Blacklisting

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

Wednesday 23rd January 2013 Commons Chamber

[Vince Cable]

I have taken a lot of interventions. I want to make a little progress, then perhaps I will take some more.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. A lot of Members want to speak, and the more time that is taken up with interventions, the less time will be available for their speeches. I do not mind which happens, but Members must choose. The Secretary of State has said that he will not give way for a while, and I know that some Members who want to catch my eye are getting frustrated.

[Vince Cable]

I should like to go through the issues that have been raised step by step. Most of them relate to the past. I want to start by describing factually the matters covered by the 2008-09 Information Commissioner’s investigation. He used his powers under the Data Protection Act 1998 to launch an investigation, based on a story in The Guardian newspaper that an intelligence system had been used to vet workers for employment in the UK construction industry. As a result of that, a search warrant was issued in 2008, leading to a search of the premises of the Consulting Association in February 2009. The investigation resulted in the successful prosecution of the Consulting Association for breaching data protection law and it was closed down. The owner, Mr Kerr—now, I think, deceased—was fined £5,000, which was the maximum fine at the time. The levels of fines have now been radically changed. Fifteen enforcement notices were issued against the Consulting Association and some of its user construction companies to stop them collecting and using personal data for vetting purposes.

The investigation looked further, but came to the conclusion that there was no evidence that blacklisting existed in other industries, or that the number of construction workers blacklisted went beyond those in the files secured by the Information Commissioner. In other words, it addressed the question that Members are now trying to raise in their interventions. It is important to reflect that that wholly independent body asked the questions that are now being asked, and that it came to that very clear conclusion.

--- Later in debate ---

[Vince Cable]

rose—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. We will have to have very short interventions if Members also wish to catch my eye.

[Vince Cable]

Of course blacklisting is wholly and utterly unacceptable, and of course the industry needs to understand that—I think that was the first remark I made. If it is about sending signals, we have already done so, and of course we will have a close look at what the Scottish Affairs Committee has said and whether it has found any new evidence. I do not think that this debate has brought forward anything new, but perhaps the Select Committee has. Obviously, if there is fundamental new information, logically we will look at that, but we have not yet seen it.

Then there is the question of the existing legislative framework, to which the hon. Member for Streatham drew attention. Let me just go over the legislative framework. The Data Protection Act 1998 was the basis on which the investigation took place, and the Information Commissioner used the maximum legal powers available at the time, which have since been increased, hence the ability to use civil penalties of £500,000. There is also the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, which makes it unlawful to employ a person because they are a member—or, indeed, not a member—of a trade union or because they refuse to join or leave a trade union. It is equally unlawful for an agency to refuse employment services on those grounds. As we have heard, an individual can bring an employment tribunal complaint within three months of an offence taking place, or longer if it was not reasonably practical to bring the claim in time. That is what many workers have done in this case. Finally, there is the legislation that the previous Government introduced, the Employment Relations Act 1999 (Blacklists) Regulations 2010, under which it became unlawful to use, compile, sell or supply blacklists of trade union members or activities for discriminatory purposes such as employment vetting.

There was a decade of review of the 1999 Act and its implications. Several Members, including the hon. Member for Gosport (Caroline Dinenage), have asked why action was not taken more quickly. Let me go through the history of that decade. The Employment Relations Act 1999 introduced the power for the Secretary of State to make regulations to outlaw the creation, use, sale or supply of blacklists, but no regulations were introduced in 1999. Four years later, in 2003, the Government carried out a public review of the effect of the Act and concluded that there was no evidence of blacklisting, but they did publish draft blacklisting regulations and said that they would introduce them swiftly if the need arose. The ICO then investigated the Consulting Association, after which the Government introduced the regulations that had been published in draft.

Therefore, there was a very long process of consultation. Preparatory legislation was produced in case there was evidence that something had taken place, and indeed there was and the Government acted. My approach is exactly the same. If companies have found a way around the regulations and abuses are still taking place, we of course need to look at taking fresh steps, but I am waiting to hear that evidence.

--- Later in debate ---

[Vince Cable]

From a human point of view, drawing a line at that point clearly caused damage. However, on a wide variety of measures the House has always taken the view that retrospective legislation is dangerous and creates all kinds of problems.

A number of individuals believe that they have been affected by the blacklisting and they have taken action through the courts. As I understand it at the moment, last year 86 workers who believed that they were blacklisted launched a High Court claim against Sir Robert McAlpine for conspiring with other firms to keep them out of work. Legal proceedings on that action are still under way, so I cannot usefully discuss the matter. However, a major legal action is taking place and it will, of course, affect the issue of redress.

In conclusion, I repeat the points I made a moment ago. My primary concern, in the job that I now have, is what is happening under the Government in respect of my responsibilities in this field. I am concerned to read that abuse is, or even may be, taking place. My door is open at any time to any Opposition or Government Member who has evidence of abuse, because we want to stop it and we will certainly investigate it if it is happening. I will look carefully at the report of the Scottish Affairs Committee to see whether fundamentally new questions have emerged from its inquiry.

We will deal with the other issues in the summary session. If Opposition Members or trade unions have evidence, I really want them to bring it forward. Innuendo is not helpful; we need evidence.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

I am going to introduce an eight-minute limit; hopefully, we will try to shave a little off the speeches here and there. We will see what we can do.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kris Hopkins]

I absolutely stick with those words. For 13 years the Labour Government failed to address this issue, and then 60 days before the election they pop up and introduce a piece of legislation that somehow justifies their failure to look after working-class people. It is important that we have confidence in the Information Commissioner’s Office, that it has the laws available to pursue individuals and companies who are breaking the law, that there is a constant appraisal of the intelligence offered by different parties and that it acts on any relevant information, and that any victims of such acts have a clear route to redress. I am also pleased that we have a maximum penalty of £500,000, which is an important deterrent to individuals who may carry out such practices.

All through my time in employment I have been a great supporter of sensible trade unions, and all through my political career I have continued to build a strong relationship with them. It is extremely important that they have that responsibility. They have an important role to play in the workplace. If this was a Government debate on an issue promoted by a Tory donor, the Opposition would be outraged. While 81% of the Labour party’s funding comes from trade unions, including an £11,000 bung for the shadow Business Secretary, then although I think this issue is extremely serious—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. The hon. Member for Keighley (Kris Hopkins) must bear in mind that a bung is not something that we will accept. That is a suggestion that the shadow Business Secretary has been paid for this, and I hope that the word “bung” will be withdrawn.

[Kris Hopkins]

Absolutely. I withdraw. That is an £11,000 down-payment to the shadow Business Secretary. Although I think this issue is extremely serious—

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Order. Can I just suggest that I do not believe any money is paid to Members themselves—the office maybe, but I suggest that a Member is not directly in receipt of that money? We have to be very careful about how we use this language. I do not want the debate to deteriorate. It has been a good debate and both sides have been very honest, but we have to be very careful—we are on the line.

[Kris Hopkins]

Thank you for that clarification, Mr Deputy Speaker. Of course I will take that back, if that is appropriate.

This is an extremely serious issue. I applaud the excellent work of the ICO, and it should continue. I feel that this House is not used to its maximum when we have such a debate, which is motivated by such reasons. I am sorry that Labour has had to use an Opposition debate to recognise its own failures. I am absolutely sure that the Secretary of State, as he said earlier on, will take up these issues. It is a shame that the Opposition do not have confidence in the regulations that they brought forward.