Individual Case (CAS) - Discussion: 1992, Publication: 79th ILC session (1992)

Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87) - United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (Ratification: 1949)

A Government representative addressed the comments raised in the Committee of Experts' report concerning the complexity of the legislation. He indicated that he would address the general concerns raised and that his Government would provide more detailed information on specific points in its next report on this Convention. He stated that the aim of the legislative changes taking place in his country over recent years was to establish a proper balance between the rights of trade unions and employers and between trade unions and their members. These changes had been extensively debated and therefore had come about as the result of the democratic process. He affirmed his Government's position that the legislation in question was in full compliance with the provisions of the Convention and that there has been no regulation of the freedom of workers to organise their own trade unions or to adopt their own rules and determine the manner in which their union affairs would be conducted. The legislation, furthermore, provided special protection against legal proceedings which might otherwise be brought against trade unions calling on workers to break contracts in contemplation or furtherance of a trade dispute and in no way infringed upon the worker's right to take part in industrial action. The widely supported amended legislation was intended to protect the rights of individual trade union members by ensuring that they were properly consulted prior to a call for industrial action. As concerns the complexity of its legislation, the Government had made efforts to ensure that clear guidance was available by publishing a series of free up-to-date booklets explaining the legislation as it applied to employers, workers and trade unions. Furthermore, the Government intended to bring all the legislation together into a single consolidated Act. New measures had been introduced in this regard since the recent elections. He concluded by assuring the Conference Committee that the Government would supply full information concerning the progress of this legislation.

The Workers' members welcomed the statement made by the Government representative that a consolidation of legislative texts concerning labour issues would be made shortly. Nevertheless, they stressed that information from the British Trades Union Congress indicated that the overall legislation had become not only too complex but also oppressive. Even if the trade unions of some countries felt that they could not function without detailed legislation regulating their rights, British trade unions were of a contrary opinion. In fact, simply considering the number of legislative texts and their complexity, the legislation was oppressive. Furthermore, some of this legislation considerably impeded the activities of the trade union movement. The situation had come to a point where the ordinary trade union delegate no longer understood the legislation and was therefore tempted to curtail participation in trade union activities to the detriment of the movement. Whilst there would always be men and women willing to dedicate all their time, indeed their whole lives to the trade union movement, many in some parts of the world had died for the movement. If ordinary members were deterred from taking an active role at a local level in fear of contravening the law, this would be a great loss to responsible trade unionism. As concerns the consolidation of the legislative texts into one Act, they stated that, according to the information they had, the Government was also going to adopt other laws concerning trade unionism. Given that trade unions could not request the Government to introduce legislative amendments at the same time that the consolidation was being considered, they requested the Government to pause for a moment and to consult with the trade unions in order to review the provisions which could be eliminated not only from the new Acts but also from those which had already been adopted so that all of the legislation would be in conformity with the Convention. This would permit a more in-depth examination of the entire legislation later on.

The Employers' members expressed a certain discomfort with respect to the comments made by the Committee of Experts concerning the volume and the complexity of the legislation. The Committee of Experts had perhaps condemned the Government too rapidly by, for example, noting an incompatibility with the Convention and then requesting full information in order to determine if there was a violation. As concerns more specifically the volume and the complexity of the legislation, the Employers' members, stressing that there was no Convention providing that national law had to be simple, feared that the Committee of Experts used subjective criteria. In an ideal world laws would always be simple and everyone would subscribe to them. Unfortunately, this situation was much more complicated, particularly for historical reasons and laws naturally had a tendency to become more complex. It appeared that the Committee of Experts had concluded that one or two provisions could be interpreted in such a way that there could be a violation of the Convention. Nevertheless, practically all provisions of national law everywhere could be interpreted in this manner, as the criteria was so large that it opened the door to abusive interpretations. If provisions were to be criticised, it should be done in a concrete fashion. The criticism made by the Committee of Experts concerning the complexity of legislation was not a valid reproach to be made against a country. It would be better to cite a specific provision which was in violation of a certain Convention. This was the only rational approach. As concerns the measures taken by the Government to consolidate legislative texts, the Conference Committee would have to wait for the texts in order to undertake a detailed examination.

The Government representative assured the Committee that it would convey these comments to his Government. He had noted that this issue of complexity of legislation had to be seen taking into account the needs of the ordinary workers and their trade union representatives and he stressed that most of the laws on this subject dated back 20 years. The Government would supply in its next report on this Convention the supplementary information requested by the Committee of Experts which permit further review of this question next year.

The Government representative, with respect to the situation at the Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ), recalled that his Government had explained in some detail in previous discussions in this Committee its reasons for maintaining that there was no substantive case to be answered. He reiterated three main points maintained by his Government concerning this case: (1) GCHQ staff were engaged in vital intelligence gathering and communications activities which formed part of the United Kingdom's national security and were therefore covered by the provisions of Convention No. 151 which allowed exemption from the right of association for public servants who were engaged in work of a confidential nature; (2) This case related solely to one establishment. Furthermore, similar establishments in other ILO member States were generally staffed by military personnel and thus excluded from the provisions of Convention No. 87; (3) While GCHQ employees may not belong to national trade unions, they are free to organise in a trade union based on the workplace called the Government Communications Staff Federation. This Federation, which is registered as a trade union under the appropriate legal provisions of the United Kingdom, had in its membership more than half the present employees at GCHQ and represented them both individually and collectively in negotiations over pay, conditions of service and a wide range of other issues. It is clear, therefore, that employees at GCHQ did retain the right to trade union membership and representation.

Last year, the Conference Committee concluded that, despite the substantial difference between the views of the Government and those of the unions on trade union representation at GCHQ, the Government should reopen dialogue with the unions with a view to finding a solution in full conformity with the Convention.

Prior to last year's Conference there had been no discussions on this issue between the Government and the trade unions for over six years. The Government representative informed the Committee, however, that as a result of its conclusions last year, a dialogue had begun. The Prime Minister wrote to the General Secretary of the Trades Union Congress on 25 June 1991, setting out the Government's views on the matter, but at the same time offering the unions the opportunity to discuss union representation at GCHQ with the Head of the Home Civil Service during one of their regular meetings with him. The Prime Minister wrote again on 20 December 1991 reiterating this offer. This information was provided to the Committee of Experts at the end of 1991. These letters led to a resumption of dialogue. On 18 February 1992, a special meeting was held to discuss the GCHQ issues between the Head of the Home Civil Service and the general secretaries of all the civil service trade unions. This meeting did not result in an agreement on how the substantial differences remaining between the parties might be resolved. The issues were indeed difficult and highly sensitive, affecting national security. The Government had made clear, however, at that meeting and subsequently in a letter to the Secretary of the Council of Civil Service Unions, dated 24 February 1992, that despite these differences, the Government remained willing to consider any new proposals the unions might wish to put forward. The Government concluded its letter by noting that there was still a fundamental incompatibility between the propositions of the two sides which could not be easily resolved. It indicated, however, its willingness to consider any new proposals the unions may wish to make which would guarantee the Government the absence of any disruption to essential security operations. The Government had, therefore, responded at the most senior level to the conclusions concerning GOCHQ reached by this Committee in 1991 and the dialogue remained open. While he noted that the Workers' members might maintain that this meeting merely demonstrated that there was no room to propose arrangements which would be acceptable to the Government, the Government representative recalled that it was acknowledged in this Committee's debate in 1991 that the differences between the two sides would not be easy to resolve and neither the Government nor the unions could be expected to find a complete solution easily or quickly. The activities at GCHQ involved essential operations of national security and the Government had to be fully satisfied that these would be safeguarded from any form of disruption. It might not be possible to bridge the substantial gap between the Government and the civil service trade unions; nevertheless, the Government was ready to discuss any proposals that could offer the necessary guarantees. Such proposals would be considered fully and fairly on their merits. The criticisms made of the United Kingdom at the 1991 Conference and contained within the Committee of Experts' latest comments had produced a response from the Government. Careful note had been taken of the supervisory bodies' comments. The Government was willing to continue this dialogue in an attempt to reconcile the differences between the two parties and would consider any constructive suggestions to this end. He urged the Conference Committee to accept the action taken to reopen dialogue with the unions as a step forward and to support its continuation.

The Workers' member of the United States spoke on behalf of the Workers' members. They expressed their dismay at the inaction on the part of the Government following the lengthy discussions on this case last year in this Committee and the unanimous conclusion it reached urging the Government to undertake remedial action in the shortest possible time. The substantive points of the case had already been settled last year and did not need to be repeated. In 1991, the Conference Committee had expressed its deep concern at the lack of dialogue between the Government and the trade unions at GCHQ concerning the ban of their right to join unions of their choice. This Committee urged the Government to reconsider its position by promptly resuming the dialogue with a view to finding a solution in full conformity with the Convention and requested the Government to report in 1992 to the Office on the real and substantial progress made. Unfortunately, no progress could be noted. The Committee of Experts' report indicated that the Government had reaffirmed its belief that its actions in respect of GCHQ were in line with its obligations under ILO Conventions. The Committee of Experts further noted that they had not been provided with any new element to lead them to modify their previous observations on the merits of the case and urged the Government to resume in the very near future constructive discussions calculated to lead, through genuine dialogue, to compromise acceptable to both sides. They considered that the meeting held between the Government and trade union representatives was merely a facade and did not constitute a genuine constructive dialogue which would lead to reconsideration of the Government's position or a compromise acceptable to both sides as intended by the Committee of Experts and by this Committee. They believed that it was clear that the Government had no intention to consider any arrangements or proposals involving representation by free trade unions. It, therefore, appeared that the Government wished to be ruled by a different standard than those governing other member States which had ratified the Convention. They hoped that the Government representative would convey to his Government the Workers' members' desire for real movement in this case. The attitude taken by the Government, in sharp contradiction with its long history of enlightenment and dedication to ILO affairs, unfairly and unnecessarily flaunted the ILO supervisory system, setting a bad example for the faithful observance by developing countries having ratified the Convention.

The Workers' member of the United Kingdom also spoke on behalf of the Workers' members. The Workers' members stated that it was difficult to determine from the statement made by the Government representative whether the Government had changed its position. They recalled that in 1991 there was unanimity on this case that a continued dialogue was necessary. The Government had been requested to take action to this end because this Committee was tired of dealing with a case of no progress and wanted to get on with its work in many other parts of the world. They noted that the Minister had not addressed this Committee on behalf of his Government and whilst they were sure that the Government representative who had spoken did so with the full authority of his Minister they considered that this could be considered to be partially a political issue since all parties at the recent general election, except the one elected, promised to restore freedom of association at GCHQ. The politics of the United Kingdom did not concern this Committee but the issue had been raised to establish that this case did not concern a constitutional issue, since it could be argued that the other political parties which were willing to restore the rights of GCHQ workers were not concerned about national security. They noted that this was an old case which had been the subject of great speculation and discussion in the corridors. This case raised very serious questions about the authority of the standard-setting and supervisory functions of the ILO. If the Government of a well-known and formerly powerful country appeared to hamper, to equivocate or even to ignore the views of the Committee of Experts and of this Committee, then the whole process would be undermined. On the surface this case appeared to deal with a relatively small issue but if this Committee could not tackle a small case, a case which nevertheless concerned a vital principle, how could it deal with the horrors of some of the cases brought before it involving death squads and disappearances. The Government representative had not attempted to argue as they had done on previous occasions in detail that the situation of the GCHQ workers was not in contravention with the Convention. He had argued, however, that these workers did have a union. This "union", however, had no certificate of independence and was not accepted as a trade union. The High Court would shortly judge whether or not this union actually was independent. If the High Court determined that this union was not independent, then the Government would have to stop saying it was. Paradoxically, if the Court decided the union was independent, the Government would have to ban it. In any event, the question of whether the present situation at GCHQ was in contravention with the Convention had already been determined by the Committee of Experts and by this Committee last year and in previous years as a study of the conclusions on this case would show. In 1991, therefore, this Committee focused on the need for the Government to resume dialogue with the trade union on this case. They recognised the need for guaranteed, uninterrupted service at GCHQ and agreed that the Conference Committee could not indicate the manner in which this should be assured, but insisted that this be negotiated with the union. It was necessary to examine in detail the statement made by the Government representative that dialogue had taken place. The dialogue referred to by the Government representative consisted of the following:

- a letter from the Prime Minister to the TUC, immediately after the 1991 Conference, indicating its Government's continuing firm commitment to its present policy on union representation at GCHQ;

- a letter from the Head of the Home Civil Service to the civil service trade unions indicating the Government's intention that the ban on national trade unions at GCHQ would continue - and this was from the person appointed to have any discussions with the trade unions;

- a new letter from the Prime Minister in December 1991 reiterating his previous position;

- a meeting in which the Head of the Home Civil Service affirmed the Government's belief that it was not in contravention with the Convention and had not changed it position that the arrangements in GCHQ were fully satisfactory. The Head of the Home Civil Service further indicated that the Government knew of no arrangement which it might consider to resolve the situation in a satisfactory manner for both parties.

The Workers' members queried whether there was any point in discussing this case if the Government had no intention to change its position. They therefore requested the Government representative to indicate whether the Government might actually be willing to reach a conclusion which would be acceptable to both sides and thus reassure this Committee of a genuine dialogue so that real negotiations with the trade unions could take place.

The Employers' members recalled that this case concerned the Government Information Centre and that the work carried on there could not be interrupted for security reasons. In the beginning of the 1980s there had, however, been strikes there which led to the alternative offered to employees with the result that GCHQ workers no longer had the right to join the organisations of their own choosing. Over several years, there had practically been no contact between the Government and the trade union. Recently, however, there had been high-level conversations and even an initiative by the Prime Minister. The conclusions of this Committee in 1991 had been followed to little effect but there had, nevertheless, been a first contact had that constituted progress. The solution could only be found at the national level, but the Conference Committee could play a role as a catalyst and be a positive influence. Some new elements could be taken into account: new elections had been held and a new Labour Minister had been named and this might create a new atmosphere in the country; furthermore, a stronger Government could make more concessions. In any event, as had already been stated last year unanimously, discussions should resume and continue in a substantive manner and not only in form. Two elements were therefore essential: first, the Government had to be assured that the work at GCHQ would be carried out without interruption. Secondly, the workers had to be free to join the organisation of their choosing. The Employers' members appealed to the two parties to take up a constructive dialogue in order to attempt to find a solution.

A Government member of Switzerland noted the Government representative's indication that it was ready to continue a constructive dialogue and that indeed it appeared that a certain dialogue had been re-established. Even if some considered this dialogue to be sufficient and others felt that the Government only turned a deaf ear, progress could be noted as compared with previous years. As had been noted by the Workers' members and the Employers' members this was a case typically concerning internal politics, magnified by the circumstances. This situation came out of the circumstances prevailing in the beginning of the 1980s when the Government of the United Kingdom was involved in a conflict which directly threatened its security. The tense climate of international relations had changed and this détente could be found in the ILO. The Committee had therefore to show its wisdom and also its determination. Democracy was a valid concept for all countries; the universality of standards and the efficiency of the supervisory mechanism ensured that the Convention must be applied equally. This Committee must therefore make conclusions, very strict if necessary, inviting the Government, which had an important role in the ILO, to make a special effort to ensure dialogue. The Experts had emphasised in their report that workers had the right to establish organisations of their own choosing and that the right to organise did not prejudge the right to strike. The Committee of Experts had urged the Government to resume in the very near future constructive discussions calculated to lead, through genuine dialogue, to a compromise acceptable to both sides. The speaker urged the Government to respect the conclusions of the Committee of Experts in the same spirit.

A Workers' member of Pakistan stated that the member States of the ILO, whether developed or developing, must all respect the fundamental principles of the ILO Constitution and the Declaration of Philadelphia. One of the essential principles in this context was Convention No. 87. Universal principles applied in all countries and there should be no discrimination in this regard. Western countries which boasted to be the champions of democracy had responsibility and special obligations towards the ILO because they were among the countries which founded the Organisation. The United Kingdom had ratified the Convention in 1949 and when member States ratified a Convention they undertook to respect the relevant international obligations and to bring their legislation into conformity with the Convention. The Committee of Experts had clearly indicated that a change was necessary as concerned the situation at GCHQ and the speaker appealed to the Government to resume and intensify a real dialogue with the trade union so that the Convention would be respected.

A Government member of Canada recalled that the Convention established one explicit right and two implicit rights. The first was the right for workers' organisations to freely establish the organisation of their choosing. The two other rights concerned collective bargaining and the right to strike which were not explicity mentioned in the Convention but developed from the jurisprudence of the ILO's supervisory bodies. GCHQ workers were now members of a trade union which had the right to bargain collectively. They did not have the right to strike, but that fell under one of the exclusions accepted because of the nature of their activities. Still, they could not join a national trade union and this seemed to be due to the fact that, given the British system of industrial relations and legislation, the Government could not obtain any real guarantee that there would not be a strike at GCHQ if the workers in question were members of a national trade union, even if they gave a verbal guarantee. This Committee did not have ready-made answers but it was encouraging to note that the dialogue had been resumed when it had not existed for several years. It was perhaps not a very constructive dialogue up to now and there had not been concrete results, but the dialogue had been opened which, in itself, was encouraging. The speaker associated herself with the Employers' members in urging the Government to pursue the dialogue in a constructive spirit so that the parties themselves could come to a satisfactory agreement.

A Workers' member of Norway speaking also on behalf of the Workers' members of Denmark, Finland, Iceland and Sweden stated that the United Kingdom Government had not undertaken a real dialogue with the trade unions which would permit resolution of this case. The trade unions had indicated that they were ready to conclude an agreement with the Government as concerns the right to strike. This case therefore could be resolved if the Government respected the right of workers to establish an independent trade union of their choosing. If the Government did not accept this compromise, that would constitute reason for mentioning this case in a special paragraph. Furthermore, they hoped that the Government in consultation with the International Labour Standards Department would submit this dispute as soon as possible to the International Court of Justice, as had been requested by the trade union. The Workers' members of the Nordic countries were bound to make a further appeal to discuss the question of mentioning this case in a special paragraph.

A Government member of Australia recalled that his Government had already spoken in 1991 to express its concern over the lack of progress in this case, which even if it largely concerned questions of a technical nature, also raised a problem of fundamental principles: the right of workers to freely organise. Still, this problem could never be resolved in a satisfactory fashion if the specific circumstances prevailing at GCHQ were not taken into account. The fact that there were discussions which were still open between the Government and the trade unions was encouraging, but it seemed that the dialogue had not been particularly positive or constructive up to now. Furthermore, the discussions had not given rise to concrete and specific proposals even though certain proposals had been made by the trade unions in 1984 to the House of Commons Select Committee on Employment. This case would never be resolved without a willingness on both sides and the speaker therefore firmly appealed to the Government to commit itself without reservation to a constructive dialogue in order to finally resolve this case.

A Workers' member of Spain stressed that the Government, in a letter sent to the trade union, had stated that it saw no use in the discussions. There had therefore been no progress but rather a step backwards since 1991. Concerning the substance of the issue, the problem was that the workers did not have the right to join organisations of their own choosing. The Government attempted to justify this prohibition because of the strategic importance of GCHQ, but if this were true, only workers in centres without any importance would then be able to have the right to join the organisation of their choosing. Freedom of association could not be subordinated to the importance of the establishment in which workers were employed. This approach would indirectly raise the question of who would decide on the strategic importance of an establishment. If it were the Government, then it would also have the right to determine which workers could or could not join the organisation of their choosing.

A Government member of the United States recalled that her Government had joined the consensus prevailing in this Committee in 1991 to appeal to the Government of the United Kingdom to resume a dialogue with the trade unions on the question of the GCHQ. Welcoming the interest and intent expressed by the Government to continue the dialogue, the speaker nevertheless expressed her regret that there had not been more progress more rapidly. She hoped that the Government would not only continue but intensify the dialogue with the trade unions with a view to determining whether it was possible to reach a mutually satisfactory solution taking into account the special needs at GCHQ. The effectiveness of the supervisory machinery depended on dialogue. This did not necessarily imply agreement, but rather a willingness to listen to the other party and efforts of good faith by both sides to create an atmosphere of reat and constructive dialogue. This Committee could not solve this issue in the place of the Government and the United Kingdom trade unions, but it should be hoped that its efforts would help the parties to find a solution.

A Workers' member of Greece stated that if the dialogue begun in this Committee did not continue in the country in question, then it was a dialogue among the deaf. The United Kingdom was one of the most industrialised countries with a long democratic tradition, and which affirmed the respect of trade union rights and liberties. It did not respect this Convention, one of the essential ILO Conventions, if not the most fundamental. If this developed democratic country adopted such an attitude, what could be hoped for from developing countries which were confronted with serious economic difficulties? The attention of the United Kingdom Government should be drawn to this aspect because its attitude put the ILO in danger.

A Government member of Germany expressed his disagreement with respect to certain comments made by the Committee of Experts. First, as concerned the relationship between Conventions Nos. 87 and 151, there was no doubt that the latter established a specific standard which took precedence over the former or complemented it. The attitude of the United Kingdom Government in this case, however, was clearly not in violation with Convention No. 151. If the Experts felt that there was a violation of Convention No. 87, that would mean that the Conference, 14 years ago, had intentionally accepted the possibility that there were situations compatible with the new Convention No. 151, but not with Convention No. 87, adopted almost 30 years earlier and already ratified by a large number of countries. Secondly, the speaker expressed his reservations with respect to the rigidity of the Committee of Experts which had not taken into account the fact that the Secret Services in the United Kingdom were subordinated to the Home Office and not to the Ministry of Defence. The speaker recalled that he had entirely subscribed to the opinion of the Conference Committee in 1991 to urge the United Kingdom Government to enter into dialogue. The Government representative had indicated that there had been dialogue both written and oral, but the speaker stressed that this must be more than a mere formal contact. There must be in reality a resumption of true dialogue on the substance. The Committee should perhaps also give some indication in these discussions so that the Committee of Experts, when it meets again in March 1993, could proceed with an examination of the correspondence exchanged and the contents of the discussions. Without going as far as to suggest to this Committee that it should give indications on the contents of this dialogue, as had been done by the Workers' member of Norway, the speaker stated that the dialogue must be pursued and improved.

A Workers' member of the United States, in the name of the Workers' members, requested the Government representative to indicate whether, in resuming the dialogue, the Government was prepared to reconsider the prohibition made for workers at GCHQ to freely join the organisation of their own choosing. Only if the reply to this question was affirmative would this be a constructive and real dialogue which would permit movement towards a satisfactory solution.

The Government representative thanked all the speakers for their contributions and assured the Conference Committee that he had taken careful note of all the points made. He recalled, as had already been indicated by a number of speakers, that prior to this Committee's meeting in 1991 no discussion had taken place between the Government and the national trade unions for over six years. The core of the Committee's 1991 request, therefore, was that this situation would change. The dialogue now has been reopened. It must be recalled, however, that the issue was an extremely sensitive one and that it would be extremely difficult to find a solution which would sufficiently protect and maintain the interests of all the parties concerned. Nevertheless, his Government wished to maintain and develop a constructive dialogue with the trade unions. He considered that the best chance for progress would be through the continuation of the dialogue rather than calling up past differences. He assured this Committee that: (1) he would personally and immediatly report to the Ministers on the views expressed and conclusions reached in this Committee; (2) the dialogue which had been resumed with the trade unions remained open; (3) his Government would continue the dialogue to look for a solution which both fully safeguarded the national security interests and was acceptable to the parties involved.

The Workers' members noted that this Committee was entitled to have some expectation that there would be a solution to this case. As concerns the Employers' members' comment concerning the fact that a new Government was in power, they expressed the hope that the Government's new position of strength would enable it to be generous and to enter into a constructive dialogue. They agreed that there must be an assurance that there would be no interruption in the work carried out at GCHQ, but the workers must also be guaranteed the right to join the trade union of their own choosing. With reference to the comment made by the Government member of Canada concerning the difficulty in ensuring that there would be no strikes at GCHQ if the workers were permitted to join national trade unions, they recalled that it was possible for governments to introduce restrictions on strikes which were perfectly in conformity with the Convention. It therefore was possible to reach a conclusion satisfactory to the concerns of both parties which would be in conformity with the Convention. The Federation which GCHQ employees could presently join was not a true trade union and had not been accepted for registration as an independent trade union. They stressed that they were not promoting the interests of individual trade unions but rather the issue of the freedom to join the trade union of one's own choosing. No practical proposals had been put forward by the Government before this Committee to resolve this case. Clearly a dialogue was not merely a succession of monologues. As had been indicated by the Government member of Germany, a serious will to produce results had to be demonstrated by the Government. A special paragraph had been proposed for this case and this question seemed to dominate the concerns of this Committee's members. The more important issue, however, was not whether to have a special paragraph, but rather how to ensure free trade unionism at GCHQ. A special paragraph was not only to be used for serious violations against human rights but also as a special note to express regret at the refusal of a government to cooperate with the Committee of Experts and this Committee, which had in fact happened in this case. They could forgo the special paragraph if they could be reassured that the Government intended to make all efforts to ensure genuine dialogue on this question with a view towards a solution acceptable to both parties. They urged that the conclusions be drawn up very firmly in that light and in a manner which made it clear that substantial progress had to be made. The Government representative appeared in his final statement when he referred to a solution "which was acceptable to the parties involved" to be attempting to fulfil the commitment requested by this Committee. It appears that the Government representative felt this to be so and if this now was shared by the whole committee a special paragraph would not be appropriate.

The Employers' members stressed the large consensus in this Committee concerning the evaluation of the situation at GCHQ. All the speakers had expressed the hope that the discussions begun would continue in a more intensive and constructive fashion and that they be more targeted. Nevertheless, two essential elements had to be present in order to find a satisfactory solution for both sides: the Government must be assured that the work would not be interrupted, and the workers must be free to join the organisation of their choosing. It was not for this Committee to indicate in detail to the parties the manner in which to arrive at such a solution, but the fact that the Minister himself would intervene now in the dialogue should be welcomed as it constituted an additional guarantee of success.

The Committee took note of the general discussion on the question of the nature and complexity of the legislation, and of the information supplied by the Government in this connection. It understood the Government's undertaking to supply full particulars to the Committee of Experts on the different points raised by that Committee. It hoped to be in the position to make a full assessment of the situation at its next session. Concerning the GCHQ question, the Committee took note of the information supplied by the Government representative as well as of the discussions which had taken place. The Committee once again had to express its deep concern at the continued refusal of the Government to implement the Convention as regards the situation of workers at GCHQ who still did not enjoy the right to join a union of their own choosing. The Committee noted the correspondence exchanged and the recent meeting at a high level which took place with the unions. Nevertheless, it deplored that these initiatives did not result yet in a genuine dialogue and did not meet so far the wishes expressed by the Committee last year. Taking due note of the Government's declared intention to reach a solution on this question, satisfactory to all parties concerned, it strongly hoped that this statement would be rapidly followed by a substantive, frank and constructive dialogue, carried out in good faith, so that a solution in full conformity with the Convention could be found to this problem which had been raised by the Committee of Experts and discussed by the Conference Committee for many years. The Committee expressed the very firm hope that, as from next year, it would be able to take note of substantial progress in this matter. The Committee intended to examine this case again at its next session of the Conference.