Blacklisting

Michael Meacher Excerpts

Wednesday 16th October 2013 Westminster Hall

[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?

--- Later in debate ---

[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.