HL Deb 19 March 1986 vol 472 cc975-9

3.37 p.m.

Baroness Young

My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat the Answer that has been given to a Private Notice Question in another place on GCHQ by my right honourable and learned friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs. It reads: "Representatives of the Council of Civil Service Unions called on me yesterday, at their request, to discuss the Government's future intentions for staffing at GCHQ. I explained that the Government's decisions affecting GCHQ had been taken in the interests of national security to ensure that GCHQ's operations would, in future, be free from disruption. That objective had been achieved and there was no change in the Government's basic policy. The Government intended that this policy be applied as sympathetically as possible in individual cases.

"Over 99 per cent, of GCHQ staff members have accepted the revised terms of service. There is, however, a small number of union members at GCHQ who, from the outset, have not accepted the revised terms and conditions of service (the so- called B and C optants). They have been offered alternative jobs or premature retirement on redundancy terms.

"A few of the staff who originally accepted the revised conditions of service and resigned from union membership (the so-called A optants) have subsequently rejoined. It follows from this that they are in breach of their conditions of service. In all fairness to the overwhelming majority who accepted and continued to honour those terms, they have been asked to honour their original commitment by resigning from the unions they had rejoined. If they fail to do so, they will be subject to disciplinary procedures.

"The union representatives asked me yesterday whether those staff would be liable to dismissal as a result of disciplinary proceedings. I informed them that disciplinary matters at GCHQ were of course the responsibility of the director of GCHQ and that he had informed the head of the Civil Service that he did not regard dismissal as an appropriate penalty in the proposed proceedings for those who had rejoined the union in the circumstances of the past months unless there were factors of which he was unaware. I stressed the importance of this explanation, which was welcomed by the union representatives.

"For all but the small number of people to whom I have so far been referring, the restructuring at GCHQ, designed to meet the special requirements of that organisation, is of course going ahead in consultation with the Government Communications Staff Federation. This will bring real benefit not only to the management of the operation but also to the overwhelming majority of GCHQ staff, who, I repeat, have accepted the revised terms of service".

My Lords, that concludes the Answer.

Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos

My Lords, we are grateful to the noble Baroness for repeating that Answer to the Private Notice Question asked in another place. We welcome the Government's prudent decision to retreat from their initial obdurate position and not to continue with the proposal to dismiss staff who have rejoined unions.

Can the noble Baroness explain fully the reasons why the Government decided to make this concession? What advice was given by Sir Peter Marychurch, the director of GCHQ? Did he recommend that dismissal was against the public interest? It is reported that those who have rejoined and those who never left the union could stay at GCHQ but that the first category—that is, the rejoiners—could face penalties such as fines and demotion. Can the noble Baroness say whether that is the case? Is a distinction being drawn between those who have rejoined and those who continued their membership; and, if so, why?

Finally, do the Government at last recognise that the decision in January 1984 to ban the union was, as a distinguished journalist, Mr. Hugo Young, said in the Guardian yesterday (and I quote): perhaps the single most unnecessary folly even this government has committed"? Will the Government now reconsider the remarkable offer of a no-disruption agreement made by the unions and ask the unions whether that is still on the table?

Lord Rochester

My Lords, from these Benches I join in thanking the noble Baroness for having repeated the Answer to the Private Notice Question in another place. We are greatly relieved that the Government have now decided that GCHQ employees who rejoined their unions after receiving the £1,000 in compensation for loss, not of union membership but of employment protection rights, should not be dismissed. However, I should add in view of what the noble Baroness said that we think it would be deplorable if those employees, or any who after January 1984 remained in their union, were to suffer any other penalties such as fines or demotion.

The real issue, as we see it, remains that of the restoration of trade union rights at Cheltenham. I still hope that the Government might find it possible, at the end of the day, to reach some accommodation with the unions which would safeguard both our defence capability and trade union membership rights. If they do not, will not the inevitable result be that the morale of civil servants will suffer further damage at a location where it is essential that it should be sustained? Indeed, will not morale suffer more widely in the service as a whole? Will the noble Baroness the Minister bear in mind that the Alliance parties remain strongly opposed to the action taken by the Government two years ago and are committed to union membership rights being restored at GCHQ?

Finally, in the interests of continuity of public policy and of national security, we very much hope that even now the Government will reconsider the possibility of seeking some form of no-disruption agreement with the Civil Service unions at GCHQ which involves independent arbitration as a last resort in disputes concerning pay and employment conditions.

Baroness Young

My Lords, both the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, and the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, asked a series of questions on the Answer which I have given to the Private Notice Question. I will answer them in the order in which they were asked.

It is important to remember that 99 per cent, of employees at GCHQ have accepted the revised terms of service, so the Government have achieved their objective of ensuring the smooth running of GCHQ without disruption. Having achieved what we believe are our basic objectives, we wish to deal sympathetically with those other individuals.

The noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, asked what advice the director of GCHQ had given. The director has made it clear that he would not regard dismissal as an appropriate penalty in the proposed proceedings for those who have rejoined in the circumstances of the past months unless there were factors of which he was unaware. As for the B and C optants, they have been offered alternative jobs or premature retirement. If these jobs are unsuitable and they do not wish to accept premature retirement, the search for jobs will continue. I want to make that plain to the whole House so that everyone will understand that we are, I hope, in the circumstances, being both firm in our objectives and fair to those who are in GCHQ.

I was asked about the penalties for the A optants who rejoined the unions. As the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, will be aware, these are set out in the Civil Service code. I was also asked whether there was a distinction between those who rejoined and those who had continued in membership. Of course, those who have continued in membership of the unions—the B and C optants—will have had the offer of alternative jobs or premature retirement.

It is, of course, the A optants who will be eligible for the restructuring—this question was asked by both the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, and the noble Lord, Lord Rochester—and we believe that the new structure will cover all the GCHQ staff who have accepied the conditions and continue to comply with the Government's revised conditions of service. This is a major simplification of the structure of the grades and pay arrangements at GCHQ. Over 100 different grades will be assimilated into 15 grades specially tailored to meet the particular needs of GCHQ. In general, these grades will not have direct counterparts in the rest of the Civil Service; and, of course, GCHQ's primary work is different from that of the rest of the Civil Service.

Both noble Lords asked why we had not accepted a no-disruption agreement. There were discussions with the unions in 1984 on their offer of a no-disruption agreement. They were unable to give effective guarantees against industrial action, which is vital for national security. Even this limited union offer was subsequently repudiated by the conference of the two largest unions. This confirms the Government's belief that a no-disruption agreement does not provide a viable option.

I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, will consider that the points which I have made in explaining the restructuring of GCHQ, which we believe will give greater flexibility for management and increased pay for the staff, will be helpful to the morale of those who are working in this very important Government establishment.

Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos

My Lords, I should like to ask the noble Baroness a very brief question. In her answer the noble Baroness said that a search was being made for jobs. Could she say where these jobs are to be found, in what parts of the country, and what are the prospects?

Baroness Young

My Lords, my understanding is that the alternative jobs offered will be in other parts of the Civil Service. As I said at the beginning, it is our intention that we should try and offer jobs which are acceptable to the B and the C optants, if they prefer to look for another job rather than to accept the terms of premature retirement.

Lord Sefton of Garston

My Lords, I understood that the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, was not asking why the no-disruption agreement was not achieved but whether or not the Government were willing lo try again to get a no-disruption agreement. May I ask the noble Baroness the Minister if this is so? Arc they willing to try again?

Baroness Young

My Lords, as I hoped I had made clear in the answer to the first question that was asked, the Government believe that, now that over 99 per cent, of employees have accepted the revised terms of service, the Government have achieved their objective, which is to ensure the smooth running of GCHQ without disruption. We believe that this is now the right way forward. I explained in answer to the question that was asked why we felt that a no-disruption agreement was not a viable option.

Lord Sefton of Garston

My Lords, does the noble Baroness agree that a sense of injustice still rankles among the civil servants at GCHQ and that the Government should try to settle that feeling by attempting to achieve another no-disruption agreement?

Baroness Young

My Lords, I hope the noble Lord will accept that 99 per cent, of those employed at GCHQ have accepted the arrangements which we have outlined. This fact, coupled with the restructuring agreement which will be negotiated between the staff federation at GCHQ and the Treasury, will, we hope, indicate to those who have agreed to these new terms the importance that we attach to their work and their conditions of service.