an independent trade union. The sooner that that comes about the better.

§ Mr. Bill Walker (Tayside, North)
rose——

§ Mr. Speaker
Does the hon. Member seek to oppose the Bill?

§ Mr. Walker
I do. I oppose the Bill because the record on this matter must be properly set straight so that the people of this country are able to understand it. The hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) said that the trade unions at GCHQ had not merited the ban and that it was wrong. I shall give a history of the events. The trade unions at Cheltenham always knew, and were never in any doubt, that, because of the unique nature of their work, if they took part in any kind of industrial action, the Government of the day, of whatever complexion, would have no option but to bring in measures to remove the right to such action. That applied under Labour and Conservative Governments.

§ Mr. Winnick
indicated dissent.

§ Mr. Walker
The hon. Member for Walsall, North shakes his head. Let me tell him that, for six and a half years, I was a trade union representative, and in the 1960s I represented the largest union at GCHQ. That was during the period of office of a Labour Government. I was an employee when sensitive and delicate work important to our security was being carried out. That required 365 days of work a year, 24 hours a day, and the civil service and the military were closely involved. Lives could have been put at risk in various parts of the world, and that was properly and fully understood by the trade unions and their representatives.
Government action was taken for two reasons. First, the trade unions took action at Cheltenham even though there was an unwritten agreement that they would never take such action. Secondly, the trade unions were exposed because of publicity generated by trade unions and political activists throughout the country who tried to make political capital out of the situation. They were prepared to put the nation's security at risk for purely political ends. Such action had not occurred in all the years that GCHQ had functioned so effectively and well looking after the nation's security.
The hon. Member for Walsall, North has obviously not made any attempt to study the history of the matter, nor has he spoken to the vast majority of the people who work at GCHQ. If he had, he would understand that they would have no truck with such a measure.

Hon. Members
Aye.

Hon. Members
No.

§ Mr. Winnick
(seated and covered): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Pressure is being applied by the Government Whip to stop the Division.

§ Mr. Speaker
I am waiting for the Tellers to come to the Chair.

§ Mr. Jerry Hayes (Harlow)
(seated and covered): Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. It has been disgracefully suggested that pressure has been applied on me by the Government Whip. I can assure you that that is not the case. It never has been. Perish the thought.

§ Mr. Speaker
I do not think that the hon. Gentleman is the type of Member who would allow any pressure to be put upon him.

§ Mr. Winnick
Conservative Members do not have the gumption to vote against my Bill.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. David Winnick, Mr. Terry Davis, Mr. Don Dixon, Mr. Harry Ewing, Mr. Michael Foot, Mrs. Maria. Fyfe, Mr. Frank Haynes, Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse, Mrs. Alice Mahon, Mr. Ray Powell, Mr. Ernie Ross and Mr. Gavin Strang.