Blacklisting
The next item of business is a members’ business debate on motion S4M-05594, in the name of Neil Findlay, on blacklisting: a Scottish and United Kingdom human rights abuse. The debate will be concluded without any question being put.
Motion debated,
That the Parliament notes the minutes of the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) meeting of 5 December 2012; agrees with the HSE in condemning “any form of blacklisting of employees by employers for raising concerns about safety standards at work”; believes that the blacklist operated by the Consulting Association and used by numerous construction firms was an appalling human rights abuse that impacted on the lives of thousands of workers and their families across the UK; acknowledges the blacklisting map of the UK published by the GMB trade union, showing that over 300 workers in Scotland were affected, including 68 across the Lothians; understands that, since 2007, the Scottish Government and/or its agencies have awarded contracts to the following companies, which have been named by or are associated with companies named by, the Information Commissioner’s Office as subscribing to the Consulting Association: Amec Group Limited, Amey OW Limited, Amey Infrastructure Services Limited, Amey Roads (North Lanarkshire) Limited, Bailey Maintenance, Balfour Beatty Construction Limited, Balfour Beatty Civil Engineering Limited, BAM Nuttall Limited, Carillion Construction, Laing O’Rourke, Morrison Construction, the Forth Crossing Bridge Constructors joint venture, Skanska Construction UK Limited, Sir Robert McAlpine Limited and Norwest Holst Limited, and acknowledges calls for an inquiry into the impact of this practice on Scottish construction workers with a view to ensuring that it cannot happen in Scotland in the future.
12:36
I declare an interest in that I am a member of Unite the Union and was previously a member of the Union of Construction, Allied Trades and Technicians.
In the 1980s and 1990s I worked in the building trade as a bricklayer. Across the industry, rumour and speculation about blacklisting were rife, but hard evidence was difficult to find. Following raids in England by the information commissioner on the Consulting Association—which, in effect, is the successor organisation to the infamous and sinister Economic League—we now have evidence beyond any doubt that the biggest construction companies in Scotland and throughout the UK were involved in financing, supporting and using systematically a centrally held secret list that companies used to check whether prospective employees were deemed suitable to employ, and to provide to the Consulting Association their own details of employees whom they deemed unsuitable for further employment in the construction industry.
I pay tribute to the blacklist support group and to Ian Davidson MP and the Scottish Affairs Select Committee at Westminster for exposing this scandal. The committee’s report shows how, as a result of those practices, workers were denied employment without explanation, financial hardship was caused and lives were disrupted and sometimes ruined. There was no right of appeal or challenge to the information that was held on the list or the decisions that were made. Those affected, although they might have had their suspicions, had no evidence that they were being discriminated against in such a systematic and methodical way.
Liberty, the human rights group, has called that a major human rights abuse and it is absolutely correct. The Scottish Affairs Committee report highlights how people were blacklisted for the heinous crime of looking out for their fellow workers; for raising issues of health and safety; and for exposing dangerous site practices that could and did injure, kill and maim their workmates. They were blacklisted for raising concerns about site welfare, refusing to accept no toilet or washing facilities, speaking up about wage rates and raising trade union issues.
Shop stewards and health and safety reps were at the top of the list when it came to the Consulting Association, as were environmental campaigners and political activists, and even people related to them. Members should listen to some extracts from the recovered entries from the blacklist records—these are direct quotes.
Mr A was
“Involved in a dispute to try and enforce the main contractor to take responsibility for the non-payment of several weeks wages”.
Someone was therefore blacklisted for the crime of wanting to be paid for the work that they had done. The entry for Mr B says:
“While at xx, drew H&S issues to the attention of site manager”.
He was blacklisted for keeping a workplace safe. Of Mr C it was said that it was thought possible that he was the twin of another employee—he was blacklisted for being someone’s brother.
There are many, many other examples of reasons that were given for being listed: “shop steward”, “communist”, “militant”, “sells the Socialist Worker”, “attended union meeting”, “attended meeting at a labour club” and “environmental activist.” That shows the extent of the victimisation of those workers. It is McCarthyism writ large.
Across the UK, more than 3,000 workers were on the list, including about 400 in Scotland. Some of our biggest names were involved—companies that have repeatedly received huge amounts of public money from contracts awarded in Scotland—such as Amec, Amey OW Ltd, Amey Infrastructure Services Ltd, Amey Roads (North Lanarkshire) Ltd, Bailey Maintenance, Balfour Beatty Construction Ltd, Balfour Beatty Civil Engineering Ltd, BAM Nuttall Ltd, Carillion Construction, Laing O’Rourke, Morrison Construction, Skanska Construction UK Ltd, Sir Robert McAlpine Ltd—the blacklister in chief—Norwest Holst Ltd and, scandalously, the Forth crossing bridge constructors joint venture. All those companies have won contracts here in Scotland and have used the Consulting Association’s blacklist. We are looking for a name for the new Forth crossing. If we do not watch out, it will be known as the blacklisters crossing.
The Parliament should make it clear that we expect those companies to own up to the extent of their activities, release all information that they hold on individuals, apologise and pay compensation to those affected. The individuals involved should be held to account for their actions.
Through the procurement bill soon to go through Parliament, we should commit to putting in place guidance to ensure that this situation never happens again. If companies do not comply, those named on the Consulting Association’s list should be barred from every public sector tendering list. We need to take a very hard line.
I know that the Cabinet Secretary for Infrastructure, Investment and Cities has committed to working with trade unions and others in the Parliament to examine how we deal with the issues. I look forward to engaging in those discussions, but I make it clear that, if no solution is reached, I intend to move amendments to the procurement bill when it is introduced.
According to Unite, the GMB and UCATT, the scandal has not ended. Shop stewards and union activists are still being sacked from the crossrail project in London. We cannot allow that to happen, especially in relation to one of the biggest construction projects in Scotland—namely, the Forth crossing. I ask the minister to explain in her summing up how we are ensuring that the companies operating on that contract are not blacklisting as we speak.
I pay tribute to the real heroes of this story, who are not politicians or trade union leaders but ordinary electricians, joiners, bricklayers, steel erectors and scaffolders. In the course of upholding health and safety standards and the principles and values of good trade unionism in looking out for their fellow workers, they were victimised and had their livelihoods taken from them. Their families suffered greatly as a result. They are people such as Dave Smith, Steve Acheson, Francie Graham and Steuart Merchant, to mention only a few names among thousands who refused to be beaten. I hope that, because of their actions and the actions of their trade unions, the construction industry of the future will be better than the industry of the past.
Finally, we need a Scottish-focused inquiry into these activities. It is only in that way that we will expose the true extent of this appalling scandal and how it has affected so many of our fellow Scots. I ask the minister to support in her summing up my call for a Scottish inquiry into blacklisting.
12:43
I am delighted to take part in this debate on the subject of the blacklisting of Scottish construction workers. I thank my colleague Neil Findlay, not only for securing this time to discuss the disgraceful practices of some of the best-known names in the construction industry but for his tireless campaigning to achieve justice for those who have been left unemployable as a result of their trade union activities.
The blacklisting of construction workers by private companies meant that hundreds of workers were denied the chance to make a living and provide for their families. Those 582 workers were profoundly disadvantaged, and not because they were underperforming in their jobs or failing to meet the industry standards expected of them. Their employment was terminated due to their membership of a trade union, for holding political views not shared by their employers, or for raising real concerns about health and safety practices. They were illegally penalised for that in a manner that reflects neither the society in which we live nor the way that we believe that business should be conducted in Scotland.
The revelations are shocking. My own shock at the blacklisting of innocent and hardworking employees is compounded further by learning that known blacklisting practitioners are profiting directly from public contracts. It does our workers and our people a discredit to allow those who have broken the law to profiteer through building our schools, health facilities and transport links.
We cannot undo the human rights abuses that have been committed, but we have an opportunity to ensure that they are never repeated and are not rewarded. I support my colleagues in asking the Scottish Government to review its procurement processes and to reconsider the involvement in the building of the Forth replacement crossing of companies that have been the major participants in the blacklisting scandal. That is a significant, high-profile project, and we should use it to showcase the best of Scottish industry, not to support the business of law breakers with profits from taxpayers.
I urge the Scottish Government to act on the recommendation from members across the chamber that anti-blacklisting measures be included in the upcoming procurement reform bill. In legislating against the tendering for future contracts by blacklisting companies, we will assure Scots that they live in a society that values and supports working people. We have a duty to set a strong and unambiguous example to employers in all sectors and to go some way to rectifying the scandalous practices that have blighted individuals, families and communities throughout Scotland for too long.
12:46
I commend Unite’s campaign and put on record my personal thanks to Stewart Hume and Greig McArthur, who have given me updates on a daily basis on the campaign and the challenges that they face.
I am sure that all members agree that the practice of blacklisting workers, especially—but by no means only—in the construction sector, is reprehensible. The House of Commons report entitled “Blacklisting in Employment: Interim Report”, which was referred to, makes it abundantly clear that this is no occasional word-in-the-ear event, but “a real live conspiracy”, as Mr Findlay’s motion stresses.
Our procurement procedures in Government need to take into account the danger of blacklisting companies somehow slipping through the net, and the upcoming procurement reform bill should include a specific provision to ensure that no company that is found guilty of blacklisting can be eligible to tender for any Government contract.
I was reassured when the Deputy First Minister, Nicola Sturgeon, said on 27 March this year:
“We are totally opposed to blacklisting or the compiling of a blacklist and are developing guidance for public bodies on addressing the issue in future procurement processes and public contracts.
We are also considering what measures we can include in the forthcoming Procurement Reform Bill to deal with inappropriate conduct, such as blacklisting, by companies bidding for public contracts in Scotland.”—[Official Report, Written Answers, 27 March 2013; S4O-1964.]
In a debate on 17 April, she added:
“Last but not least, we also need to expect companies that bid for public contracts to demonstrate high standards of ethical conduct or know that they risk being excluded from the market. The practice of blacklisting, failure to comply with tax obligations and other acts of professional misconduct may—and should—in future result in a company being judged as unsuitable to bid.
The Government regards blacklisting as wholly unacceptable. My officials have invited trade union representatives, including the Scottish Trades Union Congress, to work with us to develop guidelines for purchasers on how to address that issue when awarding contracts.”—[Official Report, 17 April 2013; c 18646.]
Those are very welcome words, and I urge my friends in the trade union movement to take up that offer.
I am very pleased that Christina McKelvie supports changes to the procurement process. Given that she referred to a “live conspiracy”, does she support my call for an independent inquiry in Scotland into blacklisting?
I do not think that that is an unreasonable request, but now that we have the interim report from the House of Commons Scottish Affairs Committee we should await the final report and discuss it. However, I am certainly happy to keep my mind open on that.
It is important to stress how good our record is on public procurement. As small and medium-sized enterprises form the backbone of business here, it is absolutely right that 82 per cent of contracts that are advertised on public contracts Scotland are won by small and medium-sized businesses. At Westminster, the equivalent figure is just 14 per cent.
Most of the businesses that are involved in the despicable practice of blacklisting are big companies, as we have heard, either in the oil and gas sector or in the construction sector. The Scottish Government is totally opposed to blacklisting. Part of the problem is the systematic secrecy around blacklisting. Companies subscribing to the Consulting Association do not broadcast the information that they compile.
The Scottish Affairs Committee’s report makes it clear:
“The emphasis throughout was on secrecy, with telephone access to sensitive information restricted to only a few, with lists of names submitted destroyed at the end of each working day and no acknowledgement that such a system existed ... We note that many of the entries on blacklisting files are little more than gossip”—
as Neil Findlay has explained. The report goes on to note that people
“were blacklisted en masse.”
The committee states:
“We believe that most of the companies involved are genuine in their regret at having been caught”.
I have no doubt—noting the choice of phrase—that they were sorry to be caught, but that is not to say that they are sorry for the lives, homes and families that were ruined as a direct result of their malpractices.
The STUC recently passed a motion at its annual congress, welcoming the exposure of
“the pernicious illegal practice of the blacklisting of workers.”
I support that. Blacklisting companies should be looking over their shoulders all the time. The Government does not want to give contracts to offending companies. Transparency and openness are key.
We may never discover the extent of this abhorrent practice or the number of people who have been damaged by it, but let us send a clear message today to those companies that engage in it: “We don’t want your tenders, you won’t get our contracts, and we will seek to prosecute if you are caught”.
12:51
I congratulate Neil Findlay not only on securing the debate but on the campaigning that he has done on the issue. Presiding Officer, I draw your and other members’ attention to my entry in the register of interests.
Like other members, I thank the Scottish Affairs Committee for its work. In particular, I thank the chairman, Ian Davidson, and Pamela Nash, who both came here recently to provide us with a very useful and, as Anne McTaggart was right to say, shocking briefing, which was co-ordinated by Neil Findlay and included representatives of people who have been affected—UCATT, Unite and the GMB.
Blacklisting has cost men and women their livelihoods. It has destroyed lives. The companies that are responsible are forever tainted by their involvement, and they must be held accountable.
This time last week, we marked international workers memorial day in the chamber. Many members made the connection between the fight for decent health and safety regulation in this country and the utterly unnecessary sacrifice of human life for greed and profit that occurred in Bangladesh.
Here, health and safety is under attack as never before. Vital regulation is being ripped up, and workers are being put at risk by cuts to inspections and a failure to enforce or prosecute. The Tory Government seems to be picking up where it left off in 1997. The focus has moved—rather, it has been widened—from trying to break workplace organisation and the labour movement through assaults on collective rights to a new assault on individual employment rights. Workers are being encouraged to swap rights for shares, and the employment tribunal system, which is a last resort, is being closed off, too. A worker who has been unfairly dismissed now has to pay to have their complaint heard.
It is claimed that blacklisting is a historical practice. What has been uncovered is indeed a conspiracy that has gone on for decades, but members should be in no doubt regarding allegations that have been made about blacklisting during recent construction projects, including for the Olympic games and London crossrail. The same firms are currently benefiting from Scottish public sector contracts, and they are employing my constituents to work for them today.
By its very nature, blacklisting is a clandestine activity, and its victims are unlikely to know that they are victims. The most recent concerns raised by Unite relate to crossrail contracts, or rather the loss of a contract when it was alleged that 28 workers had been made redundant because of an attempt by union members to raise health and safety concerns. That allegation relates to circumstances in September 2012.
I ask members to imagine what it would be like to be a construction worker who raises concerns about corners being cut on a site or about the safety of a scaffold or a piece of equipment. What is their motivation to speak out? Now, I ask each member to think about the motivation of the employer, who notes down their name and shares their file to ensure that they never work again.
The worker concerned might not know that he is on that list. He might suspect, and he might tell others about it, but he will probably be dismissed as a conspiracy theorist. Perhaps his partner blames him for not being able to find work or keep a job. His kids wonder why their friends’ dads are in work, whereas he is unable to provide for them.
Blacklisting victims are victims of an imbalance in the workplace between the employer and the employee. There are good employers and bad employers, but that imbalance exists everywhere. Collective organisation by the weaker party—by working people, both at work and politically—remains the only way to ensure a tilt towards a world of work for our children that is better than the one that we inherited from our parents and grandparents.
People who organise in trade unions, people who speak out because something is unsafe and people who agitate for the fair remuneration of their labour should not be blacklisted—they should be celebrated. Let this Parliament celebrate them by getting on and doing something for them. If the UK Government will not have a public inquiry, let us set one up. Let us demand compensation for victims. Let us examine the contractors who are delivering our public works now. Let us use procurement to ensure that the corporations responsible are hurt in the only place that they will notice it—on their balance sheets.
Due to the number of members who still wish to speak, I am minded to accept a motion without notice to extend the debate by up to 30 minutes.
Motion moved,
That, under Rule 8.14.3, the debate be extended by up to 30 minutes.—[Neil Findlay.]
Motion agreed to.
12:55
I welcome the fact that Neil Findlay has been able to bring this matter before the chamber today, not least because it gives me an opportunity to speak from the Conservative benches about the issues that his motion raises.
The practice of so-called blacklisting is a scandal. It is a shameful chapter in our industrial relations history that we should work hard to ensure does not continue. It is bad enough that the legitimate trade union activity pursued by some has been used as an excuse for some very shoddy treatment, but it is worse still to hear that attempts to improve health and safety and adhere to health and safety regulations have been used as another reason for attacking individual workers.
It has been suggested that the procurement bill that will pass through Parliament in the near future can be used to ensure that public money is not used to support that type of practice in Scotland’s industrial environment. I see that as a worthwhile pursuit. If I am on the committee that considers the bill, I will ensure that, wherever possible, I support such measures.
The priority for us all, though, must be to ensure that the practice of blacklisting is ended and does not return in any other guise. For that reason, I am keen to emphasise that, if any inquiry takes place, it must have reconciliation as one of its key principles. The companies in the motion are ones that have a key role in producing growth in our economy in the longer term. As we go through the process, it is vital that we do not impede the opportunities for growth that those companies can deliver.
That hits the nail on the head, to use a phrase from construction. This lot has to get its act together and get its house in order. The member mentions an inquiry. Can I take it that the Scottish Conservatives support an independent inquiry in Scotland? That support would be very welcome.
I am not in a position to give that commitment at the moment. I retain an open mind on the suggestion and look forward to hearing the contributions to this debate.
One of the key things that I will take into account when considering any such inquiry in future is its nature and purpose. As I said, reconciliation must lie at the heart of the process. The many companies that were listed in the motion have a key role in our future and it is important that, once we have achieved the objective of ending the practice of blacklisting in Scotland once and for all, we can draw a metaphorical line in the sand and get on with the business of providing economic growth, jobs for Scotland’s workforce and a more economically stable future for all the people of Scotland. For that reason, I want blacklisting brought to a legitimate end, our priorities properly dealt with and this episode consigned to the history books.
12:59
I, too, congratulate Neil Findlay on securing the debate and on all the work that he is doing to ensure that this Parliament takes meaningful action so that there can be no opportunity for the operation of blacklisting in the future and that there are penalties for those who have been engaged in the practice in the past.
There is no doubt that blacklisting has ruined lives and careers and cost families throughout Scotland dear. We now know from the excellent work carried out by the Scottish Affairs Select Committee in Westminster that that pernicious and destructive practice was in operation for too long in our construction industry. Indeed, as we have heard, it may be in operation even today.
I know of oil and gas workers in Aberdeen who were blacklisted in the 1980s, so the dreadful practice has unfortunately been widespread. Certainly, workers in my region—the north-east—were blacklisted. Indeed, we have been made aware of some 50 such cases.
I am pleased that we are joined today by Tommy Campbell, the Unite regional organiser based in Aberdeen, and other Unite members who are campaigning on the issue. Tommy has played a leading role in the campaign in the north-east as someone who experienced the trauma of being blacklisted himself.
It is right to congratulate my union Unite, the GMB and UCATT, which have been campaigning for action at a UK and Scottish Government level to tackle blacklisting effectively. I hope that the Parliament can move forward together to deal with the practice. We need an inquiry not only to understand the extent of the practice in the past but to be reassured that it is not widespread at the moment. Indeed, as we have heard in the debate, the unions fear that it is happening today.
That needs to be investigated, which is why I wrote to the First Minister in December to request an inquiry. I hope that we get a more positive response to that suggestion today. In the debate, members from all sides have seen merit in an inquiry, so I hope that the minister will take the proposition seriously. I want to hear more from her about that in her closing speech.
I also hope that the Scottish Government will take the action that it can take to prevent blacklisting in future by ensuring that the forthcoming procurement reform bill includes provisions to ensure that no company engaged in blacklisting can win public sector contracts. Unlike Christina McKelvie, I am not entirely supportive of everything that the Scottish Government has done on procurement, but I am very pleased indeed to hear from her that the SNP—and therefore, I hope, the Scottish Government—will commit to including such provisions in the forthcoming bill.
Labour members will welcome that development, as we have been campaigning for it for some time. I am pleased that we seem to be making progress on the issue and look forward to seeing the provisions in black and white when the bill is published. We strongly believe that the Scottish Government should use all its spending power so that companies know that they simply cannot afford to be involved in practices such as blacklisting at any level and so that, therefore, those companies promote a culture of health and safety at work instead.
Last weekend, many of us commemorated international workers memorial day. I joined the Aberdeen Trades Council at such an event where we remembered those who lost their lives at work because there was no culture of safety. That is why we must ensure that all workers can be confident that, when they raise concerns about health and safety or when they speak up for their union members, they will be listened to, their input will be valued and they will not have to live in fear of ending up on a blacklist and having their lives and careers ruined as a result.
We are told that blacklisting is a thing of the past. Unfortunately, we suspect that it might not be. We are told that it does not happen any more. If that is the case, nobody should have anything to fear from an inquiry. Everyone should welcome the proposal and no one should have any problem with the measures for which the unions are campaigning and that Neil Findlay has proposed.
I congratulate Neil Findlay again on giving us the opportunity to debate the action that we must take to ensure that blacklisting truly is a thing of the past.
13:03
Along with others, I congratulate Mr Findlay on securing time for the debate and on the powerful illustrations of abuse that he brought to us, as other members who have participated in the debate have done.
Richard Baker correctly pointed to what happened in the oil industry as well. The abuses that took place in that industry led to the formation of a new union led by Jake Molloy, which is now incorporated elsewhere.
The issue does not relate simply to construction. Blacklisting is an abuse that has travelled beyond a single industry and might exist in industries in which we, as yet, know little of it.
It is worth making a couple of points about how such practices can happen. Our constitutional situation is quite different from that which prevails in the United States for example. Amendment 6 to the US constitution states that a person shall be entitled to
“a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury ... to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his”
or her
“defence.”
It is clear that, in the environment that we are talking about, none of that prevails. UK companies have arrogated the right to the accusation, trial, conviction and sentencing of individuals by holding privately constituted courts, meeting in secret, denying to the accused all knowledge of the sentence, preventing access to a proper defence and not allowing any oversight or accountability in respect of public policy.
It is of course illegal to deprive someone of their liberty and property without due process of law, but it is not clear that it has been illegal to deprive people of the right to employment without due process of law.
Does Mr Stevenson accept that many of the allegations against the individuals who were placed on the blacklist were made by other individuals? The blacklist was kept by individuals and involved not trial by jury but trial by hearsay.
John Wilson helpfully makes the point for me. If there is to be an accusation made and a sanction laid, that must be done in an open and transparent way that duly causes people to end up in a position in which they are penalised. Virtually none—probably none—of the people who were blacklisted fall into that category, and John Wilson is absolutely correct.
The point is that every worker should be a safety officer. It is disgraceful that people have been placed on blacklists for trying to make their workplaces safer and for trying—as the Conservatives should recognise—to promote the interests of their employers as well as workers. We should take extreme notice of that.
I am coming to the end of my short speech. I welcome the indications from ministers that the issue will be addressed in forthcoming legislation. I point out that we are of course restricted in the powers that we have—in particular, we do not have the powers to control business organisations such as those that operated the blacklists. I hope that the Government can find a way to ensure that this never, ever happens again in Scotland.
13:08
I refer members to my entry in the register of interests. I welcome the debate and join other members in thanking my colleague Neil Findlay for bringing it to the chamber.
Much has been said this afternoon about blacklisting, which has had a significant amount of media coverage. As members will know, I recently spoke about blacklisting in the Scottish Government debate on procurement two weeks ago. During that debate, I congratulated Unite, the GMB, UCATT and their members for being at the forefront of the campaign to expose this shameful practice, and I reiterate that. Without their campaigning, I doubt that the issue would be discussed here or in the House of Commons, where the Scottish Affairs Committee has done tremendous work to expose blacklisting.
I have met union members inside and outside this Parliament on at least four occasions to discuss blacklisting, and each time the message has been loud and clear. The trade unions and their members want us to do more than just talk about how bad blacklisting is and condemn the practice with words alone. They want us to use the powers that we have to eliminate this illegal and immoral practice.
We know that at least 582 people in Scotland have been blacklisted, and the issue affects people in every part of Scotland. The map that the GMB union has provided shows that, in my region, blacklisting has affected seven people in Paisley, 19 in Irvine, 16 in Greenock, 10 in Port Glasgow, 10 in Saltcoats, 11 in Stevenson and 15 in Ardrossan, as well as people in Johnstone, Erskine, Renfrew, Largs, Kilwinning, Bishopbriggs, Clydebank, Helensburgh, Balloch and Dumbarton—the list goes on and on.
That is a list of numbers, but of course we know that we are talking about people, not statistics. They are people who were denied the right to work just because they joined a trade union or raised concerns about health and safety; people whose lives were devastated and who deserve action and a full and independent Scottish inquiry; and people who deserve compensation and action on procurement from the Scottish Government.
That is why my Labour colleagues and I propose that we exclude from providing public service contracts organisations, companies and individuals who have been found guilty of grave misconduct such as blacklisting in the course of their business activities. As members have said, it is regrettable that the Scottish and UK Governments have issued contracts to companies involved in blacklisting. I know that the Deputy First Minister and other Government members have said that they are keen to engage with the trade unions and to do so on a cross-party basis. I welcome that and hope that that will progress matters. As the Unite briefing for the debate states, if there is the political will to act, action can and must be taken.
I advise the minister and the Government again that, if the Government does not take action through procurement, Labour will. I will fully support my colleague Neil Findlay if he lodges amendments to the procurement bill to stop public contracts for blacklisters. The debate has put our views on the record and put the cards on the table. From the speeches that we have heard, it is clear that there is the political will to act. It is now time to act and for the Government to deliver on its commitments.
13:11
I declare that, as my entry in the register of members’ interests shows, I am a member of Unite. I have been a member of the trade union movement for almost 40 years.
I, too, congratulate Neil Findlay on securing this important debate on the abuse of people’s basic human right to work or employment. I commend the Scottish Affairs Committee at Westminster for its work on the issue. In particular, I thank Ian Davidson MP—thanking him is a unique event for me, given our political differences—for his campaigning work on the issue at Westminster, which has highlighted its importance.
I know that many members in the chamber recognise that employment rights must be defended and enhanced. The evidence that was provided to the Scottish Affairs Committee clearly identified that people were blacklisted for expressing the most basic concerns about health and safety in their workplace. Professor Keith Ewing produced a report for UCATT entitled “Ruined Lives: Blacklisting in the UK Construction Industry”. I found the report’s evidence compelling, and its main title—“Ruined Lives”—really says it all. It refers to situations in which gossip somehow becomes fact, which can only lead to discriminatory practices.
Neil Findlay rightly highlights in his motion the construction sector and some of its bad practices. It must be remembered that many people still do not know whether they have been a victim of blacklisting and that many other industries carried out blacklisting.
There was recent action by the Information Commissioner’s Office against the Consulting Association, but its activities were clearly just the tip of the iceberg, because they followed almost 90 years of similar practices, including those of the Economic League since 1919, which highlighted particular workers and discriminated against them. That meant that people who were in work and people who were applying for work were discriminated against, so some people could not even apply for jobs. For example, I know of a case in which someone was told not to bother applying for a job in an industry because they were blacklisted.
The difficulty is that much of the evidence was not available to many workers. I have met many trade unionists over the years who told me that they were blacklisted but could not prove it. All that they were told when they applied for a job was that they were not suitable or that no job was available. Even when they knew that they were well qualified and could do the job, they were denied the opportunity even to apply for a job. For a number of years, employers have been able to pick and choose on the basis of hearsay, as I said when I intervened during Mr Stevenson’s speech, or a person’s involvement in political or environmental campaigns.
It is clear that the practice has gone on. We must all condemn it and move forward. That means that we must identify the companies that we know engaged in the process, given the evidence that we have. The difficulty is that we do not have evidence of the work that the Economic League carried out and the blacklisting that took place while the league existed.
I support the Government’s stance on the issue. The procurement reform bill should include provision to ensure that we tell employers that we will not condone such practice and will take whatever action we can to stop it.
You must draw to a close, please.
In closing, I say that it is quite clear that the practice has gone on for too long. Workers who have been denied the basic right of employment must be compensated by the employers concerned. We must look at all the contracts in the public sector. Not just the Scottish Government but many local authorities have entered into contracts with the companies concerned—
You must close, please.
We must look closely at those contracts and end them as soon as possible.
13:16
I have a registered interest: I am a member of Unite.
I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in this important debate, which comes at an apposite time, just after international workers memorial day and as we celebrate May day. I commend Neil Findlay for his hard work to ensure that the odious practice of blacklisting is fully exposed and stopped in Scotland.
In 2009, concrete proof was found, at last, that the construction industry was rife with blacklisting, but blacklisting first made the headlines when the shady Economic League’s activities were unearthed in the early 1990s, as John Wilson said. At that time, Tony Blair was a shadow secretary of state, and he proposed a law to ban blacklisting. However, the Tory Home Secretary, Michael Howard, opposed a ban and said:
“There is no reason to make the activities of those organisations illegal.”—[Official Report, House of Commons, 20 January 1990; Vol 165, c 44.]
I am pleased that all members who have spoken in the debate have said exactly why such a disgraceful practice should be illegal.
Workers are on blacklists simply for being members of trade unions, fighting for better pay and conditions and raising health and safety issues that save lives. No worker should be punished for speaking out for their rights and the rights of their workmates to enjoy decent working conditions, fair pay and acceptable standards of health and safety.
Blacklisting’s victims are not just the thousands of workers who have been prevented from gaining employment but the many workers who have been killed and injured at work because the people who spoke out about unsafe practices were silenced. Why were they silenced? So that the multimillionaire owners of big construction firms could milk even more profit out of their operations, often at the expense of health and safety.
I naively thought that such practices went out with the match girls’ strike. In 1888, women at Bryant and May’s match factory were working a 14-hour day for a pittance. They were fined for crimes such as talking, dropping a match or daring to go to the toilet without permission. They suffered from cancer caused by yellow phosphorus, which had been banned in the United States of America but which the British Government had refused to ban, in case a ban created a restraint on free trade.
The familiar rule of putting profit before people was alive and flourishing in 19th century Britain, just as it is now, when blacklisting is going on. More than a decade ago I wrote an article for The Citizen in which I said:
“Unlike our comrades of two centuries ago, at least we don’t have to lose our liberty for fighting for socialism and decent conditions for the workers.”
I was wrong to assume that things are so different now. Many trade unionists have been unable to secure work because of big business blacklists. That has resulted in poverty, family breakdown and mental ill health.
It is unfortunate that, when he became Prime Minister, Tony Blair did not outlaw blacklisting, despite his earlier promise. It was assumed that, because the Economic League had gone, blacklisting had stopped. If only. We know now that the Consulting Association continued the disgraceful practice, ruining people’s lives. I am pleased that Johann Lamont has signed up to a trade union anti-blacklisting agreement; the firms that blacklisted trade unionists should suffer as ordinary workers have suffered.
I support the call by the GMB, Unite and UCATT that the firms involved should not be awarded public sector contracts until those damaged by their vile blacklisting are compensated. It is a scandal that, even now, big companies such as Balfour Beatty, Skanska and McAlpine are gaining public contracts—they are being rewarded for their use of illegally held blacklisting information rather than being penalised for their shocking behaviour.
We should send a strong message that we stand in solidarity with the trade unions and all those affected by this scandalous conduct and we should stop the companies at the heart of it being rewarded with lucrative public contracts. I know that Neil Findlay will not give up until the workers are compensated and the companies are made to pay. I congratulate him again on leading the debate and I support his call for an inquiry.
13:20
I, too, add my congratulations to Neil Findlay not only on securing the debate but on his on-going work on blacklisting and other worker-related issues. Thanks are due, too, to the trade union movement—individual members and collectively—the Hazards magazine, the blacklisting support group and countless others. As many members have mentioned, thanks are also due to the Scottish Affairs Committee for its interim report. We know that there is evidence of financing and supporting the sinister list.
I am grateful to Unite for its briefing. It refers to the
“human story of poverty, family breakdown and emotional despair and—in the worst case—suicide.”
It is important that we recall that we are talking about individuals. The damage has been done. Perhaps it cannot be repaired directly, but it certainly cannot be allowed to be repeated and we must see the eradication of what, as many other members have said, is an attack on human rights.
Unite’s general secretary described the matter as an “on-going problem.” I am dealing with an incident of corporate abuse of smaller businesses, which in turn affects workforces, so the bullying continues. What we have seen is vindictiveness, deceit and collusion but, as yet, we have not seen any justice.
Some members have talked about attitudes. The attitude that is shown when the United Kingdom’s Prime Minister talks about slaying the “health and safety monster” and refers to equality impact assessments as “nonsense” is the very attitude that underpins a lot of this.
Drew Smith referred to the erosion of safety in the workplace and the dearth of proactivity from the Health and Safety Executive, including no unannounced or follow-up inspections, the consequence of little investigation and even less prosecution and the pernicious—that is a word that is used a lot—rights for shares issue.
Whose interests are served by that? It is certainly not those of the workforce and it is not efficient. It is political dogma and invariably the blind pursuit of profit, which cannot be allowed to go unchecked.
I hope that the minister will set out what plans the Scottish Government has to address the issue and, indeed, whether it has moved on from earlier in the year when Fergus Ewing, the Minister for Energy, Enterprise and Tourism, said:
“I remind members that this is a Parliament and not a court. It is not appropriate, in my view, to bandy around allegations without evidence.”—[Official Report, 31 March 2013; c 16250.]
There is a growing wealth of evidence on blacklisting and I hope that that will be picked up by the minister.
Many members have talked about the procurement bill, in which there will be opportunities to address much more than blacklisting. I do not know whether it is appropriate to commend the blacklisting of blacklisters, but there may be a place for that. Neil Findlay talked about owning up and Alex Johnstone talked about reconciliation. We certainly need to shift the burden of proof. I favour no public money going to any company that disregards workers’ health and safety or the important role of trade unions and staff associations. We can make a start on that through the procurement bill.
I support Neil Findlay’s calls for an independent public inquiry. There is a debate to be had about the status and powers of such an inquiry and about issues of compensation. However, we must ensure that the corporate cowboys are reined in. I like the challenge that has been thrown to the Parliament by the trade unions. Everyone who genuinely supports social justice and a positive future for Scotland must add their voices of support to the call for an inquiry.
13:24
I declare an interest as a member of Community union.
I thank Neil Findlay for securing the debate and for campaigning on the issue. There is significant common ground between blacklisting and my members’ business debate last week on international workers memorial day when we remembered all those who had lost their lives or suffered injury and ill health because of poor health and safety in the workplace. It was highlighted during that debate that many people were put on the blacklist because they dared to question unsafe practices that threatened workers’ lives and wellbeing.
Between the two debates, we have had the May day international workers day, when we celebrate the strength of the labour movement. We therefore have good cause to look at the victimisation of those who raise concerns about safety, to highlight the links between poor health and safety and the lack of unionisation in the workplace, to talk about people who have lost their jobs and livelihoods because they tried to do something about the situation and to examine what we can do, the policies that we can adopt and the action that we can take to ensure that such victimisation is not tolerated in a society that cares about its workers’ safety and wellbeing.
Many of those on the blacklist were employed—or, to be more accurate, denied employment—in the construction industry. This is an industry that has one of the worst health and safety records outside agriculture; which, like agriculture, is notoriously anti-union; and in which people have been sacked and even charged with conspiracy for attempting to organise. The list of subscribers to the Consulting Association reads like a “Who’s Who” of the construction industry; as Neil Findlay has already pointed out, although some are no longer members, the damage has been done.
We all know that people who challenge unsafe practices and organise a workforce to fight against dangerous working conditions should be heroes, but the big construction companies try to make them zeroes by operating a blacklist. What can we do to protect them and encourage good practice? The ICO might have busted the Consulting Association but, in its own words,
“compiling and operating an intelligence database, even where this is done covertly, does not automatically breach the Data Protection Act.”
That means that anyone who is determined enough can still operate.
The way forward has been set out and we must start with central and local government’s dealings with construction companies. Should we be giving contracts to those that have poor health and safety records and which victimise trade unionists? Indeed, it has been suggested that that should be added to the ethical criteria for procurement. Moreover, the fact that bad health and safety has consequences for society and puts a burden on health and other services is an economic criterion that should be taken into account.
As Roz Foyer from Unite and the blacklist support group said just over an hour ago, there needs to be no more rhetoric and no more hypocrisy. We need to send a clear message to employers that we will not support such victimisation. Let us have that public inquiry.
13:28
Like other MSPs, I commend Neil Findlay for securing this well-attended and well-supported debate.
For the record, I restate the Scottish Government’s position, which is that blacklisting is wholly unacceptable. The Scottish Government endorses the Health and Safety Executive’s comments; condemns any form of blacklisting of employees by employers for raising concerns about safety standards at work; and is totally opposed to blacklisting or the compilation of a blacklist on such a basis.
First of all, I want to address the most prominent issue that has been raised by Neil Findlay and other members. Although we as a Government acknowledge the call for a Scottish Government inquiry, we believe that it is appropriate for the Scottish Affairs Committee to conduct and conclude its inquiry into this issue. As we know, matters of employment law are reserved to the UK Government and the Scottish Government is not at this time convinced of the merits of holding another inquiry while the Scottish Affairs Committee’s investigation is on-going and its recommendations are pending.
Does the minister accept that human rights are a devolved issue?
Absolutely. As members of the Scottish Parliament, we are all very aware of the high standard that has been set for the Scottish Government and the Scottish Parliament as regards compliance with the European convention on human rights, but the fact remains that employment and industrial relations continue to be reserved to the UK Government. In my view, that is an anomaly of the constitutional settlement, but it is the position.
John Wilson rose—
Will the minister give way on that point?
I will let Neil Findlay in once I have made a bit of progress.
We are pleased by the rigour that the Scottish Affairs Committee is applying to its investigation. As a Government, we have read the committee’s interim report with great interest. In that report, the committee concludes that the service that the Consulting Association offered was a blacklisting service into which subscribers put money, and that information that they took out of a database was used to make decisions about whether to employ certain individuals. We concur with the committee in concluding that that practice was unethical and is to be condemned.
Justice is devolved, too.
Will the minister confirm that, although the Scottish Government does not see any merit in having an inquiry now, as the report is an interim one, that position will be reconsidered once the full report has been published? Secondly, will she address the point that I made earlier and say what steps are being taken now on major construction projects such as the new Forth road bridge to ensure that no blacklisting is still going on?
I will come on to the point about action that can be taken. There have been significant regulatory changes since 2009.
On Mr Findlay’s first point, I reassure him that, as a Government, we are looking forward to the Scottish Affairs Committee’s final report, which we will look at extremely carefully. It would be inappropriate for me to pre-empt any conclusions or recommendations that the committee is considering as part of the weighty and serious investigation that it is undertaking.
I note from the committee’s interim report that it intends to continue its investigation in four main areas. It will consider whether companies that have been involved in blacklisting should be prevented from tendering for public sector contracts in the future or whether they should be allowed to tender only if they pay compensation to people who have been blacklisted.
It is important that the committee continues to seek evidence on whether blacklisting is still taking place, whether within the construction industry or more widely, especially in Scotland. Other issues that it is exploring include whether compensation should be paid, to whom and by whom it should be paid, and whether the existing legislation on blacklisting is sufficient, if it is properly enforced, or whether changes in the law are necessary to eradicate the practice.
I come to Mr Findlay’s second point. As we know, the legislative framework at the time meant that blacklisting was not illegal but, as Elaine Smith told us, the Employment Relations Act 1999 (Blacklists) Regulations 2010, which were introduced by the UK Government in 2010, prohibit blacklisting. Therefore, I believe that we are starting from a better position. There are also the Public Contracts (Scotland) Regulations 2012, which provide that contracts should not be awarded to companies that have been involved in grave misdemeanours.
A number of companies that have been awarded contracts by the Scottish Government and its agencies since 2007 have been named by the Information Commissioner’s Office as companies that subscribed to the Consulting Association. However, we have no evidence to suggest that any of those companies engaged in blacklisting in connection with the performance of any contracts that were awarded by the Scottish Government or its agencies. I am sure that members will appreciate the need for evidence and rigour.
Does that not underline the fact that we need a public inquiry to raise that evidence, and that the agencies in Scotland that award the contracts are the people who are best placed to tell us what is going on in those contracts? We could do that all in public and we could involve a range of agencies in Scotland, including the police, as there have been questions about where some of the information that was passed to the Consulting Association came from.
I understand Mr Smith’s point and there is no doubt in my mind that there are many people who have been adversely affected by blacklisting. However I hope that he understands the point that I am making and accepts it in the spirit in which it is intended. It is appropriate for the Scottish Affairs Committee to continue its investigation and to seek further evidence. The Scottish Government will consider the final report closely when it is published.
We have invited the unions—the STUC, Unite, Unison and the GMB—to work with us on the development and strengthening of guidance for public bodies on addressing the issue of blacklisting in terms of their procurement processes and with regard to public contracts. We intend to circulate an initial draft of the guidance to the unions shortly and to convene a meeting to get their valuable input.
We want to explore with the trade union movement the potential for asking additional questions of suppliers at the selection stage of a procurement exercise and for holding suppliers to account through revised terms and conditions of contract, including issues such as termination clauses for those who breach relevant legislation.
As members have suggested, we are, in addition, considering what measures we can include in the forthcoming procurement reform bill to deal with inappropriate conduct, including blacklisting, by companies that are bidding for public contracts in Scotland.
In a recent debate, the Deputy First Minister stated clearly:
“I want to ensure that procurement spend is a force for good and that we are supporting the economy and its constituent parts, and promoting good practice, sustainability and ethical behaviour.”—[Official Report, 17 April 2013; c 18685.]
Given the tone and tenor of this debate, I am confident that we can move forward as a Parliament with due diligence and vigilance to ensure that blacklisting is consigned to the history books.
13:38
Meeting suspended.
14:30
On resuming—