HL Deb 20 June 1986 vol 476 cc1172-5

11.34 a.m.

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Young)

My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat the Answer which has been given to a Private Notice Question in another place on GCHQ. The Answer is as follows:

"In my right honourable and learned friend's Statement to the House on 19th March he reported what he had told representatives of the Council of Civil Service Unions concerning the action that would be taken in respect of the few members of the staff of GCHQ who had accepted the revised conditions of service but had then gone back on their undertakings and had rejoined unions. My right honourable and learned friend said that these staff had been asked to honour their original commitment by resigning from the unions they had rejoined and that if they failed to do so they would be subject to disciplinary procedures. I understand from the Director, GCHQ, that disciplinary action has now been taken against 13 such employees of GCHQ and that letters have been sent to them informing them of the penalties that are to be imposed.

"Three other members of the staff at GCHQ who have informed management that they have rejoined a national trade union will also be subject to disciplinary action in the next few weeks.

"GCHQ have also warned those concerned that so long as they remain in membership of a national trade union, they will be in breach of their conditions of service which apply to them in GCHQ, and may be subject to further disciplinary action in accordance with the procedures and penalties prescribed in the Civil Service Code. GCHQ therefore proposes to seek suitable alternative posts for them elsewhere in the Home Civil Service, in which they can continue in national trade union membership if they wish. In the meantime, for so long as they remain in GCHQ, if they should become eligible for promotion their conduct will have to be taken into account, they will not be considered for an overseas posting, and they will continue to be ineligible for inclusion in the proposed restructuring.

"I wish to stress to the House that we are talking here of a very small number of people. Over 99 per cent. of GCHQ staff members have accepted and comply with the revised conditions of service, morale is high and restructuring is going ahead in consultation with the Staff Federation."

My Lords, that is the Answer.

Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos

My Lords, the House is grateful to the noble Baroness for repeating the reply to the Private Notice Question in another place. This is yet another development in this regrettable and damaging story, and we must deplore what must seem to be an indefensible action. The pressures in my view are intolerable against able and loyal civil servants.

I wonder whether the noble Baroness can clarify two or three points for me. First, the fines are said in the newspapers to be in the region of £2,000. Would she say whether this is the case? Is it not also true that the fines for more senior officials are in the region of from £3,000 to £4,500? Secondly, is there not a real danger that the severity of these penalties will lead to further industrial action and not to a solution of the problem? Are they not contrary to certain assurances given some weeks ago by her right honourable and learned friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary, who has throughout given the impression that he wishes to have an amicable solution to this problem?

Further, before this matter gets completely out of hand, will the noble Baroness and her right honourable and learned friend arrange for immediate talks with the Civil Service unions in an effort to resolve the difficulties? Would this not be far more desirable than step-by-step penalties, which can only worsen the atmosphere and indeed drive the Civil Service unions into the hands of extremists?

Finally, would the noble Baroness say whether the matter is now before the Court of Human Rights? Was it not imprudent and unwise in the extreme to take action in this matter before the findings of the court were announced?

Lord Harris of Greenwich

My Lords, in joining the noble Lord in thanking the noble Baroness for repeating this Answer, may I ask her whether she is aware that many of us who favour an unequivocally clear no-strike agreement regarding GCHQ, and have made that clear repeatedly, find this a deeply depressing statement? Is she aware that many of us take the view that this is a further attack on the civil rights of a small number of officials who have done excellent work on behalf of the whole community. Is the noble Baroness aware that this can do nothing to improve the rather poor morale at GCHQ? Is she further aware that this long-running dispute will considerably damage the whole intelligence community in this country?

Having asked that, may I put two specific questions to the noble Baroness? First, what right of appeal will those concerned have in the new situation? Secondly, as there is some fear, as far as the unions are concerned, that the rights of those concerned to go to the ECHR are in some way affected, will she give a clear undertaking that in no way are their rights affected by the Statement she has made this morning?

Baroness Young

My Lords, I recognise from what the noble Lords, Lord Cledwyn and Harris of Greenwich, have said, as the Government do, that this is a serious and important Statement. The noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, raised a number of specific points. The first concerned the penalties that have been imposed. The Principal Establishment Officer at GCHQ has decided to apply the provision in the Civil Service code of loss of increments. I understand that the exact sum of money involved is not £2,000 but two annual increments; the actual sums will vary according to the grade of the particular officer.

The noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, also asked whether or not my right honourable and learned friend the Foreign Secretary had in some way reneged on an undertaking that there would be no further disciplinary action. I welcome the opportunity to clear up the point should there be any misunderstanding on this. My understanding is that no such undertaking was given. My right honourable friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary pointed out in his Statement of 19th March that the A optant rejoiners were asked to honour their original commitment by resigning from the unions they had rejoined. As long as they fail to do so they are in breach of their conditions of service and therefore remain subject to disciplinary procedures.

The noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, went on to ask whether or not there could now be immediate talks with the trade unions. I note what he says and I shall take the opportunity to consider it. Both he and the noble Lord, Lord Harris, asked me about the position of the European Court. The European Court of Human Rights has still to decide on the admissibility of the case and this could be a lengthy process. It is quite proper that the Government should implement their policy pending consideration of the matter by the European Commission in the Court of Human Rights. There is no obligation, either under existing domestic law or the European Convention, for governments to refrain from taking action pending such consideration, nor is it general practice either in the United Kingdom or, so far as we are aware, in any other country for Governments to refrain from taking action pending court decisions.

May I just add on the general points that the noble Lord, Lord Harris, made about the statement that the disciplinary procedures which have been followed were those which were contained in the departmental regulations at GCHQ. They are in accordance with the Civil Service code and the right of appeal is to the Director of GCHQ.

Lord Elwyn-Jones

My Lords, is not this action an aggravation of the matters complained of before the European Court of Human Rights? Will this not worsen the Government's position and result in a more severe condemnation in due course from the court itself? Is there any precedent for fining a member of a trade union for belonging to a trade union?

Baroness Young

My Lords, on the point that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, makes about the European Court, I hope I have set out in my answer to his noble friend Lord Cledwyn the position with regard to that. On his second point, the position is that the action has been taken under the Civil Service code of disciplinary procedures. There are a number of penalties which can be taken, of which the noble and learned Lord will no doubt be aware. They have been taken in this case because those few members of GCHQ who resigned from the trade union and agreed this and accepted the £1,000 which was given to those who did so, have subsequently rejoined. As my right honourable and learned friend made clear in the Statements that he made earlier this year, they would be subject to disciplinary procedures. That is what is happening, with the result that they lose increments. They have not had the extra money that they would have had had they kept to the agreement they originally made.