NEXT TO THE death of Gaitskell in 1963, the event that has been most responsible for accelerating the Labour Party’s lurch to the left was a decision taken at the Annual Conference of the Labour Party in 1973. Until then, it was forbidden for members of the Labour Party to belong to, or to give support to, certain organisations known to be offshoots of the Communist Party. As Aneurin Bevan, an old-style Labour left-winger, had put it:
The Communist Party is the sworn, inveterate enemy of the socialist and democratic parties. When it associates with them, it does so as a preliminary to destroying them. The communist does not look upon the socialist as an ally in a common cause. He looks upon him as a dupe, as a temporary convenience, and as something to be thrust ruthlessly to one side when he has served his purpose.
Though the communists had never concealed their loathing of the British style of democracy because they favoured a totalitarian system that the voters could never reverse, the Labour Party’s National Executive was so heavily infiltrated by extremists that in 1973 it was able to induce the conference to abandon the proscribed list of communist-front organisations.
This move horrified the security authorities, whose prime duty is to prevent subversion by communists and their associates. Their fears that this would lead to a takeover of the Labour Party by extremists, of whom many are known to be secret communists, have proved to be well founded.
Labour MPs and ministers were not long in appearing openly on Communist Party platforms, supporting the scurrilous Morning Star, the pro-Soviet newspaper.
Labour Party officials and back-bench MPs have declared their support for an amalgamation of the Labour and Communist Parties by stating that the differences between them are now ‘negligible’.
Events have moved so quickly that a left-wing demagogue who supports nuclear disarmament by Britain and the weakening of defence relations with the United States – both high-priority Soviet aims – is now leader of the Labour Party, in the shape of Michael Foot. After the 1981 local government elections for the Greater London Council, moderate socialists who had led the Labour Party campaign and won it were then immediately voted out of office, their places being taken by left-wing extremists.
In all these moves, extreme left-wing leaders of certain trade unions have played a major role. A few of them, like McGahey of the Mineworkers Union, are open communists, but many more are on the secret communist list. They may admit to previous membership, but if so, they claim to have left the party years ago.
The extent to which efforts are made to suborn trade union officials was indicated in the evidence of the two Czech defectors Frolik and August. They named trade union leaders alleged to have been recruited when interrogated by the CIA and by the US Senate Judiciary Committee.
Through such people, the Communist Party has wielded influence out of all proportion to its size, and in many instances they are working primarily in the interests of the Kremlin. It must always be remembered that, as with KGB agents like Blunt and Philby, communist trade union officials are in regular touch with Soviet controllers. They are told what to do, step by step, from Moscow, and they are expected to do it. In 1980, a friend of mine involved in the British construction industry was visited by an MI5 officer to be questioned about one of his manual workers, who happened to be black. When a telephone call showed that the man had been away from work ‘ill’ for three days in the previous week, the MI5 officer revealed that he had, in fact, been in Moscow, his air trip having been paid by the Soviet authorities. The man was an agitator, especially among black workers, and had presumably been in Moscow to report and receive instructions.
One major union leader of recent times was under regular surveillance by MI5 and was seen in contact with Soviet intelligence men. His wife, moreover, is known to have been a Comintern courier. He was present in 1941 at a secret meeting of communist trade union leaders, at which they reviewed their position after Russia was forced into the war by the German attack. An MI5 agent was also present and reported the full proceedings. Defectors have named him as a KGB agent. Yet both Wilson and Heath forbade any interrogation of this man because, at that time, they wanted no trouble.
Another trade union leader, almost as well known, had occasional meetings with KGB men, specialising in trade union activity, to plan the disruption of the British economy. This plan was partly to promote the spread of communism in Britain but also to reduce living standards so that those prevailing in Russia would not seem so harsh – a deliberate KGB target throughout Western Europe.
Understandably, the Kremlin and its subversion arm, the KGB, pay increasingly close attention to the trade unions of the truly democratic countries where they have power, contrary to their situation in the Soviet Union, where they are merely cyphers. The Trade Union Congress (TUC) and individual unions have gone out of their way to establish close ‘fraternal relations’ with their counterparts behind the Iron Curtain, which are heavily infiltrated and controlled by the KGB. The extent to which communist unions are run by the state has been brought to public notice by the heroic attempts by Polish workers to gain a modest degree of freedom. The Soviet Union left the Poles in no doubt that, if necessary, it would impose its will by force of arms if the movement for free trade unions went too far for its liking. Yet the communist-inspired drive to link British trade unions with their East European counterparts-in-name continues – and the attitude of the TUC during the Polish crisis was shameful.
In 1975 there was a secret meeting in West Germany of communist trade union leaders from Europe and Britain to discuss tactics for disrupting industry in Western Europe over the following five years. It was sponsored by the Russians, whose main interest it was intended to serve; again, a western intelligence agent was infiltrated into it. The meeting decided that the motor car and commercial vehicle industry was the most vulnerable to disruption and sabotage and that the British sector offered the softest target. The results, at British Leyland in particular, are there for all to see. The motor industry and its numerous subsidiaries, which provide components and services, are prime employers of labour. Any unofficial strike or wildcat action that creates unemployment and destroys basic industries helps to till the seed bed of communism. One does not need to see the files of MI5 to appreciate that the near-mortal damage to the motor industry has been orchestrated from outside.
This communist activity had been foreseen by the moderate Labour government under Clement Attlee in 1950. Attlee set up a secret committee, under the late Field Marshal Sir Gerald Templer, to forecast what the British communists would do after they had failed so miserably to secure representation in Parliament through the ballot box. The Templer Committee questioned many witnesses, including the heads of MI5 and the secret service. Its report, which has never been published, concluded that the communists would concentrate on surreptitious means to achieve influence, and eventually power, through three main targets – the unions, the media and higher education, meaning the universities and technical institutes. In thirty years, their penetration of all three has progressed inexorably to the point where they can be quite open about it.
There are particular aspects of trade union activity that are causing special concern to the defence chiefs. While the loyalty of the armed forces has never been in doubt, there is less certainty about particular sections of the civilian backup to the nation’s defences. The successful reaction by Britain and NATO to an emergency situation would greatly depend on a few crucial establishments, such as GCHQ intercept stations and decoding sections. These are obvious targets for KGB infiltration, and a few ‘dissidents’ at a critical moment could cripple them. As the employees are members of unions, some dispute could be concocted to give the dissidents an excuse for ‘downing tools’ or ‘going slow’.
The strength of the union in the defence field was demonstrated in the early months of 1981, when civilians employed in the maintenance of Polaris submarines and their warheads walked out at crucial times in furtherance of pay disputes. The unions involved then took widespread retaliation when naval personnel were used to ready the submarines for their essential patrol duties. At the time of writing, three out of the navy’s four Polaris submarines are virtually locked in their bases.
Unions responsible for certain workers at the Atomic Weapons Research Establishment at Aldermaston in Berkshire have delayed the production of nuclear explosives there for almost two years, a situation that the Russians must be aware of and appreciate. This is what happened.
After a scare about working with plutonium, the men who operated in the radioactive area refused to enter it unless they were paid special danger money. The civil service refused to pay it because the work was not dangerous, if the precautions were observed, and other workers would have demanded the same increase. To break the deadlock, Margaret Thatcher forced through a deal whereby the men in the radioactive area would receive an extra £15 a week – half of what they had been demanding. The men wanted the money, but their union officials declined the offer because the initiative had come from the government and not from them. In defiance of the Aldermaston shop stewards, the men took the money and returned to work but, in deference to their union, have ‘gone slow’ on the backlog of weapons maintenance work, further delaying the resumption of production.
Fortunately, this has not affected the efficiency of the nuclear deterrent yet because there is enough slack in the program to improve and update the Polaris missile warheads, but it could prove to be serious if the ‘go slow’ continues, and the issue raises doubts about the effects of union action in an emergency.
There is also concern about those post office workers who are involved with security issues, particularly in the event of an emergency, when cable communications would be crucial. Of course, the great majority are loyal, but there are known to be some militants, who may be communists, among those in key technical positions. Some years ago, men of the post office security unit required to record the telephone conversations of suspects were vetted, and some were found to have close links with the Communist Party. They were duly ‘purged’, but it is far more difficult for the post office to take that action now for a reason that was not appreciated when the government took the steps that created it.
All members of the post office were previously classed as civil servants; as such, those in sensitive positions could be required to undergo positive vetting. With the split-up and reorganisation of the post office, they are no longer civil servants, and the unions to which they belong are opposed, on principle, to positive vetting.
The defence chiefs have considered the building of a ‘hard’ communications system under non-union control for use in an emergency, but the cost has proved prohibitive. As things stand now, communications could be brought to a halt at the height of an emergency by a few post office engineers staging an ‘industrial dispute’.
This situation, and the communist penetration of the trade unions in general, has greatly stretched the resources of MI5, which has the responsibility for countering them. Also, with the inroads made by the terrorist problem both in Northern Ireland and on the mainland, MI5’s resources are now too slim to cope effectively with the KGB.
Incidentally, no member of MI5 or the secret service is allowed to belong to a union because of the danger of disruption and infiltration by union officials, who would require access to details of the organisations. Nevertheless, MI5 did once stage what was virtually a sit-down strike.
During Anthony Eden’s premiership, a delegation from the Argentine was in London to discuss supplies of meat. The meeting was being held in Lancaster House, and Eden suggested that the anteroom where the Argentineans were to hold their private discussions should be bugged by MI5 to provide some indication of the cheapest price at which they were prepared to settle. Several officers refused to comply on the grounds that the project had nothing to do with the security of the state, and the bugs were never inserted.