MI5 gathered information on a well-known bricklayer and trade unionist from undercover police reports.
Brian Higgins was targeted during a 1986 meeting by the protest group Red Action, where he discussed actions against John Laing.
The secret report, now public, was part of a broader inquiry into undercover policing methods.
Trade unions faced challenges due to restrictive payment schemes and legal injunctions during protests.
Calls for transparency continue as campaigners seek full disclosure of undercover policing files.
MI5’s interest in construction worker Brian Higgins stemmed from his involvement with the left-wing protest group Red Action. In 1986, Higgins, who was a prominent figure in fighting against blacklisting within the construction sector, addressed members of the group about taking industrial action against contractor John Laing.
The report comes from a now-public document previously kept under a restriction order, produced by an undercover officer named ‘Nicholas Green’. This officer’s findings were instrumental in detailing Higgins’ activities at a crucial meeting.
The 1986 protest was largely influenced by John Laing’s adoption of a ‘lump sum’ payment structure, which was controversial due to its lack of benefits like sick pay or holiday pay for workers. The system was criticised for pushing workers to prioritise speed over safety and training. These working conditions fuelled Higgins’ efforts to rally union support, particularly from the Union of Construction, Allied Trades and Technicians (UCATT) and its allies, despite legal hurdles designed to stifle protest efforts.
The tactics employed by the Metropolitan Police’s now-disbanded Special Demonstration Squad, which infiltrated groups like those led by Higgins, have been under scrutiny. The Undercover Policing Inquiry revealed that the squad used deceased children’s identities and occasionally formed inappropriate relationships with group members. Sir John Mitting, head of the inquiry, noted that such tactics were often unnecessary, with only a few surveilled groups posing any real public threat. This inquiry has intensified debates over the ethics and impact of undercover policing within activist circles.
Campaigners, supported by statements from figures such as Dave Smith, a former UCATT branch secretary, are demanding more transparency about the clandestine operations that targeted union activists. They argue that engaging in protest should not be misconstrued as subversive behaviour. With continued calls for the exposure of all relevant documents, commentators stress the importance of acknowledging the past misuse of state powers and ensuring such surveillance does not repeat itself in the future.
The revelations about MI5 and undercover policing highlight the ongoing need for transparency and ethical reform in surveillance practices.
Commenti