Government Establishments: Trade Union Rights (Hansard, 7 March 1984)

§ Lord Molloy
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)
None, my Lords.

§ Lord Molloy
My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that not only I but some 10 million of our fellow Britons in all forms of organised trade union, and particularly those in the Civil Service, will welcome what he has just said and hope that this time the Government will stand by their promises? Is he further aware that the incident concerning GCHQ, which establishment we all recognise as being most vital to our defence intelligence and, indeed, to our allies, has been brilliantly served since its inception by loyal and faithful civil servants who feel deeply aggrieved at what has happened in taking away their rights? Is he further aware that this action has been condemned by Members of Parliament in all parties and by all sections of the British media? It is about time that the Government realised this and should acknowledge that, in so far as the trade unions have now agreed that there shall be incorporated in their relationship with GCHQ a firm no-strike agreement—

Noble Lords
Speech!

§ Lord Molloy
My Lords, why members of the party opposite have such a hatred for free speech I cannot understand—

Noble Lords
It is Question Time.

§ Lord Molloy
—nor why they should so stupidly exhibit it whenever they have an opportunity. I am grateful to the noble Earl the Minister for his reply. Is he aware that if he can persuade his colleagues to accept the no-strike agreement and withdraw what has been done, it will be to everyone's advantage in the country?

The Earl of Gowrie
My Lords, the arguments about this issue have been well rehearsed both in this House and in another place in recent weeks. We have now passed 1st March. About 97 per cent. of the employees at GCHQ have freely accepted the new terms and conditions of employment. I think we should now settle down and let the matter rest.

§ Lord Harmar-Nicholls
My Lords, in coming back to the Question, may I ask my noble friend whether he is aware of any report anywhere which would justify a 269 responsible Member of this House putting down such a mischievous Question as this, in the light of his Answer?

§ Lord Shackleton
My Lords, is not the noble Earl aware that these deep suspicions have arisen purely through the slightly revengeful decision of the Government to abolish the Civil Service Department and that there is now no Cabinet Minister under the Prime Minister who can deal direct with the unions concerned? Is he not further aware that in the past, under the noble Lord. Lord Soames, the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe and myself we had dealings with people like Bill McCall of the IPCS who not only were very patriotic but frequently got the Government out of the sort of hole they are in now?

The Earl of Gowrie
My Lords, I do not accept that the Government are in a hole, but I endorse what the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, said about the patriotism and loyalty of Mr. McCall and others. That was not in any sense the problem during this case. As to the question concerning the machinery of Government, both my honourable friend Mr. Hayhoe and myself work directly with the Prime Minister on these issues and we were present at all these meetings.

§ Lord Dean of Beswick
My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that I am glad that, in his Answer to the Question on the Order Paper, he has reiterated the undertaking given by his noble colleague, Lord Trefgarne, when answering the debate in this Chamber on 8th February and also, I understand, the undertaking given by the Foreign Secretary in another place on 25th January that there was no intention to extend the exercise at the Cheltenham GCHQ to other people working in other Government establishments? Is the noble Earl aware of some reports in the local press that the Secretary of State for Defence may be toying with this idea? Do I understand that the previous undertakings given by the Minister still are official Government policy?

The Earl of Gowrie
My Lords, the Government have made it very clear right from the beginning that this was never an issue connected with union membership matters or union rights. This is an issue of correcting an anomaly in an agency whose primary function was with intelligence. That was the position from the beginning and it remains so now.

Lord Chelwood
My Lords, can my noble friend say offhand—although I am not commenting on the GCHQ issue—how many million employees depend for their jobs on joining a trade union or not leaving one?

The Earl of Gowrie
My Lords, that is a little wide of the original Question but my noble friend is certainly right to say that it would be better if there were rights to not join unions as well as rights to join them.

§ Lord Dean of Beswick
My Lords—

Noble Lords
Order! Lord Paget!

§ Lord Dean of Beswick
My Lords, noble Lords will understand if I consider that the noble Earl did not answer my supplementary question. I did not ask the noble Earl about the GCHQ. I asked him about other Government establishments but he made no reference to them at all in his reply. Is it the Government's intention to reconsider the previous undertakings regarding other Government establishments? That was my question to the noble Earl. Will he please answer it?

The Earl of Gowrie
My Lords, with great respect to the noble Lord, I have answered that question the way he wishes to hear it answered three times already.

Lord Paget of Northampton
My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that there are various questions here which have worried me since the beginning? First, when we are dealing with these people to whom the noble Earl referred, we are dealing with a category which should be of high integrity. Secondly, there is no question of any closed shop. These people of high integrity have freely chosen trade unionism. Thirdly, is not the right to choose trade unionism part of the birthright of a democrat? Fourthly, is not the sale of one's birthright, whether it be for a mess of potage, thirty pieces of silver or for a thousand quid, somewhat inconsistent with high integrity? Indeed, is it not a little odd that we should confine this service to people whom we must rate as of low integrity? One final question: who pays for it? Under what Vote does corrupting the Civil Service fall?

The Earl of Gowrie
My Lords, with great respect to the noble Lord, Lord Paget of Northampton, he is missing the point at issue. The GCHQ at Cheltenham did not—and many of us feel that this was perhaps an absurd situation—officially exist until earlier this year. Once it was avowed it was simply brought into line with the position that obtains at other intelligence agencies. It is no different in any other way.

§ Lord Mackie of Benshie
My Lords, will the Minister say whether the morale and patriotism of the very important staff at Cheltenham have been improved by the way in which this settlement was imposed?

The Earl of Gowrie
My Lords, morale at GCHQ is excellent.

§ Lord Campbell of Alloway
My Lords, does my noble friend the Minister agree that this is not really a matter of calling into question the loyalty and integrity of anyone? Is this not right, that pressures have been brought to bear on loyal servants and that those pressures in the past, unfortunately, worked in a way which was incompatible with national security; and it was feared that should this again arise in the future, national security could well be endangered, so an executive decision was taken within the four corners of our own domestic law, and is lawful?

The Earl of Gowrie
My Lords, my noble friend is entirely right. I hope that the House will pay close attention to what he has said.

§ Lord Glenamara
My Lords, will the noble Earl say what will be the final total cost of bribing the employees of GCHQ not to belong to a trade union, and how many school meals that would buy?

The Earl of Gowrie
My Lords, I think that one must write that down to a nice try on the part of the noble Lord. The fact of the matter is that the principle of compensating people, whether for loss of employment or for loss of statutory rights, is well established in this economy under successive Governments, and the compensation seemed to be about right in this case.

Earl Ferrers
My Lords, is my noble friend aware that it was not only his reply that was acceptable but the brevity of it as well? Would it not be a suitable model for others to follow, not only those on the Front Bench answering questions but also other noble Lords asking them?

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

§ Lord Molloy
My Lords, is the noble Earl the Minister aware that in the past 22 years of Conservative Government since the war we have had five Conservative Prime Ministers and eight Conservative Foreign Secretaries, none of whom found it in any way necessary to indulge in the action of the present Government? Is he further aware that the Select Committee was also opposed to this activity? Therefore, would he be prepared to recommend that the whole thing should now be referred to the Security Commission?

§ The Lord President of the Council (Viscount Whitelaw)
My Lords, I think that it is now the moment when it falls to me, as a Member of the Cabinet totally involved with the issues, to say to your Lordships that I think perhaps we should not go further with the argument now, but I have my duty as well. My noble friend the Minister of State, within the terms of his responsibilities, has given very clear answers, with which I am totally, entirely and completely associated in every way. We have now come to further comments about the Government as a whole, and I think I am entitled to ask your Lordships not to pursue forever this issue at Question Time. I think that to do so would be unreasonable.
I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Molloy, and other noble Lords will take it from me that there is no question of extending this form of ban beyond the security of intelligence agencies. That has been made abundantly clear, and I say it again with all the authority that I can command. I hope that it will also be taken from me that there is no question of myself, and others like me, who have been associated with trade unions in many different offices over the years, in any way considering that we are impugning the loyalty of anybody in this matter. I hope your Lordships will take those matters from me and will accept what my noble friend the Minister of State has so clearly laid down and with which I am totally associated. I hope that we can now proceed to other Questions.

§ Lord Molloy
My Lords—

Noble Lords
Order, order!

§ Lord Molloy
My Lords, will the noble Viscount say something about this matter being referred to the Security Commission so that these people are not left isolated by a specific piece of Government activity of which they are really frightened?

§ Viscount Whitelaw
My Lords, I understand the noble Lord's point. I suggested to the House—and I hoped he would agree—that it would be reasonable to proceed to another Question. I hope that I have given the noble Lord what the whole House might consider to be a very reasonable statement of the position, and that we can let the matter rest there and pass to the next Question.