Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Sir Alan Meale (in the Chair)
The next speaker is Glenda Jackson. Before you begin, Glenda, I need to advise Members that there is a court case in progress at the moment—the GMB trade union is claiming that 70 of its members have been denied work as a result of being named on a list of construction workers drawn up by an organisation.
The matter is sub judice, and Members should be aware of the rules of the House on such issues: I will not permit any direct reference to that particular case. The Member in charge of the debate has written separately, with the advice of the Principal Clerk of the Table Office. I hesitate to cause difficulty for the debate, but I will not allow direct reference to that particular case.
Glenda Jackson (Hampstead and Kilburn) (Lab)
Thank you, Sir Alan; it is a pleasure to work under your chairmanship. I am one of the few Members to have absolutely no legal training whatever, so the possibility of my uttering anything that could be deemed to be sub judice is fairly remote. I do wish, however, that I had selected a rather less bland title for this afternoon’s debate, because we are looking not so much at the practice of blacklisting, but at the illegality and abhorrence of blacklisting.
In common with many of my colleagues over the years, I have had constituents at advice surgeries alleging that they have lost their jobs, or had their career prospects blighted, because of blacklisting. At one time, it was extremely difficult to prove such allegations. In light of your introductory remarks, Sir Alan, I hasten to add that my constituents were not laying the allegations at the door of the construction industry. In my memory, blacklisting could go throughout the employment world, but it was extremely difficult to prove any allegations. Silly me, I thought that when the regulations under the Employment Relations Act 1999 making blacklisting illegal came into effect in 2010, such visits from constituents would end.
One must, nevertheless, pay tribute to all those who, inside and outside the House, worked to bring about what we thought would be safeguards under the 1999 Act. I also pay tribute to those who—again, inside and outside the House—have consistently, and certainly for more than a year, raised the issue of allegations of blacklisting through debates, early-day motions and questions to Ministers. Most recently, some of those against whom the allegations have been most cogently presented have indicated some kind of acceptance—I would not go so far as to say “apology”—that something untoward had been going on.
In my previous work, many of my colleagues—most markedly in the United States of America, and rather less in the United Kingdom—suffered egregiously from someone we could call the godfather of blacklisting, the nefarious Senator McCarthy. His reasons for condemning people as scaremongers and a danger to the body politic and the life of all democratic societies were overtly political.
Blacklisting, however, can be compared to an infectious disease—it spreads much further than the initial target. Only this morning, I heard from someone who had blown the whistle. She was a care worker, and she blew the whistle on her place of employment, because she found the treatment of those in her care totally unacceptable. Her whistleblowing brought some results, and I believe that that particular care home closed down—this was a few years ago and is not a contemporary case; it is a scandal that we all know about. She said, categorically, that she became unemployable. That is the running theme of all blacklisting allegations—that those who have been blacklisted are deemed by someone in authority to be, in essence, troublemakers; it is a little like David and Goliath. They would be dangerous to employ, because they might cause any commercial project some kind of egregious, usually financial, damage. Nine times out of 10, however, such people are actually attempting to ensure greater safety in their work areas.
Looking back at my previous work experience, I see that the creative people named by Senator McCarthy were not the only ones affected; their creative lives were cut off at the knees, but, in addition, the benefits of their creative work were no longer available to the wider community. That is why blacklisting is like a particularly infectious disease, which can spread far wider than only among those who know themselves to have been blacklisted in those industries or professions in which we know that blacklisting has existed, or possibly still exists. That is why I pay tribute to everyone inside and outside the House who has brought the issue forward.
Steve Rotheram (Liverpool, Walton) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making a powerful point. Last year, with the help of the Union of Construction, Allied Trades and Technicians, I tabled an early-day motion on this important issue. Does she agree not only that the practice is a disgrace and a stain on the country, but that the people who were blacklisted are the very ones who should have been praised for what they were doing to assist fellow workers? The companies that indulged in such dark practices should be held accountable and made to pay for ruining the lives of many thousands of construction workers.
Glenda Jackson
I strongly concur. The stain of being blacklisted and accused of being in some way not committed, whether to the job, the company or the venture, can even spread to members of an individual’s family. I have heard stories of small children being called names by their contemporaries, because their mother or father had been deemed to be working against the industry or profession.
I endorse what my hon. Friend said, but we should now be pushing, most markedly, for the Government to institute a full inquiry into such practices, as previously requested. We thought that we were safe and that blacklisting was illegal—it is there in an Act of Parliament—but now, given reports in this country’s major newspapers and hon. Members’ questions and early-day motions, the problem clearly needs to be re-examined.
Natascha Engel (North East Derbyshire) (Lab)
On that important point of having an inquiry, one of the most terrible and serious things about blacklisting is that people do not know whether they are on a blacklist. Without an inquiry, which has been called for by unions such as UCATT and the GMB, some people will never know that they are on a blacklist. That is why I support my hon. Friend’s call. I would love it if she could develop that point a little more.
Glenda Jackson
My hon. Friend has developed the point very well indeed—she needs no help from me. As she so rightly says, and going back to my analogy with an infectious disease, people might not even know that they are suffering from such a disease. Only when we have a thoroughgoing inquiry, with all the evidence, and when the symptoms are brought into what we are told is the only effective disinfectant, sunlight—the light of day—can we begin to establish whether the work that has taken place in the past, on ensuring health and safety at work, for example, has gone astray.
Huw Irranca-Davies (Ogmore) (Lab)
I commend my hon. Friend on how she is opening the debate. I want to put on the record the fact that I am a member of both the GMB and UCATT. I do so not because I am required to declare that as an interest, but because I am damn proud of it.
On looking forward, will my hon. Friend join me in commending the vocal way in which the Welsh Government Minister, Jane Hutt, has made it clear that there will be no place in public procurement for companies who use blacklisting? She is devising policy and guidance for such companies to ensure that that is crystal clear and explicit.
Glenda Jackson
Being partly Welsh, I always find it easy to commend the Welsh on practically anything. That example should be taken on board by other authorities to ensure that the best of all possible disinfectants—sunlight—is brought to bear on this egregious illegality. Let us not forget what we are talking about. Blacklisting is illegal.
Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making an excellent and powerful speech. On an earlier point about McCarthyism, Sam Wanamaker was a victim. He came to Britain, and founded the Globe theatre and so on. It is to this country’s credit that we would not tolerate McCarthyism and we gave employment to people who were blacklisted in their own country. He could have made an enormous contribution to America, but fortunately he came to us.
Glenda Jackson
I entirely agree with what my hon. Friend said. Sam Wanamaker worked extremely hard and was absolutely fundamental in ensuring that we now have one of the most critically and dramatically acclaimed theatres in the world—the Globe. He was essential in creating for a whole generation that had not thought it would find anything interesting in Shakespeare the extraordinary illumination of what it is to be a human being that only Shakespeare and his plays bring to bear.
I agree entirely with my hon. Friend and pay tribute to what Sam Wanamaker did, but in no way was there equal treatment. America was denied what Sam could have done. He was not alone in being blacklisted. Wider society suffered desperately because of fear during the McCarthy era, when entirely innocent people, as has been the case in this country, were victimised because others were afraid to speak out against what was happening. As we all know, it was only when Senator McCarthy took the fatal final step of trying to bring down the army that the President of the day stepped in and said in no small way, “This has to stop.”
The damage was fundamental and we do not want that infectious disease to take root again in this country. We would delude ourselves if we thought it had not existed here. We would not have had to fight so hard to change the employment Bill if that had not been the case. Blacklisting must never, ever be allowed to flourish again in this country. I pay tribute to those in the Chamber today, those on the broader parliamentary estate, the trade unions and those employees—or, rather, those unemployed people—who were not prepared to stand idly by, but were prepared to take the brickbats, insults and allegations that it was all fantasy, and who fought their corner.
I am on the record as saying that if an hon. Member cannot say what they want to say in 10 minutes, they should not stand up, so I will now throw the floor open to eager colleagues.
Stephen McPartland (Stevenage) (Con)
I am grateful to you, Sir Alan, for the opportunity to speak in this debate, and I congratulate the hon. Member for Hampstead and Kilburn (Glenda Jackson) on securing it and on her wonderfully impassioned speech. I will speak for only 10 minutes because, as she said, if hon. Members cannot say what they want to say in 10 minutes, they should not stand up. I shall try to learn from her vast experience.
Blacklisting is completely wrong. Not only does it destroy individuals, their confidence and their personality and who they are, but it destroys their family and prevents them from earning, working, contributing to society and being part of a wider whole. It is wrong for a variety of reasons, and I could wax lyrical on that. I know from my upbringing in Liverpool that blacklisting is a terrible disease, as the hon. Lady said, and must not be allowed to take root. It is illegal and should not be allowed in this country. I am proud that, as the hon. Member for Luton North (Kelvin Hopkins) said, this country has always been good at welcoming people who have been blacklisted in other countries. I want to put it clearly on the record that blacklisting is completely wrong.
I shall focus my comments on the construction industry, but I will not refer to the case going through the courts at the moment, Sir Alan, as you asked us not to. There are 3,213 victims of blacklisting, and we are well aware that around 2,500 people on that database do not know that they are on it. Will the Minister impress on the Information Commissioner the need to contact them directly to make them aware of that?
John Mann (Bassetlaw) (Lab)
I found out that I was on the Economic League blacklist during the 1980s only when Ciba-Geigy Chemicals gave me a job but then withdrew it for no good reason. The list was published at an event at the university of London, and I found my name on it. How can there be any decency in society if people are on a blacklist, particularly if they have not found work? I was lucky because I was in work and kept work, but some people lose work or do not get it without knowing why because someone, for whatever reason, decided to put them on a list?
Stephen McPartland
The hon. Gentleman always makes powerful and impassioned points, and I agree with him. There can be no justice in society if people are on a blacklist without knowing. I urge the Minister to ask the Information Commissioner to contact those 2,500 people who do not know that they are on a blacklist and make them aware that they are.
I am not a member of any union, but with, I hope, the support of the GMB union and the hon. Member for Luton North, we will launch a cross-party campaign to contact the 44 construction companies that were involved in that blacklisting database, the idea being to ask them to apologise and to provide compensation. What we would ultimately like is for no one in the Government or local government to provide them with any public sector contracts or money until they have taken those actions.
Steve Rotheram
The hon. Gentleman is making really important points. There seems to be cross-party consensus on trying to contact everyone on the list, many of whom do not know they are on it. Would he support a call by UCATT and other unions for a public inquiry into the scandal?
Stephen McPartland
I often agree with the hon. Gentleman, but I reserve judgment on a public inquiry. We have had the result of the Leveson inquiry and no one is sure what the outcome is, and I am keen to get justice for the 3,213 individuals on the blacklist.
Kelvin Hopkins
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his speech. I am pleased to be working with him on the GMB campaign. He mentioned the possibility of compensation and apologies. Does he agree that what we really want is those people to be back working in the industry?
Stephen McPartland
I completely agree, and that is why it is important that the Information Commissioner contacts the 2,500 people who do not know that they are blacklisted to make them aware of that, so that they can get on with their lives. At the moment, those 2,500 people cannot get a job and do not know why. I do not want to stray too far into that area, so I will talk about the campaign.
We know that 44 companies are involved, but they are not all involved in the court case. The hon. Member for Luton North and I, supported by the GMB, will publish a website and write to the chief executives of construction companies asking them to come clean. We will publish the letters and the replies, and will then contact the larger shareholders to identify whether they believe that it is ethical to invest in those companies. The campaign will be long-running and is designed to provide justice for people who are currently blacklisted.
I genuinely believe that blacklisting is not about politics, or about one party or another. It is completely wrong; it is a disease; and it should be excluded. I know some Labour Members question it, but at the moment, there is cross-party consensus.
Jim Sheridan (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (Lab)
The hon. Gentleman will recall that the old Economic League was funded by the Conservative party.
Stephen McPartland
I do not recall that, but the hon. Gentleman might not be aware that I was the first Conservative Member of Parliament in history to write for the Morning Star newspaper. I am often asked whether I am on the left or right of the Conservative party. For me, the reality is about focusing on what is in front of me, and in this case, it is a database that was completely wrong. Those individuals require justice, and I am happy to be working with the hon. Member for Luton North on that.
Natascha Engel
I am sorry to press this point, but it is very important: the database can only be exposed if there is a public inquiry. The public inquiry on Leveson exposed the extent of phone hacking, so I think this is a good example of why we should have a public inquiry, to make sure that every name on the database is exposed and that the individuals are told.
Stephen McPartland
As I said, I want the Information Commissioner’s Office to contact all the individuals on the database who do not know that they have been blacklisted. It is up to the Minister to respond on whether there will be a public inquiry. I have made my position clear: I am reserving judgment, simply because I want to focus on getting justice for the individuals who have been blacklisted. I believe, like the hon. Member for Hampstead and Kilburn, that although we are focusing on the construction industry, the reality is that blacklisting has no doubt gone across lots of other sectors, and there is probably a range of other databases that none of us is aware of. I shall focus on this specific issue, and if there is a public inquiry into the wider aspects of blacklisting, so be it, but at the end of the day, we need evidence to be able to create that inquiry. As I only have a minute left, I will not take any more interventions, as I want to finish within the 10 minutes.
I sum up by saying that I believe blacklisting is wrong. It destroys families and has a pervasive effect on British society and the values that we all hold dear. It should not be a political issue; the focus should on providing justice, so I am happy to work with the GMB union and the hon. Member for Luton North to do so.
Sir Alan Meale (in the Chair)
Order. Before we proceed, I remind Members not to link into the case that is taking place for the GMB and its 70 members. That is sub judice, and we should not debate it.
Twelve Members have indicated that they want to speak, and there is about an hour to go; I would be grateful if Members worked it out together, so that everyone gets the opportunity.
Mr Michael Meacher (Oldham West and Royton) (Lab)
I will be brief, as you have requested, Sir Alan. I shall concentrate on one exceedingly serious aspect that has recently come to light: the allegation of police involvement in the provision of this information. It comes from the Independent Police Complaints Commission’s revelation that a Scotland Yard inquiry into police collusion has found that it is—I quote the words that were used this weekend—
“likely that all special branches were involved in providing information”
that led to hundreds of workers being excluded from employment. If that is true, it is dynamite.
Let us put that into perspective. It has been known for four years that more than 3,200 workers, in the period from 1993 to 2009, were blacklisted by up to 44 construction companies. Many of the companies were household names, such as Balfour Beatty, McAlpine, Carillion and Costain, and people were consequently kept out of work, not only for years, but in some cases for decades. Across the nation, we have come to a view that phone hacking is a very serious intrusion into privacy and a massive breach of human rights. However, I put it to the Chamber—I am sure that there would be widespread agreement across the country—that it does not compare with being deprived of a job for years, or even decades on end.
It is known from statements made by the Information Commissioner’s Office to the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs, which my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow South West (Mr Davidson) chairs, that some information revealed on files on blacklisted workers, again, could only have come from the police or security service sources—those were the words used by the officer from the ICO. The firm belief of the IPCC, based on discussions with the Metropolitan Police—an irrefutable source, I think—is that all special branches were engaged in these illegal and highly damaging activities. If that is proven—I come back to the need for a public inquiry—it will expose a monumental scandal. To be fair, it is disputed at present.
John Cryer (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. He mentioned phone hacking; would he acknowledge that phone hacking is a criminal offence? It would make an enormous difference if blacklisting was a criminal offence. That was called for by UCATT and the other trade unions. Unfortunately, it was not in the regulations that were issued in 2010. I am not disputing the Labour Government’s intentions then, as I think they were perfectly good, but the problem was that the regulations did not go far enough and were therefore not effective.
Mr Meacher
I entirely accept that important distinction—what is or is not the law at the time—but I think that the judgment that the nation would make about the enormity of the offence and the consequences rather override that. It is not that those people were breaking the law, but that they were acting in a way that they knew would be intensely destructive to the livelihood of thousands of people, and that, in itself, is a matter for which they should be held to account.
What has been said is disputed by a senior investigating officer recently appointed to Operation Herne, which is the inquiry being undertaken into the activities of undercover police officers. He says that he has seen “no conclusive evidence” that Scotland Yard exchanged information with the blacklisting companies. That needs to be investigated further. However, it is difficult to deny, and in my view, not only is that a rather unconvincing denial, but it contradicts the fact that the Blacklist Support Group has now had it confirmed that a secret meeting took place in November 2008 between the Consulting Association, which ran the blacklist, and officers from the police national extremism tactical co-ordination unit, which runs undercover policing.
I have one more point to make. Significantly, this new and damning information comes from a freedom of information request to the Information Commissioner’s Office, which replied that it was holding notes about that meeting. That rather invites the question why it has been sitting on this information for four years and only had it revealed when it was extracted from the ICO by the freedom of information procedure. It also raises the further question, which has already come up in this debate why the ICO has so far declined to inform all 3,213 workers that they were subject to the blacklist. Who took the decision that they would only respond to requests to the ICO? That is a very important question. This is not a matter for the ICO; it is a political question. Who is told about this massive breach of their rights is a question for Ministers.
Jim Sheridan
Like my right hon. Friend, I have been in many marches and protests, promoting and trying to defend the rights of workers. He will recall police officers on roofs with cameras taking pictures of people on marches. I often wonder where those photographs ended up.
Mr Meacher
That is another very good question. I cannot give my hon. Friend the answer, but I see the force of his question, and I think it should be pursued.
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)
This is a valid point. The Blacklist Support Group discovered that the information passed on to the files goes beyond just workplace activities to demonstrations and all the rest, and that could only have come from the police or security services.
Mr Meacher
That is absolutely correct. As my hon. Friends suggest, this is not necessarily about the passage of information; it could involve photographs, often taken covertly.
I think that I am right in saying that only some 800 of the 3,200 people have been informed, as a result of making an application themselves. Three quarters of all those people still have no idea what ruined their livelihood for so many years. I would like the Minister to respond to this question: why should the Government not instruct the ICO to inform all the other three quarters that they were blacklisted?
My final point relates to where the issue is leading. The 44 construction companies now face a High Court battle about their alleged involvement in blacklisting. I will not pursue that point. However, significantly, eight of them have now decided to compensate some of the 3,200 workers, which might suggest that they believe that the evidence being revealed is now sufficient to prove their involvement—
Sir Alan Meale (in the Chair)
Order. I am in a dilemma here. The sub judice rule applies because the case is still ongoing, so the right hon. Gentleman cannot refer to it. As I understand it, the companies have not yet accepted liability, even though they have agreed to pay some compensation; they are figuring out the amounts. They have not accepted liability, so the issue remains sub judice. Do not refer to the case, if possible.
Mr Meacher
I take your point entirely, Sir Alan. I was not intending to pursue the issue in that way. I am prepared to come to an end. I have made the point, which I think is a strong one, and I hope that the Minister will respond to it. The ICO has a role to play. I can think of at least 10 grounds for a public inquiry, which I do not have time to go into. An inquiry is crucial. Will the Government commit to a full public inquiry?
Mr Graham Allen (Nottingham North) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to have helped, with 20 colleagues across the House, to secure today’s debate, and to have been involved with trade unions, including my own, Unite, with Tony Tinley helping out; the Union of Construction, Allied Trades and Technicians, with Cheryl Pidgeon researching this debate; and the union that I used to work for before coming to this place, the GMB. If the hon. Member for Stevenage (Stephen McPartland) is not yet in a trade union, I could put a number of offers to him to put that right. He should be careful; being anti-badger culling and pro-exposing blacklisting, he could be highly sought after, in these days of coalition, after the next general election.
It is also a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Kilburn (Glenda Jackson). I hope to be a supporting actor in what we have to do today. Blacklisting is, as my hon. Friend said, a disease. It is pernicious, and it spreads without people even knowing that it is there. It is vital, from the point of view of any civil or human rights stance that any party wishes to have, that we ensure that its days are definitely numbered.
What is blacklisting? It is the termination of workers’ employment for issues not related to performance. Such issues can, and have, included raising legitimate health and safety concerns; being a member of a trade union; and belonging to a political party whose ideals employers do not share. For those subject to the practice, as we have heard, the consequences can be incredibly devastating —discrimination, unemployment, poverty, family breakdown, mental breakdown and, in some extreme cases, even suicide.
The phenomenon is not new; it is not something of the past 20 or 30 years, or something, as my hon. Friend said, that concerns only the construction industry. It goes back a long way—way back to the beginning of the old Economic League in 1919. The league created a list of people whom it—not the courts of law or Parliament — regarded as subversive. Many individuals were listed and blighted.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann), who has had to leave the Chamber, said in his speech to the House on 23 January 2013 that the Economic League’s blacklist was used to create difficulties—he gave his own example—in getting work once someone was on that list. Another colleague of ours in this House who has had first-hand experience of blacklisting is my hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian (Mr Hamilton). He has already gone on record about his experiences of being blacklisted. I am sure that he will not mind me saying that, in a conversation this morning, he told me that the only way his wife ever got a job—not him, but his wife—was to use her maiden name; the blacklisting spread past the individual to influence the family.
Steve Rotheram
My hon. Friend is making a powerful point. The current blacklist from the 1990s is a slightly separate issue from blacklisting in general. Blacklisting has gone on for many decades, certainly in the construction industry. He will be aware of another person who was put on the blacklist—a member of the Shrewsbury 24—Ricky Tomlinson, who is now fighting a campaign to clear his name. He was denied the opportunity to make a livelihood for many years.
I do not think that many people fully understand the individual impact of being blacklisted. Those 3,200 people —not just the ones who know—have struggled for many years not only to clear their names but to earn a living. Does he agree that is the main reason why we are pushing the issue with the Government?
Mr Allen
I know that not everyone wants to make a speech: some colleagues may wish to make interventions instead. I will gladly take those interventions so that people can get their views on the record. My hon. Friend’s view is one that I strongly agree with.
Another colleague of ours, my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee West (Jim McGovern), mentioned the story of a disabled war veteran who had one leg and one eye. He found himself on the blacklist. Why?
“Because he sent a letter to the local press commending them for awarding Nelson Mandela the freedom of the city.”—[Official Report, 23 January 2013; Vol. 557, c. 337.]
The problem with this intelligence-based stuff is that it is not verifiable or in the public domain. Things can be said about someone, often trivially, that get them on the list, resulting in all sorts of consequences that they cannot challenge.
The Economic League gave way to the Consulting Association, which purchased the list from the league. It sounds a little bit like one of those building companies that go bust and then suddenly rise again the next day with a different name. That is the blacklist that we have mainly been talking about today—the 3,200 individuals—which has been used by 40 contractors. It is not the street-corner jobbing company that uses the list, but some of the biggest companies, whose names my right hon. Friend the Member for Oldham West and Royton (Mr Meacher) put on the record, and many others too. Looking out of the window at the construction going on around us, we will see their names.
The revelations also highlighted the inadequacy of legal protections. Since 1999, legislation has given UK Governments the power to pass regulations against blacklisting, but all of us have singularly failed to push the Government to do what they should have. Only a year before the blacklisting was uncovered, UCATT, as we heard earlier, began lobbying the Government to pass acceptable regulations, only to be told, “There is no need for them. It is all under control. There isn’t really a serious problem.”
In 1992, the TUC complained to the United Nations International Labour Organisation. What a shaming thing that is for our country: that we were reported alongside sweatshops in the far east to the ILO for having no effective protection for workers in our country against being put on a blacklist, which blights the lives of workers and their families. The ILO’s Committee on Freedom of Association upheld the complaint, saying that UK law fell short of article 98 of the ILO convention. Again, Governments failed to act.
To bring the issue right up to date, in March 2012, The Observer published an article claiming that the police and/or security services had supplied information to the blacklist to be used by the nation’s major construction firms, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Oldham West and Royton said. That was reinforced when the Information Commissioner’s Office revealed that the records could have come only from the police or MI5— not from a Member of the House or from someone making a political point. A vast database on more than 3,000 victims, whom somebody else deemed troublesome, was being fed by the security services. David Clancy, investigations officer at the Information Commissioner’s Office, stated in The Observer:
“the information was so specific and it contained in effect operational information that wouldn’t have formed anything other than a police record.”
We have to do something about this: the job is not done.
As hon. Friends have said, some protection against blacklisting was introduced in the Employment Relations Act 1999, although unions warned at the time that it was wholly inadequate. However, the raid by the Information Commissioner’s Office triggered a new regulation, which led to Ian Kerr, the chief executive of the Consulting Association, being fined £5,000—not exactly a king’s ransom—for breaking data protection laws. That is the price we put on the destruction of the lives of individuals and their families, for causes unknown to them, by this individual and his pals at the Consulting Association. However, Ian Kerr could not be punished for blacklisting employees, because it was not illegal to do so.
As many colleagues have made clear, there is still no positive right not to be blacklisted. Additionally, the burden of proof is placed on workers who suspect they have fallen foul of this odious practice. It is unreasonable to expect workers to prove in law what is, by its very nature, a covert practice. How on earth do they know it is going on? How, then, can they prove beyond reasonable doubt that it is happening? That is unreasonable.
The Scottish Affairs Committee’s inquiry into blacklisting pointed out that blacklisters do apologise and do seem to be sorry, but only when they are caught, and only when it is revealed, in the light of the public gaze, that they have transgressed. My hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Mr Umunna) has pointed out that claims against blacklisting can be brought only through an employment tribunal or a county court, which can cause problems. For example, claims can be presented at a tribunal only within three months of the offence taking place, but it is often difficult, even years later, to find proof that an offence has taken place.
The professor of public law at King’s college, Keith Ewing, has been in touch with my office. He noted that there is still a tremendous gap in the new legislation that was put in place after the raid on the Consulting Association.
John Cryer
My hon. Friend mentions Keith Ewing, and it is his report “Ruined Lives”, which was commissioned by UCATT, that has been responsible for much of the attention, including the press coverage, that has been given to blacklisting over the past three or four years.
Mr Allen
My hon. Friend has been assiduous in investigating this issue, and I bow to his knowledge of it. He is absolutely right about Professor Ewing’s work.
Professor Ewing has written that there is no automatic compensation for being blacklisted and there are no criminal penalties for blacklisting. Protection from blacklisting applies only to trade union activities, which we might think is reasonable. However, given the way the law works, that protection does not apply to trade union-related activities—work that one out. That means the courts will decide whether unofficial action is caught.
On 30 October 2012, UCATT exposed the activities of two leading blacklisting firms—Sir Robert McAlpine and Skanska—while giving evidence to the Scottish Affairs Committee. Both companies were undertaking high-profile projects, including motorway construction and work at the Olympics, while they were blacklisting workers. Giving evidence, UCATT’s general secretary, Steve Murphy, revealed how, in the Consulting Association’s final year of operation, Skanska had paid more than £28,000 for blacklisting checks, while Sir Robert McAlpine had paid £26,000. Skanska admitted it was using the Consulting Association to vet workers and supplying information to the list, yet it escaped without penalty or sanction.
The steps taken in Wales show how we can do something on this issue. The Assembly and the First Minister have made great efforts to move it forward. New procurement guidance issued to all Welsh public bodies has outlined the steps that can be taken through procurement to help end blacklisting and encourage redress and compensation for victims. It makes it clear that companies proved to be involved in blacklisting can be excluded from bidding for contracts. It also sets out the steps companies need to take to avoid being excluded, such as offering proper redress for victims and introducing personnel and organisational measures to ensure that blacklisting no longer takes place.
Huw Irranca-Davies
My hon. Friend makes some very salient points. Does he accept, as many unions have said, that the argument that procurement contracts cannot take account of blacklisting activities is a fallacy? In fact, there is a risk of litigation should we choose not to take account of blacklisting and award contracts to companies involved in it. That is why I think the Welsh Government are showing the way forward.
Mr Allen
The Assembly in Wales is less dominated by the Executive than we are in this place, but, even so, we should draw comfort from the fact that legislators can make a difference and take these things forward. If Wales can set an example, I very much hope that England can follow suit.
I ask the Minister and her shadow to make it clear that there should be a positive right not to be blacklisted and that workers who find themselves on blacklists should have an automatic right to compensation, without the burden of proof being placed on them. The retroactive compensation scheme that has been mentioned should also be established to compensate blacklisted workers. Furthermore, protection should be extended clearly to include trade union-related activities, as well as just trade union activities. Above all, blacklisting should be a criminal offence, and companies that use blacklists should be open to persecution.
I will skip over the issues you warned us about, Sir Alan; perhaps we will come back to them on another occasion. Suffice it to say that the scheme the industry is creating involves only eight of the 44 major construction firms that have been implicated in blacklisting. That is not good enough, and I hope the Minister will take up the suggestion that all those who have been on a blacklist should be written to and that all those who have blacklisted others should be written to and clearly asked to join the scheme. I doubt this will be the last debate on blacklisting, but the day grows closer when those who have blacklisted others and those who have been on blacklists will get the justice they deserve.
Mr Iain McKenzie (Inverclyde) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Alan. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Kilburn (Glenda Jackson) on securing this important debate. Frankly, it is shocking that we are having a debate in 2013 condemning the continuing practice of blacklisting. It is simply a disgrace that blacklisting is still going on in 21st century Britain. We might have been aware, perhaps, from rumour or experience in our own employment, that blacklisting existed. We might have had evidence: managers leaving notes about employees for other managers, and even human resources services that operated a two-file system—one accessible and the other for their eyes only—so it is not surprising to learn that blacklisting is practised by some large, well-known companies.
Blacklisting affects people’s livelihoods, security and well-being. It is a nasty, underhand and vicious practice. The most extreme example of blacklisting to have been made public is one that we can all recall, from the United States. I am of course speaking of the McCarthy era, which we have already heard mentioned—one of the most destructive, harmful and insidious episodes in that country’s history. Talented people fled the United States during the McCarthy witch hunts, to places such as Britain, where they must have thought that blacklisting did not exist, or at least not at the level that they had experienced.
Blacklists have a history of being built on rumour, inaccuracies and downright fabrication, and that still applies to the way they are compiled today. As many as 44 companies in the UK subscribed to the so-called Consulting Association, the successor of the Economic League—none of them questioning or caring how the lists were compiled. We need to take blacklisting extremely seriously, and I call on the Government to take decisive action to stop the blacklisting of workers and to prevent the blacklisting scandal from ever being repeated.
A full investigation of blacklisting allegations is essential, and it should include the allegations of blacklisting in major public projects. Blacklisting is a national scandal. People’s livelihoods were destroyed, their reputations were tarnished and, in some cases, their families were torn apart, just because, for example, they raised health and safety concerns or were an active member of a trade union.
Unbelievably, in this country there are secret files held on thousands of workers in the construction sector, with the result that those people are denied employment. That secret construction blacklist was used by more than 40 of the UK’s largest construction firms, and some construction firms confirmed that they had conducted blacklisting checks even on people seeking work at Olympic venues. It is unacceptable that public money was used on projects where such checks were carried out. It would seem that there was even blacklisting for the construction of Portcullis House. How many people and Members of Parliament knew that at the time?
The majority of the people who were blacklisted still have no idea that they were included in the secret construction blacklists uncovered by the Information Commissioner’s Office in a raid in 2009. It is vital that the ICO should make every effort to inform every individual victim of blacklisting, so that they can seek compensation. However, questions still remain to be put to the ICO, including why its officials did not seize a huge volume of other documents found at the scene of the original 2009 raid. As a former member of the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs, I recall that evidence that it took included serious allegations about the origin of the intelligence used to compile the blacklists.
We need further tightening and extension of the civil regime against blacklisting set up by Labour in 2010. Blacklisting should be a criminal offence. Recent revelations have demonstrated that sanctions do not go far enough to protect workers. The Government cannot sit on the fence any longer. Blacklisting must be made a criminal offence punishable by imprisonment and/or an unlimited fine. The Government should ensure that no one is excluded from seeking redress because there is no direct employment relationship between the worker and the company who used blacklisting. They must also ensure that anyone found to be blacklisted in future has adequate support to bring a civil claim and that non-trade union members enjoy equal protections.
In additional evidence submitted as part of the Scottish Affairs Committee’s inquiry into blacklisting, there was confirmation of the existence of a separate blacklist on environmental activists—also operated by the Consulting Association. That separate list was said to include as many as 200 environmental activists. The Government should fully investigate that as well.
Given the hugely detrimental impact on those affected by blacklisting, we welcome the current proceedings to seek compensation from firms that have used the Consulting Association lists. I welcome the fact that the ICO has taken steps to work alongside trade unions by sending a list of names and dates of births to four trade unions—the Union of Construction, Allied Trades and Technicians, Unite, GMB and the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers—so that they can check the names of blacklisted individuals against their membership lists.
I know that other Members want to speak, so I shall conclude by saying that blacklisting is a national disgrace. It ruins lives and devastates families. It is crucial that the Government should fully investigate blacklisting and prevent that cruel practice from ever happening again.
Jim Sheridan (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (Lab)
I shall be brief, as we want to hear the Front-Bench spokesmen.
It is somewhat ironic that on the same day that we are debating blacklisting in Westminster Hall, zero-hours contracts are being debated in the House. That gives some indication of the progress that workers have made over the years. People are kept out of work by blacklisting, and even when they get some work their wages are cut as much as possible. That is progress for you, in the modern United Kingdom.
Perhaps I can reflect on my own experience of blacklisting. As a young man, I never realised what it was. I did not really get involved in trade unions, either, but my family was involved. It was only because of that that I was blacklisted for three years—unemployed with a young family. It was very difficult to get benefits; it was difficult to exist.
I went for an interview as a porter at Erskine hospital—in Erskine, which is in my constituency. The matron told me, “No problem, Jim. You’ve got the job, but we’ll send you official notice in the post in the next couple of days.” I did get something in the next couple of days, telling me, “Unfortunately, Mr Sheridan, you have been unsuccessful on this occasion.” I still did not know that I was on the blacklist, but some time later I met the matron and she told me that I had got the job, but that a name check had been done with the Economic League, and it showed that my family were involved in trade union activities, which meant I could not have it. That is the kind of thing that we are talking about today.
That experience is what brought me into politics—to change that kind of thing. That is why we need people from a working-class background in this place, because they understand what people go through and what it means to be told, “You are inadequate; you are a danger; you are a threat from within”. It was Mrs Thatcher who used to call us the enemy within. Those things brought me into politics, and they are why I stay in politics.
My other passion is for health and safety in the workplace. I chair the all-party group on occupational safety and health and I come into contact with many members of the public. The issues include such things as asbestos-related mesothelioma. I recall, in the shipyards in Glasgow, seeing the white flakes of asbestos dust falling through the sunlight. It was a Tuesday afternoon and sunny in Glasgow, and that is how I remember it.
I could see the flakes floating through, and said to the gaffer, or supervisor, “That’s asbestos, and we’re swallowing it.” “Don’t be silly, son,” he told me. “Nothing wrong with it. It won’t do you any harm. Just go home. A pint of Guinness will wash it all away.” That was the kind of ignorance and arrogance that was around in those days. If anyone dared ever question the employer about safety statistics or safety measures, they were dealt with. The only way they could deal with me—they could not sack me, because my father was a yard convener—was by discriminating against me by not offering me overtime or jobs that were going around.
I am reminded that I sent a letter earlier this year to the Minister with responsibility for employment relations and consumer affairs—the very good Minister present today—who replied that
“there has been a lot of accusations, but we have not yet received any evidence”
about blacklisting.
I sincerely hope that the Minister heard today that there is clear evidence of blacklisting. We now need to know what the Government intend to do about it. I do not want to hear any more warm words, even from our previous Labour Government. I have been to far too many funerals of people who have died from mesothelioma and other industrial diseases. We now need to ensure that blacklisting stops, that it stops now and that people get compensation, and, more importantly, ensure that the companies are exposed and not given Government contracts, on which they depend.
Mr Ian Davidson (Glasgow South West) (Lab/Co-op)
I am possibly the only Member here who has had access to all the Consulting Association files and records. I had that access, on condition of confidentiality, in my capacity as Chair of the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs. I am glad that the coming out of the minutes has focused people’s attention on activities such as the involvement of the police.
There are two sides: one looking backwards and one looking forwards. Looking backwards, first, we need to be absolutely clear that there is a role for Government in ensuring that those on whom cards and information are held are identified. I refer Members to the correspondence that the Scottish Affairs Committee recently had from the Information Commissioner’s Office about the difficulty it is experiencing in taking matters forward.
Secondly, we want an apology from the firms involved. Thirdly, we want compensation. Fourthly, we want to know all the firms involved, not just a few. I welcome the apology from some of the firms involved, but we must recognise: first, that that does not include all the firms who participated in blacklisting; secondly, that the negotiations and settlement will be exceedingly complex; and, thirdly, that a solution cannot be imposed unilaterally by the companies, but must be the subject of negotiation with the unions involved and those representing people who have been blacklisted. There must a negotiated settlement, rather than imposition.
Looking forwards, we now recognise that there must be legal changes. It has been conceded that there was blacklisting on Crossrail, and yet the law on blacklisting was not broken. That leaves us in the position where something clearly must be done. I hope the Minister accepts that and takes the matter forward. We must find a way to ensure that when a new construction site is established and a work force taken on, there is a review after the event to identify whether there is evidence of blacklisting. We need wider acceptance that companies that have not apologised or compensated can be and should be kept off public and private sector contract shortlists. There must be a code of conduct for firms when dealing with employees in these matters.
My final point looks further forwards to the question of an inquiry. I hope that the actions that we in the Scottish Affairs Committee identified and I have commented on today do not have to wait until a full public inquiry. The nature of public inquiries is that they look backwards and take years. Many of the people involved are now elderly and, in my view, require compensation. Those who are not elderly require assistance in getting back into the industry, so that they can have adequate compensation and employment for the working time they have left. We need further inquiries into the role of the police and state security services. The Government have not been unhelpful in pursuing some of the issues, but, as they would expect, I do not believe that they have been helpful enough.
Mr Iain Wright (Hartlepool) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Alan. I particularly thank my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Kilburn (Glenda Jackson), who put forward her argument with her usual high levels of eloquence and passion. I share a birthday with my hon. Friend; I only wish she would share some of her skills and talents with me.
I also want to thank all right hon. and hon. Members who contributed in this important debate. They did so with genuine and heartfelt concern and shock that the secretive and insidious practice of blacklisting has been ongoing, and will still be ongoing, in modern Britain. More widely, the manner in which this important issue has been raised and campaigned on has been positive and welcome. I particularly pay tribute to Select Committee on Scottish Affairs and the unions—the Union of Construction, Allied Trades and Technicians, the GMB, of which I am a proud member, and Unite—for their tireless and professional work in exposing the shady, scandalous and disgraceful practices.
There are many things to be proud of in the UK construction industry, but blacklisting is not one of them. It shames the country and undermines the reputation of the industry. Today demonstrates that the House is fully united in its complete condemnation of such a practice, which, as we heard several times this afternoon, is more reminiscent of McCarthyite witch hunts than a modern and progressive construction industry that values its work force and considers health and safety to be not a bolt-on or troublesome and tiresome, but integral, as it should be.
Such practices are symptomatic of a race to the bottom, with lower employment rights, the undermining of health and safety and a general belief that cutting corners and getting rid of troublesome staff who dare to raise workplace safety are the best ways to raise profit margins. That is not how this country should earn its money in the 21st century.
Today, we heard that many thousands of people have been denied work that they were skilled in and qualified to undertake due to discrimination, and as a result they could not get jobs in their own industry or feed their families. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Kilburn and other hon. Friends said in the debate, the practice involved compiling information about individuals on a vast and systematic scale. It was done through a shadowy organisation called the Consulting Association, but has involved many other groups and companies. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Oldham West and Royton (Mr Meacher) said, The Observer reported this Sunday that the Independent Police Complaints Commission has stated to those affected that the police colluded in the practice of blacklisting:
“it is likely that all special branches were involved in providing information”.
The degree to which the practice permeated through the construction industry is truly shameful and shocking. According to work from the Information Commissioner, 44 construction companies were members of the Consulting Association in 2009 and half of the 20 largest construction companies and all their subsidiaries in this country were involved. For £2.20—not 30 pieces of silver, but £2.20—a construction worker’s livelihood and chance of securing employment could be dashed by the company if they were on the blacklist. Many construction companies are trying to claim ignorance of the practice, but given the amounts of money involved—in a three-year period alone, companies paid the Consulting Association £500,000 for blacklist checks—it is inconceivable that senior management were not aware of it and its endemic nature.
The House is united in its shock and condemnation of blacklisting. I hope that it is equally united in its determination to ensure that the practice is never allowed to happen again. There are practical steps, and we heard some of them this afternoon, that can be put in place to ensure that the practice is ended for good and that those workers unfairly affected are provided with justice.
It is important that we know the full extent of blacklisting. That comment has been made many times and I fully agree. I have focused, as have other hon. Members, on the construction industry, but does it really happen only in construction? Given the endemic nature of the practice, it is probably implausible that it is confined solely to that industry. How does bogus self-employment in the construction industry impact on blacklisting? We can only know those answers and get evidence if we have a full inquiry into the practice.
Will the Minister pledge to put in place a full and thorough investigation of the disgraceful practice? If not, why not? The shadow Business Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Mr Umunna), has pledged that a future Labour Government will, but to make progress now, will the Minister today pledge to? Following the completion of such an inquiry’s work, I hope that the House would be united and non-partisan in considering how the law could be tightened, employees protected and tough sanctions against unscrupulous companies deployed. Will the Minister give any indication of the Government’s thinking on how the law can be tightened? We have heard about blacklisting as a criminal offence, but there are other practical steps and means by which the law can be changed.
I was disappointed that the construction industrial strategy, published in the summer, did not contain a single reference to the practice of blacklisting and gave only scant mention—three paragraphs—of health and safety. I would have liked the strategy to have shown how the Government emphasise a skilled and safe work force as one of the industry’s comparative strengths. Why was that not mentioned?
One of the effective levers that the Government could pull to help eliminate blacklisting is the effective use of public procurement. The Government could exclude firms that use blacklisting from tendering for contracts. They could request information about the practice and find real evidence through the tendering process of how a particular company has used blacklisting. That could include seeking evidence that the practice has ended and that the workers affected have secured appropriate compensation and are back in the employment market. The Government could alter standard terms and conditions in contracts to make it explicit that any such contract would be immediately ended, without compensation to the firm, if it was found that blacklisting was used by the company and its subsidiaries.
The Welsh Government, as we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies), have been at the forefront of using procurement as an effective tool. They have provided a useful policy advice note to local authorities in Wales on the practical steps that can be taken on eliminating blacklisting through procurement. What is Whitehall doing to achieve the same thing? What discussions has the Minister had with other Departments, in particular the Department for Communities and Local Government, to ensure that the elimination of blacklisting is being actively encouraged—not only through central Government, but across local government?
Several hon. Friends have mentioned the development this week in which eight construction companies involved in blacklisting agreed to compensate some of the 3,200 workers affected. The setting up of the construction workers compensation scheme is welcome. We will scrutinise the progress and terms of the scheme to ensure that it provides proper redress to victims in a swift manner. What help and support are the Government giving to the scheme? I know that the Minister cannot provide a running commentary on negotiations, but can she give a time scale for the scheme to be finalised and provide compensation?
As we have heard, some of those affected by blacklisting are elderly. What level of proper compensation is the Minister pushing for from the companies, given that these people—these workers—have endured years of unemployment as a result of blacklisting? They have lost out on tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of pounds of income. We have heard that only eight of the 44 companies have signed up to the compensation scheme, so what pressure is she putting on other companies who were part of the blacklisting scandal to be involved in the scheme? Finally, how does she intend to keep the House informed of progress, so that hon. Friends who have a passionate interest in this issue can scrutinise the proposals?
My hon. Friends have spoken passionately today and said that this is a national scandal, which shames the construction companies involved. It should never be allowed to happen again and those who were discriminated against, often for decades, should be provided with swift and appropriate justice and compensation. I hope that the Minister agrees with the tone of the debate and will set out in detail how the Government will ensure that the practice of blacklisting is ended and compensation provided.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills (Jo Swinson)
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Alan. I congratulate the hon. Member for Hampstead and Kilburn (Glenda Jackson) on securing the debate and opening it in her typically powerful style, with a degree of conciseness, which other Members have managed to emulate. That has meant that we have heard from a good number of Members today, which is positive. I know that a range of Members from all parts of the House have been working on the issue. We discussed it in January, we are discussing it now, and, as the hon. Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen) said, I am sure it will be not the last time we discuss it. It is important for the House to return to the issue, to be updated on it and to ask further questions on it. As the Minister, I am more than happy to be part of that.
The hon. Member for Hampstead and Kilburn clearly set out at the beginning of the debate that “the practice of blacklisting” is an innocuous form of words, but that what we are talking about is abhorrent and illegal. All Members who have spoken have rightly echoed those sentiments in their various ways, talking about their experiences in their constituencies or, in some cases, such as that of the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Jim Sheridan), their own lives.
The Government’s position is the same: this practice is not acceptable in any way. No responsible company should be involved in blacklisting, whether that is providing information for a blacklist, using a blacklist, consulting a blacklist or using information from a previous blacklist that was in operation before the regulations were introduced in 2010. That is not the behaviour of any responsible or law-abiding company or any moral individual. People should be appointed to roles based on their merits and whether they can do the job. If they are independent-minded and involved enough to be able to flag up issues, such as health and safety problems in the workplace, or if they want to give more to their workplace through involvement in trade union activities, that is to be commended. Any employer worth its salt will recognise the positive nature of having an engaged and involved work force that are actively interested in ensuring that their workplace is safe and effective for everyone. The experiences that we have heard about have been not only abhorrent, but hugely counter-productive, as many hon. Members have mentioned, on issues such as workplace safety records. We want to encourage an atmosphere where people can raise issues if there are problems without fearing that that will impact on their future employability.
As hon. Members know, there are significant powers in place to deal with blacklisting, but I entirely understand the frustration. I think it was the hon. Member for Nottingham North who mentioned the case of the Consulting Association and Ian Kerr, the £5,000 fine and the lack of ability to take any kind of serious action against the individuals responsible, because the framework was not in place at that time. That situation rightly needed addressing. The previous Government addressed that issue with the consultation on and implementation of the Employment Relations Act 1999 (Blacklists) Regulations 2010, which mean that someone is looking at a £500,000 fine instead of a £5,000 fine. That might not be the unlimited amount that some hon. Members have called for, but no one can deny that it is a serious amount. There is data protection, but there is also the ability to award maximum compensation of some £65,000—the minimum is £5,000—through the employment tribunals system. We are in a better position on the legal framework.
Mr Davidson
Does the Minister accept that the existing legislation must be flawed if someone can be blacklisted on Crossrail without the blacklisting legislation being broken?
Jo Swinson
The hon. Gentleman and I have discussed the issue informally around the House on a few occasions, and I very much welcome the work that he and his Select Committee have been doing on it. I look forward to reading the Committee’s report. We are, of course, willing to look again at whether there are any gaps in the legislation as a result of any evidence that his investigation discovers.
On Crossrail, at the beginning of September the two parties involved—I think it was Unite and BFK—announced that blacklisting had not taken place. A further statement was issued by Unite some days later. I am happy to look at that and hear from the hon. Gentleman and Unite whether there are specific issues there, particularly with contracting, which may be partly why that issue arose. I am happy to liaise with him as his Committee continues its investigation with a view to producing a report.
Mr Meacher
Is it not clear that at the moment it is illegal to compile or maintain a blacklist, but not to use a blacklist, to supply information or to be supplied with information by someone else? Such matters need to be made illegal, so that all the problems we have heard about today are covered.
Jo Swinson
As I have said, I will happily look at the specific regulations, which include provisions on supplying information for blacklists. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will write to me if he has any further points, particularly if there are more details that I can study. It is clearly not appropriate for anyone to create a list or to supply information for such a list, or to blacklist workers, because that would quite rightly leave them open to employment tribunal claims or to possible action for breaches of data protection. The protections were put in place in 2009.
As I mentioned, we made a series of commitments about blacklisting in a debate in the House in January 2013. We promised to investigate any evidence provided about the continuation of blacklisting, to look carefully at the Scottish Affairs Committee’s findings about blacklisting that happened before 2010 and to review the legislation if the Committee identified evidence that the practice was continuing.
We are honouring those commitments, and I want to inform the House about our actions since that debate. In February, the Independent Police Complaints Commission began an investigation into allegations that the police may previously have provided information to the Consulting Association blacklist, a point that various Members have made. I suspect that you would not be happy, Sir Alan, if I commented on a live IPCC investigation, but we will of course be interested to see its outcome. If anyone has concerns about allegations that are not currently under investigation by the relevant authorities, I encourage them to take such allegations to the IPCC or, for data protection breaches, to the Information Commissioner’s Office.
The Secretary of State met the Information Commissioner, Christopher Graham, in April to make sure that he is ready and able to investigate any new evidence that comes to light. In July, the hon. Member for Glasgow South West (Mr Davidson) and his Scottish Affairs Committee announced that there was new evidence and information about the continuation of blacklisting. Within 24 hours of that communication, we alerted the Information Commissioner’s Office, which began an investigation. I understand that the ICO is in touch with the Select Committee to ensure that the ICO is provided with the information it needs to further its investigation. I know that the Scottish Affairs Committee is very keen to work with the ICO, for which I thank the hon. Gentleman.
I should tell the House that despite the significant debate on the issue—I am glad that it is a high-profile one, because people will therefore be aware that we are open to new evidence—the Scottish Affairs Committee was the first body to get in touch with new information about the continuation of blacklisting. Significant amounts of evidence have been presented about blacklisting in the past, but the Committee’s evidence is the only piece we have received since the regulations came in and, therefore, the only information that we have been able to act on. We will of course carefully consider both the Scottish Affairs Committee’s report and the outcome of the Information Commissioner’s investigation into its evidence.
Some hon. Members have called for a public inquiry, but while those two investigations are ongoing, it makes perfect sense to await their outcome before jumping to an additional inquiry. The issue is currently being explored through those two avenues, and we should wait to see the reports.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stevenage (Stephen McPartland) asked a question, which was echoed by other Members, about ensuring that the victims of this abhorrent practice are made aware of that fact. I very much enjoyed his comment that he was the first Conservative MP to write for the Morning Star, which I am sure its readers appreciated. That earned him a kind offer from the hon. Member for Nottingham North to give him information about how to join a trade union. Perhaps my hon. Friend should be careful, but I note that no Conservative Whips are in the Chamber, so perhaps we will not tell them.
My hon. Friend’s very fair question was about proactively contacting people on the database. It is important to say that there is a fast-track service, so anyone who suspects that they are on the list can find out whether that is the case and get a copy of the information. For anyone who is interested—hon. Members may wish to pass this on to constituents who are concerned about the issue—the helpline number is 0303 123 1113. So far, 3,919 people have contacted the helpline, of whom 446 have been identified on the Consulting Association blacklist.
The ICO is trying proactively to contact individuals on the list in other ways. It has made sure that union lawyers can access some of the information, so that they can write to any of their members they identify on the list, and invite them to get in touch with the ICO. The ICO has undertaken a project with Equifax to check whether address information in the files is up to date. As a result, it has written to 103 individuals, of whom 27 have contacted the ICO to make a subject access request. The ICO has also worked with the Department for Work and Pensions to determine whether up-to-date addresses can be identified from a national insurance number when that is included in the information held. The ICO hopes shortly to write to individuals for whom it has obtained up-to-date addresses.
I understand Members’ frustration, but I would say in the ICO’s defence that such processes are not straightforward. The information is not contained in a snazzy database; much of it is on paper or in card files, and some of it is very scant, with sometimes only a first name and surname. If the name is John Smith, that is almost meaningless, for someone trying to contact the person, without address details and other information. The range of actions that the ICO is taking to piece information together—working with unions, the DWP and credit reference agencies—is certainly very positive. I repeat that anyone who is concerned should contact the helpline.
Mr Meacher
The Minister is making a case for the ICO’s efforts to contact people. The obvious question that remains is whether the ICO is under instructions to correspond with or contact everyone for whom it has information that is adequate enough to enable it to do so. That is the key point. I understand that if the name is one like John Smith, that person cannot be traced, but when the ICO can contact someone because it has a name, a telephone number or anything else, is it under instructions to contact them?
Jo Swinson
The ICO is making every effort to contact people. It is not a body sponsored by the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, but we have discussed the issue with the ICO, and that is exactly what is happening. We recognise that there are some cases in which the process is difficult, but the ICO is determined that when it can contact people, it absolutely is doing so.
Mr Iain Wright
The Minister is quite rightly focusing on the construction industry, but hon. Members have mentioned other sectors. What active steps are the Government taking to find out whether there is blacklisting in other parts of the economy?
Jo Swinson
I have outlined the investigations that are ongoing. We do need something to go on: there is much speculation about and many suggestions of blacklisting taking place, but the relevant authorities need somewhere to start to look for it. That is why in the debates earlier this year and today I have reiterated that if anyone has information, concerns or suspicions—they do not need to have firm evidence, because it is a challenge to produce bona fide evidence when, by definition, the activity is clandestine—we will of course happily look at such evidence, as the Select Committee has done.
John McDonnell
To make it clear to the ICO, will the Minister state that she expects it to contact everybody on the list?
Jo Swinson
I absolutely expect the ICO to contact everyone on that list, where that is possible, practical and feasible, but I also recognise that the information is incomplete in some cases, and that its attempts to do so may not therefore be successful. I hope that the House recognises those basic practicalities.
Mr McKenzie
Is the Minister aware of the TUC’s campaign to make blacklisting a criminal offence, and will she support it?
Jo Swinson
I am obviously aware of the campaign. A range of civil and criminal offences exist, including in employment or health and safety legislation. Criminal offences are much less common, but some breaches of data protection carry a criminal penalty, so blacklisting would be a crime in those cases. However, that does not apply to a wide range of offences, such as unfair dismissal, causing detriment to whistleblowers or discrimination.
Jo Swinson
My final point was about procurement. The Welsh guidance has been referred to, although that guidance just restates how existing legal provisions already apply, and we look forward to the procurement Bill in the Scottish Parliament, which I understand we may see more details of next week. Of course, the Cabinet Office has general guidance, covering a range of issues affecting procurement, which of course means checking that contractors are adhering to practices that comply with the law—