Printed for the Cabinet November 1949
The circulation of this paper has been strictly limited.
for the personal use of..... Sie Norman Brook
TOP SECRET
C.P. (49) 233
24th November, 1949
Page 636
323/
It is issued
Copy No.31
CABINET
COMMUNISTS AND FASCISTS: SECRET GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS
MEMORANDUM BY THE MINISTER OF Defence and THE MINISTER of Labour AND NATIONAL SERVICE
On 19th May (C.M. (49) 36th Conclusions, Minute 3) the Cabinet invited the Minister of Labour to obtain the views of the National Joint Advisory Council on the arrangements proposed in C.P. (49) 107 for excluding untrustworthy persons from participation in secret Government work undertaken by contractors.
2. These proposals were duly put to the National Joint Advisory Council at its meeting on 27th July. Some reservations were then expressed as to their desirability, and both sides asked for further time to consider their implications. On 26th October the Council again considered the proposed arrangements. It was clear that there was considerable opposition to them from both the Trade Union and the Employers' side. While there was no disagreement with the proposition that the security of the State must be paramount, it was thought that the proposed policy announcement would cause controversy out of all proportion to the issues involved and that the appeal procedure proposed would cut across the established conciliation machinery in industry. It was pointed out that only a very limited number of cases were likely to arise and that these, in the view of the Council, could easily be dealt with as at present on an ad hoc basis between the Government Departments concerned (of which there are only two) and the con- tractor. The unanimous advice of the Council was that the problem should continue to be dealt with by administrative action between the Government Department and the contractor concerned, that the proposed arrangements should not be put into effect and that no public statement should be made.
3. We have reconsidered this matter in the light of the consideration given to it by the Council, and, while we do not dissent from their general conclusions, we feel that their recommendations call for some comment. While it is true that the number of untrustworthy persons whom the Admiralty and the Ministry of Supply will wish to remove from access to secret work in the hands of contractors is comparatively small, these cases will not be confined to persons employed as unskilled or even as skilled workmen whose dismissal or transfer would be unlikely to have such serious consequences to the individual. On the contrary, the type of person whose removal is most urgently required in the interests of national security is the scientist or professional man who, in the course of his duties, is likely to secure details not only of a limited part but often of the whole of a secret process. The transfer to non-secret work or where this is impracticable--the discharge of such persons cannot be attributed to the normal custom of the trade and, especially as discharge may mean not only the loss of the existing job but difficulty in finding a new one, it will be most unlikely that we shall avoid public comment and questions to Miage63 of 10Яber of these cases.
Page 636
37924
A
e
2
Page 63 fell, therefore, bound to warn our dog fat oner
sooner or later a Minister will be asked whether he has requested or in any way been associated with the removal of one of these persons from his employment. The answer to such a question can only be that the Minister has requested the firm, in accordance with the terms of the contract, to remove the man from secret work. The Minister will also have to be prepared to deal with two further points:
(a) On what grounds this action was taken.
(b) What safeguards have been provided to prevent a miscarriage of justice?
5. The grounds for the Minister's action can only be those described in C.P. (49) 107, i.e., the need for safeguarding vital defence secrets. In other words, as soon as a case like this becomes a live issue, we cannot, whatever the advice of the Council, avoid a policy statement.
6. In regard to safeguards the advice of the National Joint Advisory Council eases the Government's position. It is now clear not only that there would be the most strenuous objection on the part of Trades Unions as well as of employers to the creation of any special appeal tribunal, but also that the Unions would be content with their normal right to make representations in such cases. If, therefore, the question of safeguards is raised the Minister can say that this whole problem has been discussed with the Council, who have advised that the appropriate machinery for any employee who considers that he has been unfairly treated would be for him to make representations through his Union under the normal custom of his employment.
7. It is fair to point out that such representations by a Union will not, as in the case of a civil servant, lead to any investigation into the justification for the conclusion that the man is a Communist or Fascist, &c. The Union's help in safeguarding the man's interest is to ensure that the employer's action is inevitable under his contract and not simply due to prejudice. The Minister of Labour is, however, satisfied that the Trade Unions accept the position that an employer is bound by the terms of his contract to remove a man from secret work if so requested by the Government Department concerned.
8. We recommend therefore-
(a) that, in view of the advice given by the National Joint Advisory Council, there should be no immediate statement of policy on the Government's intentions in regard to the exclusion of untrustworthy persons from participation in secret Government work undertaken by contractors, and that the idea of a special appeal tribunal should be abandoned; (b) that, where the responsible Minister is satisfied that the removal of an untrustworthy individual is essential, such removal should take place by administrative action, the Minister requesting the firm, under the terms of their contract, to remove the man from secret work; (c) that, if and when the question is raised whether a Minister has been associated with the removal of an individual employee, the answer should be on the lines suggested in paragraphs 5 and 6 above.
24th November, 1949.