GCHQ Cheltenham: ILO Decision (Hansard, 25 June 1984)

§ Lord Dean of Beswick
My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.

The Minister of State, Privy Council Office, and Minister for the Arts (The Earl of Gowrie)
My Lords, the Government's action in respect of GCHQ was taken solely in the interests of national security and because of the vital importance of protecting GCHQ from any recurrence of the industrial disruption suffered between 1979 and 1981. The Government do not accept that there has been any breach of ILO conventions. The interpretation reached by the ILO Freedom of Association Committee— which is not a judicial body— would wholly undermine the ILO's own Convention 151 which provides that the position of Government employees engaged on confidential work is a matter for national law and regulations.

§ Lord Dean of Beswick
My Lords, is the noble Earl not aware that the ILO as a body has condemned this Government for the second time for breaching agreements to which this country has for a long time been a signatory? Is this not a strange action from a Government whose members, from the Prime Minister downwards, constantly talk about the right of the individual and the right of people to have their rights in a democratic society? Is this not a complete and absolute example of a Government deciding on their own basis what they want to do in defiance of agreements previously entered into?

The Earl of Gowrie
On the contrary, my Lords, the Government were correcting a long-standing anomaly 619 whereby, as the noble Lord is perfectly well aware, none of the other purely security bodies has union representation. It was high time that that was corrected. In respect of the ILO, it has not condemned the Government. The Freedom of Association Committee has done so, but in fact that is in contradiction of Article 2 of ILO Convention 151 which provides that: The extent to which the guarantees provided for in this convention shall apply to high level employees whose functions are normally considered as policy-making or managerial, or to employees whose duties are of a highly confidential nature, shall be determined by national laws or regulations". The ILO could not be clearer on that point.

§ Lord Wedderburn of Charlton
My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that what he has just done is to repeat the argument of a disappointed litigant? It is precisely the argument which was given to the ILO committee that decides these matters. What the Government are doing is simply saying that they will not accept the judgment. In view of the way in which the Government relied so much upon the international obligations of this country under the European Convention on Human Rights— in the light of the judgment given under that convention— the way in which they pick and choose the international obligations which they will satisfy and obey is hardly an agreeable perspective.

The Earl of Gowrie
My Lords, the Government are in no way disappointed on that issue. I would have thought that Article 2 of Convention 151 is proof from even the noble Lord's prevarication.

§ Lord Rochester
My Lords, is the noble Earl able to tell us how many GCHQ employees declined to accept the payment that they were offered of £1,000 to give up their rights to belong to a trade union? Can he tell us further, of that number, how many are still employed in the same occupation at GCHQ?

The Earl of Gowrie
My Lords, my understanding is that it was rather less than 1 per cent. I do not know how many are still employed.

§ Lord Monson
My Lords, if the trade unions' compromise offer had been accepted by the Government, even if only for a trial period, does the noble Earl agree that the Government might have lost face, to a limited extent, but would have gained in stature?

The Earl of Gowrie
My Lords, I do not think that the point put to the Government by the noble Lord deals with the question that I tried to deal with in the answer to the first supplementary, which was that the Government were simply correcting a long-standing anomaly. No one has made the suggestion that the security services, or bodies uniquely and solely engaged with security matters, should have union representation.

§ Lord Thorneycroft
My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that there are many noble Lords on this side of the House who are very grateful for the fact that Her Majesty's Government are in charge of these matters and not an ILO committee?

The Earl of Gowrie
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend.

§ Lord Elwyn-Jones
My Lords, will the noble Earl reconsider his use of the word "prevarication" in regard to the serious intervention of my noble friend Lord Wedderburn?

The Earl of Gowrie
My Lords, I quite agree with the noble and learned Lord. It was an imprecise use of language. I meant sophistry.

§ Lord Annan
My Lords, would the noble Lord agree that the predecessor of the GCHQ at Cheltenham was at Bletchley and that that organisation, though it did not win the war, prevented this country from losing the war. Is it not a fact that the trade union concerned used its muscle to close down operations at Cheltenham at a time chosen by them to cause maximum embarrassment to the security services of the Government? Does the noble Lord not think it odd that the union should now winge and whine when the Government itself uses its muscle to redress that balance?

The Earl of Gowrie
My Lords, with this small qualification that the Government was correcting a long-standing anomaly, I have considerable sympathy with the point put to the House by the noble Lord. The fact is that the industrial disruption suffered between 1979 and 1981 was in our view unnecessary as well as unpardonable.

Lord Morris
My Lords, would my noble friend not agree with me that the argument and analogy of the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn of Charlton, was totally false, in that the International Labour Organisation is not a court of law: its decisions are solely for itself?

The Earl of Gowrie
My Lords, my understanding is that my noble friend is quite right.

§ Lord Plant
My Lords, as I understand it, the Freedom of Association Committee came to a unanimous decision early this month. Would the noble Earl tell us what defence the United Kingdom Government representative on that committee made in this particular instance? Further, does he agree with me that the Government's action is in contravention not only of Convention 151 but of Convention 87?

The Earl of Gowrie
My Lords, the Government's defence was, as I implied earlier, based on Article 2 of Convention 151. It seems to me that it would be very difficult to sustain the criticism of the Freedom of Association Committee, which is not a judicial body, in the light of the ILO's own ruling.

§ Lord Dean of Beswick
My Lords, would the noble Earl not agree that the way that the noble Lord, Lord Annan, put the point regarding the industrial dispute being the reason for this, is complete nonsense? If he had been present during the debate on the Unstarred Question on this dispute, he would realise that it was only a small part of the explanation given by the Government as the reason for their action. May I ask theMinister— as I understand it, he was the Minister 621 who actually applied this measure—what will be the Government's standing if they lose the case that is now before the court on this matter?

The Earl of Cowrie
My Lords, it is indeed the case that I was involved in the negotiations with the trade unions following the announcement of the decision on GCHQ. That does not prevent what the noble Lord, Lord Annan, said from being correct. On the contrary: it was a consideration that we bore very much in mind.