Infrastructure and Capital Investment Committee

Meeting date: Wednesday, November 5, 2014

Official Report 472KB pdf

---

Petition

---

Blacklisting (PE1481)

Item 3 is to consider public petition PE1481, on blacklisting in Scotland. In considering what actions it wants to take in respect of the petition, the committee is invited to consider a letter dated 8 October from the Scottish Government. I invite members’ views or comments.

The petition has been incredibly valuable and the petitioners have provided a very useful service in placing blacklisting firmly on the policy and legislative agenda.

As a result of the petition, a number of things have happened. The Government has developed guidance in collaboration with the trade unions, and the Procurement Reform (Scotland) Act 2014, which was considered by the committee and debated here and by the Parliament, gives ministers the ability to introduce statutory guidance on how public bodies must take blacklisting into account when awarding contracts. During the passage of that legislation, the Government gave a clear commitment to place guidance developed with the trade unions on a statutory footing and to introduce secondary legislation. There is also the issue of the transposition of European procurement directives, which is highlighted in the Deputy First Minister’s letter.

As a result of the petition, it looks as though a framework has been developed that provides a number of ways in which blacklisting can be addressed. The petitioners have done a very good job; the committee has done its job. Therefore, the obvious conclusion is that we should close the petition. In doing so, we must first place on the record our debt of gratitude to the trade unions—in particular Pat Rafferty of Unite, Harry Donaldson of GMB and Harry Frew of the Union of Construction, Allied Trades and Technicians—for the work that they have undertaken. We must also place on the record the fact that the Scottish Affairs Committee at Westminster has done a valuable inquiry into blacklisting, which informed the debate about the issue, and we must recognise the on-going dialogue between the Scottish Government and the trade unions in progressing the issue.

Because of the progress that has been made and the work that has been undertaken, the obvious conclusion is that we should close the petition.

I agree almost entirely with Jim Eadie. The Scottish Affairs Committee has done a large amount of investigatory work and the Scottish Government has progressed the matter through the Procurement Reform (Scotland) Act 2014. However, contracts are still being awarded through the national health service, hubcos and local authorities to companies that have been involved in the practice of blacklisting and that have not carried out remedial action. In addition, what that remedial action is expected to be is ill defined by the Government.

We would not be doing our duty were we to close the petition when the work is on-going. For example, the Government plans to undertake a consultation and introduce secondary legislation. We should keep the petition open until the process that the Government is committed to has been completed. We can then see whether we are satisfied that the petitioners’ aims and objectives have been met.

Does anyone else want to comment?

I absolutely agree with everything that Jim Eadie said apart from the suggestion that we close the petition, for the reasons that Mark Griffin outlined. Other work is still going on, and I am reluctant to close the petition until the guidance is put on a statutory footing and the transposition of those other things is done. The issue is so important that we need to keep a watching brief on it and keep the petition open until the consultation is complete and the guidance has been put on a statutory footing.

You are entitled to your opinion, but that is going to be done in the context of our looking at the procurement regulations. I also point out that we have given the petitioners a number of opportunities to respond to what we have done and they have not come back to us. That makes me think that, because they are being consulted to a great extent on the drafting of the guidance on blacklisting, which will be made statutory, that is the avenue that they are now pursuing. We probably could close the petition. Should we close it?

What would be the benefit of keeping it open? As far as I can see, the committee has done its job. Can the clerks provide any guidance on what our on-going role and involvement in the issue would be?

It is very much for committee members to decide what the committee’s role might be. The Procurement Reform (Scotland) Act 2014 has gone a long way towards answering the questions that are raised in the petition, and it is up to members to decide whether it is worth keeping it open. You will be keeping a watching brief on the procurement regulations as they come in later.

Even since the Procurement Reform (Scotland) Bill was passed, massive steps seem to have been taken in that the guidance is going to be made statutory and the unions are involved in drawing up the guidance. Do we really need to keep the petition open? I am sure that the folk who are involved—Pat Rafferty and the others—would be the first to come back to us with another petition if they thought it was required. Can I have a steer on this without going to a vote? Are we going to keep the petition open or close it? Alex Johnstone has not said anything yet.

I am deliberately keeping my mouth shut in case anything I say influences the argument one way or the other. I am inclined to agree with Jim Eadie, not for any political reason but simply for the reasons that he cited.

When the procurement regulations come before us as statutory instruments, we will ensure that we have time to go through them properly. We would do that anyway, but we can flag them up to ensure that members read them properly. Would that be sufficient for Mary Fee and Mark Griffin?

I have been in touch with the petitioners and I know that there is still concern about the contracts that are being awarded to companies that have been involved in blacklisting. Perhaps the clerks can advise us whether, when the secondary legislation comes before us, we will purely scrutinise it as a committee or whether there will be a role for any evidence to be taken.

To help the committee, we will do everything that we can to raise the context of the petition while the procurement regulations are going through, so that you are aware of how the regulations affect what has been put forward in the bill and that is at the forefront of your consideration.

Will the petitioners have an opportunity to give evidence at that point?

The committee could decide to invite them to give evidence if it thought that it was appropriate at that juncture.

I would be happy to close the petition on the basis that we write to the petitioners saying that we have received a letter from the Deputy First Minister and that we will look to consult the petitioners at the point of the statutory guidance being lodged.

Okay. Are we agreed on that course of action?

Members indicated agreement.

12:10 Meeting continued in private until 12:20.