Oral evidence: Blacklisting in Employment, HC 272-iiWednesday 16 July 2014
Oral evidence, 16 July 2014.
Witnesses
Callum Tuckett, Group Finance and Commercial Director, Laing O’Rourke, Andrew Ridley-Barker, Managing Director, VINCI Construction UK, and Nick Pollard, Chief Executive Officer, Balfour Beatty, gave sworn evidence. Q3710 Gentlemen, as you will be aware, the Committee has been looking at blacklisting for quite some time. We started off by looking at health and safety issues, and that led us to this. Subsequently, we have been looking at various other issues, such as the national minimum wage, zero hours and so on. Today, initially we want to focus particularly on your three companies. We have already had some evidence from Balfour Beatty, but we want to clarify its position and that of the other two companies as well. Perhaps we could start off by asking each of the companies, starting at this end, to clarify what your involvement was with the Consulting Association and its predecessor the Economic League.
Nick Pollard
As you say, Chair, Mike Peasland gave evidence to this Committee and therefore you had it first hand. I am unable to add to that particularly in any way. My understanding is that during a period that ended in 2009 the business was involved with the Consulting Association and did things that, in hindsight, we deeply regret and wish we had never done. We clearly behaved in a manner that morally we wished we had not; it was wrong. The fact that it was industry practice does not make it right. Essentially, that is why we are here today.
Chair
Can I just clarify: the Economic League?
Nick Pollard
I have no other details to add to that. I am aware of the Consulting Association and have read Mr Peasland’s evidence, but I have no further information on that, I am afraid.
Chair
You are coming along today not knowing whether or not your firm was involved with the Economic League, which was the predecessor of the Consulting Association?
Nick Pollard
My understanding is that some of those records were involved in the work that the Consulting Association executed, but I am afraid I have no first-hand knowledge of the Economic League.
Chair
To be fair, when we ask witnesses along on behalf of their companies we do not necessarily want to rely on first-hand knowledge. We expect the individual to be speaking on behalf of the organisation. I just want to clarify whether or not your company or its various predecessors were involved, as far as you are aware, with the Economic League.
Nick Pollard
I am afraid I have nothing further to add to my comment. I do not want to go off on some tangent that I am not personally confident of giving you evidence on. I am under oath. I am not going to sit here and pretend that I know something if I don’t—I am sorry.
Chair
In that case, we would ask you to clarify for us subsequently, in writing, the involvement of your firm with the Economic League.
Nick Pollard
I will do that with the greatest of pleasure, Chair; thank you.
Chair
I would not expect it necessarily to be with pleasure, but I understand the point you are making. Mr Ridley-Barker?
Andrew Ridley-Barker
VINCI was a member of TCA from 1993 until 2009 when the activities of the organisation ceased. Again, I would like to take this opportunity to apologise for the activities of our organisation, for its membership of TCA at that time and any harm it may have caused any individuals from that association. It is wrong; we should not have been part of it. We are very clear on that. With regard to the Economic League, in the investigations that I have undertaken, I have not been able to find any evidence that VINCI was part of the Economic League. As you may be aware, VINCI acquired Taylor Woodrow in 2008. Taylor Woodrow was also a member of TCA from 1993. It ceased its membership in 2000.
Chair
Thanks. Mr Tuckett?
Callum Tuckett
Laing O’Rourke’s involvement with TCA essentially revolves around two companies that we acquired. We acquired Crown House Technologies in 2004 and prior to that the O’Rourke business acquired the John Laing organisation. The involvement with TCA was principally through those two organisations. It did continue after the point of acquisition, and it ceased in 2009. There is another instance of a Laing O’Rourke company being involved in using TCA, or seeking information from TCA, but that related only to existing employees, and I believe it was checking references, essentially.
Chair
Can you be a little clearer about the last comment you made? What was the date of that?
Callum Tuckett
That would be between 2007 and 2009. Very clearly, from the investigations we did there certainly was some contact with TCA from Laing O’Rourke organisations at that point, but, to be clear, that was existing employees; it was not a situation where anybody was denied employment through that.
Chair
What was the point of checking existing employees with TCA?
Callum Tuckett
Essentially, the information I have and the notes I have been given from the investigations we have done internally is that it was checking qualifications that people had put forward. If they had provided specific cards or types of information they had about qualifications, it was to check those. There were never any responses from TCA, so inquiries were made but no responses were forthcoming.
Chair
But TCA did not hold professional qualifications.
Callum Tuckett
That is the information I have. I do not know what TCA did and did not hold, to be honest.
Chair
And the Economic League?
Callum Tuckett
I am quite sure that the John Laing business had some involvement with the Economic League, but none of the Laing O’Rourke or O’Rourke companies had any involvement with it.
Graeme Morrice
Can I ask all three of you when you ceased to use the services of the Consulting Association?
Nick Pollard
When we ceased to use it?
Graeme Morrice
Yes.
Nick Pollard
The investigation showed that we ceased using the Consulting Association in 2009.
Graeme Morrice
Was that before or after the ICO raid?
Nick Pollard
There had already been a recognition before the ICO raid that this was a practice that should stop, and the business, I understand, stopped any involvement with TCA in 2009. I am not aware of the specific date, but it would be a similar time.
Graeme Morrice
You are not sure whether it was before or after, but it was round about that time.
Nick Pollard
I would imagine it was either at the time or before.
Graeme Morrice
But you could confirm in writing specifically.
Nick Pollard
Sure.
Graeme Morrice
That would be useful. Mr Ridley-Barker?
Andrew Ridley-Barker
VINCI ceased activities with TCA when TCA ceased operation.
Graeme Morrice
Can you confirm the year?
Andrew Ridley-Barker
In 2009.
Graeme Morrice
In 2009.
Andrew Ridley-Barker
Correct.
Graeme Morrice
Was that after the raid then?
Andrew Ridley-Barker
Yes, when TCA was disbanded.
Graeme Morrice
So after the raid. Mr Tucker?
Callum Tuckett
The ICO raised the issue with us in 2009; I think it was March 2009, from memory. We commenced some internal investigations at that point and identified that the Crown House business we had acquired was accessing information through TCA at the time, and any involvement with TCA ceased at that point.
Graeme Morrice
To clarify, that was following the ICO raid.
Callum Tuckett
Yes.
Chair
Two of you said that you stopped using it only in 2009. The assumption we can draw is that you would have continued to use it had it not been shut down. You stopped using it because it was shut; you did not have the option of carrying on using it. Is that correct?
Callum Tuckett
If I can respond to that, Chair, the minute that our business became aware that the practice of accessing this information was going on—so the minute it was understood at a very senior level in our business, or through our general counsel and others—we investigated that. To reinforce what my colleagues have said, the practice is completely unacceptable. It is a practice that we do not condone in any way whatsoever. It is extremely unfortunate that it has adversely affected some people. As soon as we became aware of that we ceased any practice in that. To a degree, it is uncomfortable that our organisation was not aware of that at the most senior levels, but as soon as they were they stopped that practice.
Lindsay Roy
Can you clarify “accessing information”? For what purpose?
Callum Tuckett
Sorry?
Lindsay Roy
Accessing information for what purpose?
Callum Tuckett
From the Crown House records?
Lindsay Roy
From the Consulting Association.
Callum Tuckett
On the individual cases I do not know exactly why they were accessing the information. Essentially, there were two individuals involved with John Laing and Crown House who had historically been using this process.
Lindsay Roy
Surely, you must have some idea.
Callum Tuckett
I think they were checking information about those individuals; they were checking qualifications. Beyond that, I do not know specifically what they were checking for. Individual cases will be investigated obviously, and are being investigated at the moment, but on a case-by-case basis I do not know exactly what it was.
Lindsay Roy
All the information you have at the present time is that it was to do with qualifications.
Callum Tuckett
I think we were accessing information on those individuals. Exactly what it was I don’t know. There will be a number of records of what they were asking. I don’t know exactly what they were looking for.
Chair
You are saying that there are a number of records available in terms of what they were asking.
Callum Tuckett
The ICO have a number of records in terms of cards.
Chair
Do you as a company have records of what was being asked?
Callum Tuckett
No. The only information we have as a company is the invoices that came from TCA.
Lindsay Roy
Mr Ridley-Barker?
Andrew Ridley-Barker
Apart from it being a hypothetical question, I would absolutely hope that we would not continue the activities of membership of TCA. I am unable to comment on whether we would or would not be.
Lindsay Roy
It is not a hypothetical question. It was accessing information for what purpose?
Andrew Ridley-Barker
Sorry, I beg your pardon. Why were we members of TCA?
Lindsay Roy
What information were you trying to acquire?
Andrew Ridley-Barker
I imagine we were looking to identify unsuitable individuals for employment on our projects.
Lindsay Roy
With all due respect, imagining and not being clear about the information being sought is very unhelpful to this Committee. I would have thought you would have done your homework.
Callum Tuckett
I have certainly done the homework and read as much as I can about this, but on a case-by-case basis I do not know exactly what information was being sought. We do not have any records; we do not know how the communications happened, or whether it was verbal. The only information we have as a company that I am aware of are the invoices that came from TCA. To be quite frank, they are very limited, because the access we had as a company post-acquisition of Crown House and John Laing was very limited.
Lindsay Roy
So there are no HR personnel left who were involved in this.
Callum Tuckett
No. Unfortunately, one is deceased and the other left the company, I think, in 2009.
Lindsay Roy
Did you make any inquiries with him?
Callum Tuckett
There have been interviews, yes, with him.
Lindsay Roy
And the outcome?
Callum Tuckett
In terms of?
Lindsay Roy
Why they were seeking information.
Callum Tuckett
In the papers I have read there is no specific reference to it that I can remember.
Lindsay Roy
In the contact with the individual concerned what feedback did you get on that?
Callum Tuckett
They explained that it was an historic thing; it was something they had done essentially throughout their careers. It was a practice that had existed in Crown House and the other organisation for quite some time. I think it is an historic issue. As my colleagues have mentioned, this is completely unacceptable. As an individual who sits on our main board, I find it a completely unacceptable activity, and it is something we would not condone.
Simon Reevell
You are apologising an awful lot if all that happened was that somebody made a phone call to check some qualifications. Does hearing what Mr Ridley-Barker said it was all about refresh your memory as to why this was going on, or do you still say it was just about checking qualifications? If it is qualifications, could you help us as to why you are apologising?
Callum Tuckett
The fact that a business accesses information on individuals to check anything, I think, is not a practice that we would condone.
Simon Reevell
Are we saying “information” or are we saying “qualifications”?
Callum Tuckett
What I have read—I am clear on what I said—is that the information they accessed was about checking qualifications. That is what I have read in the evidence statements.
Simon Reevell
What do you think was going on?
Callum Tuckett
I think people were checking people’s appropriateness for work, personally.
Simon Reevell
We could have saved a lot of time, could we not?
Callum Tuckett
That is my opinion from what I have read.
Lindsay Roy
What do you mean by “appropriateness for work”?
Callum Tuckett
Whether they had the right qualifications.
Simon Reevell
Their height perhaps.
Callum Tuckett
I do not think height is particularly relevant.
Simon Reevell
What sorts of things do you think it was?
Lindsay Roy
Convictions, trade union membership, health and safety?
Callum Tuckett
It could be a number of things. Today, it would be on good health and safety performance—absolutely—and checking that they had no history of that type of thing. I can imagine people checking things like that now. Back then I do not know exactly what they were checking.
Simon Reevell
How do you know it was deplorable if you do not know what it was? What must it have been for you to condemn it as deplorable?
Callum Tuckett
I think checking information on anybody when people are not aware of that information being held on them is not appropriate behaviour. That is my personal opinion.
Simon Reevell
Are you going to answer the question about the sorts of things you think it would have been that make you happy to describe it as deplorable? Mr Ridley-Barker has told us the answer to this.
Callum Tuckett
Mr Ridley-Barker said it was accessing information on whether or not people were appropriate for the role. I can imagine that is what it was. Exactly what the list of all those things is I do not know. I am sure it will depend on what the role was. I do not know how to be more specific with you. I am not trying to avoid the issue.
Lindsay Roy
The difference is that you have spoken to the HR director who was involved.
Callum Tuckett
I have not personally spoken to the HR director.
Lindsay Roy
Your company has.
Callum Tuckett
I have read a statement that he has made, and that was about whether he was involved in it and was accessing information from TCA. He was. We do not have any records of that, so we were checking with him if he had done it, and he had.
Lindsay Roy
Would you agree that it seems less than rigorous and robust?
Callum Tuckett
Sorry?
Lindsay Roy
Any inquiry with the HR director.
Callum Tuckett
What additional information would you hope for?
Lindsay Roy
What I am asking is: was there anything that you believed, beyond qualifications, you could achieve from the information, or indeed was there any questioning of the HR director about that?
Callum Tuckett
I think, from what I have read in the press and various other things, obviously there is suspicion that there was significantly more information in some instances kept in TCA, and that would be around union membership, people’s activities in disputes and various other things. I do not think that kind of information should be kept on anybody, and it certainly should not affect anybody’s ability to be employed.
Lindsay Roy
But your company has a responsibility, never mind reading it in the press.
Callum Tuckett
You have asked what information I have. I have read the statements. I have told you what I read in the statements. I am sharing that with you. I have also shared my personal opinion. As a main board director of our company, I am saying it is completely unacceptable to keep records of anybody and for that to influence whether or not they can get future employment.
Lindsay Roy
You said that nobody in senior management knew about it. Are you surprised about that?
Callum Tuckett
I am. I am very uncomfortable about that. I think they should have known about it.
Lindsay Roy
Why did that happen?
Callum Tuckett
We acquired the company. We went through huge due diligence, as you do in a company. They were both quite large companies at the time, and for some reason that was something that was not picked up. I think that the processes and systems we have as a business now would stop something like that occurring again.
Lindsay Roy
Your due diligence is more robust now.
Callum Tuckett
It is significantly more robust.
Lindsay Roy
Mr Ridley-Barker, would you like to comment?
Andrew Ridley-Barker
The use of TCA was wrong; we should not have done it. It was obviously to identify individuals who were deemed unsuitable for employment on our projects. There was obviously concern at the time that those individuals would disrupt the progress of the project.
Lindsay Roy
What were the criteria for unsuitability?
Andrew Ridley-Barker
From reading your interim report, I understand the criteria ranged from some rather bizarre or innocuous alliances or friendships with people who were also deemed to be unsuitable. It ranged from union membership right through to communist support or affiliation.
Lindsay Roy
That is all read in the press. I am interested in what you know about your company.
Andrew Ridley-Barker
I am sorry. Could you be—
Lindsay Roy
I am interested in what you know about your company from the information you have read. What kind of rigour and robustness was there in any investigation by your company?
Andrew Ridley-Barker
Okay; okay. This issue came to my attention in 2012. At that time I started an investigation. I must say I was completely taken aback by the allegations at that particular point in time. We undertook an investigation, led by our senior counsel, and engaged the services of an external firm of solicitors to investigate what had transpired, what our activities were and who was undertaking it. Our usage may appear relatively minor, but, none the less, we were members of TCA between the dates that I mentioned—1993 and 2009. We undertook payments to TCA of both annual subscriptions as well as payments by usage. I am sure you are aware of the system in operation at the time. Our annual payments to TCA ranged from £3,000 to £5,000. On that basis, I understand that we contributed to TCA in the range—because we do not have all the contemporary records, and did not uncover those during our investigation—of £48,000 and £68,000 over the duration of TCA from 1993 to 2009.
Lindsay Roy
What were the findings of your solicitors’ report?
Callum Tuckett
The knowledge of the activities of TCA and our membership of it was limited within our organisation. Our contact with TCA was our industrial relations officer, and to a large extent all activities were, therefore, contained with him. He represented the organisation at meetings with TCA, and it was he who undertook the contact with Ian Kerr. Faxes were sent from our HR department to TCA. These may have been handwritten notes or typed-out lists of names. I am told it may have been a page and a half on a weekly basis.
Lindsay Roy
It is a significant amount of money. Why was that not picked up?
Andrew Ridley-Barker
The monthly payments would have been in the order of around £200 to £500. They were signed off by our IR manager. They were well within his remit and authority to sign off.
Lindsay Roy
What has happened to that individual?
Andrew Ridley-Barker
He has retired from the organisation. He retired in December 2011.
Lindsay Roy
Was any action taken against him? Did you interview him?
Andrew Ridley-Barker
He had left the company by the time it came to my attention. We have interviewed him on two occasions and have had numerous phone conversations with him.
Lindsay Roy
But this happened in 2009 and he left in 2011.
Andrew Ridley-Barker
That is correct.
Lindsay Roy
Surely there was time to be proactive and deal with it urgently.
Andrew Ridley-Barker
I agree. It did not come to my attention until 2012.
Lindsay Roy
Why was that?
Andrew Ridley-Barker
At the time I obviously kept abreast with the situation of the ICO closing down the activities of TCA through the press and media; I had an understanding of that, but I had no knowledge of our participation during that time. It was only in late 2012 that it was brought to my attention we had been part of TCA.
Lindsay Roy
Who brought it to your attention?
Andrew Ridley-Barker
I had a meeting with Sir Robert McAlpine, who were advising that they were wishing to conjoin us in their defence and bring part 20 proceedings against us, at which point I was taken aback. I then undertook investigations and found out that we were indeed members of the organisation.
Lindsay Roy
Nobody from within the organisation alerted you at all.
Andrew Ridley-Barker
Not up to that point, no.
Mike Crockart
We have kind of danced round the exact services that each of you was paying for. Mr Pollard, we have not heard very much from you. Do you have any clearer view of what you were actually paying for? What services did TCA provide for you?
Nick Pollard
I think Mike Peasland gave you extensive evidence on that here—
Mike Crockart
Well, you are here. If it is going to be your answer to every question that you have nothing to add, then I think we are going to get quite annoyed, a bit fed up and wonder what the point is of your coming along to give evidence today. So can I make that point up front, and then ask you if you know what services TCA was providing?
Nick Pollard
If you had allowed me to finish my sentence—
Mike Crockart
Go ahead.
Nick Pollard
I have read Mike Peasland’s testimony. His evidence was that it was being used to prevent disruption on construction sites. That is my understanding, because that was the evidence he gave. I have seen nothing to the contrary of that at all anywhere. I am not able to add a lot more to that.
Mike Crockart
You do not have an internal report that has been done that you can give us as to what happened in your company.
Nick Pollard
I was briefed on this shortly after I joined the company a year ago. I was briefed by our general counsel on the matter. Before that, I was not particularly aware of the practice. I had been working abroad for part of the time before that, but I read stuff in the trade press. As to the briefings I have had, I have not sat down and read through internal reports and things of that nature. I have relied on the briefings I have been given, and my interest has been to take the company forward out of this. The phrase I have used is: it is good to look at the past but it is rude to stare. I recognise fully the problems we had in using the services of the Consulting Association. My focus has been to take this forward.
Mike Crockart
I am sorry to butt in, but you cannot give evidence saying that you recognise fully the problems that were caused if you can’t even tell me what services were provided.
Nick Pollard
The services were, for a limited number of people in Balfour Beatty, to contact the Consulting Association and ask for checks to be made on individuals. Why those checks were made I can only conjecture. I can only offer the evidence that has been given to you, which was full. I have not seen anything additive to that; I have not seen anything so far that is contrary to that. Mr Peasland’s testimony was that it was in order to avoid disruption on the sites.
Mike Crockart
I hesitate even to go on with the next part of the questioning, but let’s give it a go anyway. What information did you provide to TCA?
Nick Pollard
I have no detailed knowledge of that at all, I am afraid. I understood we participated in TCA, and I have not seen any detail of what information we provided.
Mike Crockart
You say you participated in TCA. What did that extend to?
Nick Pollard
My understanding is that we paid them a fee, and before employing people, we took references on some of those people from TCA.
Mike Crockart
That was not my question. My question was: what information did you give to TCA, or did you give information?
Nick Pollard
I can find out and write to the Committee, but I do not have any detailed knowledge I can offer to you here.
Mike Crockart
So no internal inquiry has established whether you were full participants in TCA in giving information to them about your own employees.
Nick Pollard
There was an internal inquiry, but I am afraid I cannot offer any detail on what information was provided to TCA sat here this afternoon. I can certainly write to you with those details. I apologise.
Chair
On the question of the internal inquiry, we have asked you to let us have a copy of that and you have refused. Have you changed your position on that?
Nick Pollard
My understanding is that we took legal advice on the internal inquiry itself and that legal advice was that we were not allowed to provide that. I do not know if that is right or wrong. If you give me a moment, I can consult my general counsel—he is sat behind me—and find out if that is factual.
Chair
Rather than have to-ing and fro-ing in the middle of the meeting, we are concerned that you have had an internal report which you are refusing to let us see on the grounds of legal advice. We will also check whether or not we accept the argument.
Lindsay Roy
Are you saying the lawyers did not allow you? Is that what you are saying?
Nick Pollard
I understand the legal advice was that it was subject to legal privilege and could not be provided. That could well be wrong. If you would allow me to check it, I will check it and come back to you.
Simon Reevell
Chair, I suggest that if whoever is giving this legal advice is in the room we establish what this legal advice is.
Nick Pollard
We could establish first of all whether I am right, so perhaps you would allow me to ask the question, please, Chair.
Chair
Fine; okay. [The witness conferred.]
Nick Pollard
I am right in what I have said to you, I am afraid, which is that the advice we were given was that it was subject to legal privilege and should not be offered.
Simon Reevell
Not allowed to or you do not have to?
Nick Pollard
That it was subject to legal privilege and therefore would not be offered.
Simon Reevell
But you said earlier that you were not allowed to. Are you saying you are not allowed to, or are you saying that because of legal privilege you are not going to? You can ask him if you want. I could ask him.
Nick Pollard
If you’d like to ask him, you are more than welcome.
Mike Crockart
He could just nod. [The witness conferred.]
Nick Pollard
We were not required to make that available to you, because it was subject to legal privilege.
Simon Reevell
When you said “not allowed to,” we should cross that out.
Chair
To be clear, you are not giving this to us because you do not want to. You are not precluded from giving it to us because of any legal reasons; you are choosing not to give it to a Committee of Parliament. Is that a correct assumption of the position?
Nick Pollard
Your understanding is not fully correct in that.
Chair
Maybe you want to seek clarification from your legal counsel. Are you legally precluded from giving it to us? What law would you be breaking if you gave it to us?
Nick Pollard
I am not suggesting we would be breaking any law, Mr Chair. You asked me why we refused to provide it to you. I have answered you as truthfully as I can. Having checked, it was a decision; it was under legal privilege and the company did not provide it for that reason. I am quite happy to take that away and—
Chair
You are not providing it to us because you do not want to provide it, and you think you are covered by legal privilege. That is not an argument as to why you do not put it forward.
Nick Pollard
Since that was not my decision, I would like to take that away. I will be very happy to review it and I will be very happy to write to you on the topic. If we believe that is the right thing to do and it should be provided to you, I will be happy to do that, but I would like to take it away and review it. I am not going to sit here and—
Chair
All right; you take it away and review it, and we would reserve the right to call you back again if we are unhappy with the nature of your response.
Nick Pollard
Of course. We will come back at any time.
Graeme Morrice
Mr Pollard stated that this was a management decision based on legal advice that you could accept or not accept. You accepted it and took a management decision accordingly. Is that what you are saying?
Nick Pollard
That is my understanding.
Chair
The legal advice that I have just received—which is the great advantage of an iPad—is that we can insist. I think you ought maybe to check this very carefully to clarify whether or not we do have the power to insist. That, as I say, is the legal advice we have had by those watching the programme and who act as our legal advisers. I don’t have to ask somebody behind me.
Nick Pollard
I would be very happy to do that.
Lindsay Roy
Given the controversy, why were you not prepared to be open and transparent about this?
Nick Pollard
I have no idea why it was not provided. I will go and investigate. I will come back to the Committee in writing, and I hope that we will be able to find a way forward.
Chair
Can I clarify the reply from the two other witnesses as well? If you have internal reviews of this, we would want to see them, and, if you are refusing to do so, we would want a very clear explanation as to the basis on which you are coming to that conclusion, given that we are a Committee of Parliament and we are asking. If you wanted to ask us to keep it confidential, we would obviously consider that, but ultimately we would reserve the right to make it publicly available, if we thought it was in the public interest. Clearly, if it mentioned particular individuals, it may very well be that we would accept your argument that it was inappropriate for this to be put in the public domain, but since generally we would want to err on the side of openness I could not give you a guarantee that that is how we would proceed.
Mike Crockart
I wanted to ask the same question of the other two witnesses. Specifically, did you provide information to TCA? We have had evidence that it came the other way—that you were doing checks—but did you provide information?
Andrew Ridley-Barker
During the course of the investigations the individuals who we interviewed a number of times denied supplying any information to TCA; they denied providing names to TCA—to Ian Kerr. When challenged on why it appears that reference to the information coming from VINCI is in TCA’s records, the responses were along the lines that “It must have been an assumption made by Ian Kerr that I provided the information.” That is the extent to which we have been able to get to the bottom of that particular issue. I am not able to say categorically that we did not or that we did.
Mike Crockart
To be clear, the evidence of the information on the database suggests that information was given by VINCI to TCA.
Andrew Ridley-Barker
Absolutely; I agree, and that is the contradiction that I just described.
Mike Crockart
I understand.
Callum Tuckett
We went through each of the individuals involved. Our investigations suggest that the Crown House part of the business did supply information to TCA, even post-acquisition, so I am being completely open with you. There is very little detail on what that was. When the individuals were pressed they acknowledged that verbally they probably did share information, but we do not have detail on exactly what that was. To answer your question specifically, yes, one of the entities we acquired did provide TCA with information.
Mike Crockart
But neither of you knows what type of information was being provided.
Callum Tuckett
I do not, but, in responding to the Chair’s request—and to an extent Nick has made this point already—we are trying to look forward, but absolutely, I think, accept the potential impact of what has gone on in the past. We do want to be transparent about it, so we will be willing to share information with the Committee. The only thing I can say without legal advice is that I suspect there may be elements of that which may be subject to current ongoing cases that might need to be excluded from that, but that is only a suggestion. I need to check that, but we will definitely share the information with you.
Mike Crockart
Mr Ridley-Barker, do you know—
Andrew Ridley-Barker
Unfortunately, during the investigations the individuals concerned confirmed that they never passed information, so we were not able to interrogate, therefore, what information they did not pass, so my investigation was inconclusive in that regard.
Lindsay Roy
Would you accept that those looking into this today see this as a superficial rather than robust investigation?
Andrew Ridley-Barker
Absolutely not. We have endeavoured to identify exactly what our role was within TCA, who was doing it within our organisation, why we were doing it, and how we were participating. I have exhausted all avenues within our organisation to identify the extent of it.
Lindsay Roy
You are checking with employees who are currently still operating within the company?
Andrew Ridley-Barker
There are no employees in the organisation who participated in TCA.
Lindsay Roy
None at all.
Andrew Ridley-Barker
No.
Pamela Nash
Gentlemen, I want to ask you a series of questions to establish the impact of blacklisting on your employees, and potential employees. Before I do so, Mr Tuckett, I notice that in your responses so far you have repeatedly referred to the companies that were acquired by your company. My understanding, from a quick Google search, is that Laing was acquired in 2001.
Callum Tuckett
That is correct, yes.
Pamela Nash
But it was involved up until 2009.
Callum Tuckett
Correct, yes.
Pamela Nash
So it is part of your company.
Callum Tuckett
That is absolutely true.
Pamela Nash
I think it is a bit disingenuous to keep talking about a company that was acquired. I appreciate that it was acquired, but it was part of your company during the time it was accused of blacklisting.
Callum Tuckett
I apologise for cutting across you, but when I was making those responses I wanted to be clear that they were companies that were acquired. I did say it is embarrassing, quite frankly, that, through the due diligence we did when we acquired these companies, we did not identify practices that were absolutely not what our business does. I am just trying to put some context round this. I am not trying to be disingenuous at all. I find this incredibly frustrating. We are a direct employer of resource; we are a company that employs people to deliver our work. We are probably the largest construction employer in the UK. We are a direct PAYE employer with no silly games going on. That is why my frustration is coming through, and, yes, I do feel uncomfortable as an individual and from a corporate perspective that we did not identify that. It was actually February 2009 we identified it. I apologise if I appeared disingenuous.
Pamela Nash
I want to establish that while the blacklisting may have begun prior to that—
Callum Tuckett
It did continue after.
Pamela Nash
It continued for eight years after it acquired that company.
Callum Tuckett
Yes.
Pamela Nash
Therefore, your company was involved in this; it was not a company that you later acquired.
Callum Tuckett
Yes, and I accept that; and it was happening through one individual, who unfortunately is now deceased.
Pamela Nash
Can I clarify there are no fears that R O’Rourke & Son—that section of the company—was involved in blacklisting?
Callum Tuckett
There is absolutely no evidence—none whatsoever—that there was any activity round accessing any information from TCA or others from the O’Rourke organisations.
Pamela Nash
Have any concerns been expressed to you within your company that there was any involvement by R O’Rourke & Son prior to the merger?
Callum Tuckett
No.
Pamela Nash
Thanks for that. You mentioned that current employees—when I say “current” I don’t mean now but employees at the time—had been checked as well. Was anyone denied employment as a result of going through your normal recruitment process and then having their names checked against TCA’s list?
Callum Tuckett
From the investigations we have done through the Laing O’Rourke company I spoke about—I am not being disingenuous, but just clarifying the acquisition and the different HR streams going on—where the Laing O’Rourke companies did check existing employees nobody was adversely affected by that. However, from our investigations it is apparent that some may have been affected by the inquiries or investigations that Crown House made.
Pamela Nash
Do you know how many?
Callum Tuckett
I have a note somewhere.
Pamela Nash
I am going to ask the other witnesses as well, so you might want to look through your notes.
Chair
Or consult your counsel, as the case may be.
Pamela Nash
Ask the audience.
Callum Tuckett
I apologise. I do not have it immediately to hand. I will double-check the number, but it is approximately 20 people. In my mind—no matter what anybody else says—that is a significant number. I will clarify it in writing.
Chair
The figures that have been given to me indicate that you refused to employ workers on 87 occasions.
Callum Tuckett
The majority of the 87 were pre‑acquisition, so they were not Laing O’Rourke companies when that was going on.
Chair
You are familiar with the figure of 87.
Callum Tuckett
It is 79, but I assume it is the same source. I am familiar with that, and we can give you a breakdown of exactly what it was.
Chair
It would certainly be helpful if you were willing to be open about this in the way you have indicated.
Callum Tuckett
Absolutely. To be absolutely clear, although the figure I had was 79, it would be the same source, and approximately 20 of those were post-acquisition in the period between 2001 and 2009.
Pamela Nash
Perhaps you can check that 20 figure, and if that proves wrong could you correct that?
Callum Tuckett
I will check my notes as we are talking and come back to you.
Pamela Nash
Mr Ridley-Barker, can I ask you the same question? How many people are you aware were denied employment as a result of being checked against the list?
Andrew Ridley-Barker
Again, unfortunately in the interviews we undertook with those involved, they reported that, while we were requesting the vetting services of TCA by sending names to them, they did not receive back any phone calls from Ian Kerr. I have not been able to find any other evidence. At the same time, I note there are data which confirm that we did deny employment to individuals. I cannot remember the exact number and I am afraid I do not have it with me, but I will write back to you.
Chair
The figure I have is 32.
Andrew Ridley-Barker
I had in my head 40, but unfortunately in my investigations everyone denied a return from those investigations.
Simon Reevell
It was a waste of 68,000 quid, was it not?
Andrew Ridley-Barker
Yes; it is an entirely reprehensible business.
Chair
No; that is a different reprehensibility.
Simon Reevell
You spent £68,000 and no one phoned back week after week.
Andrew Ridley-Barker
Exactly; I agree.
Simon Reevell
It must have been infuriating.
Andrew Ridley-Barker
Not that we would want them to phone back, but yes.
Chair
Can you understand why we are having some difficulty believing that? You are an organisation paying over quite a lot of money on a regular basis and nobody is phoning you back—seriously?
Andrew Ridley-Barker
I agree.
Pamela Nash
Honestly, do you believe that? I appreciate you are saying it was other colleagues and you have had to conduct an internal investigation to get that information. Do you believe it was the case that TCA was not calling back when your company was making contact with it?
Andrew Ridley-Barker
It would be my own personal view.
Pamela Nash
You cannot give that—
Andrew Ridley-Barker
My own personal view is that, yes, I would find that difficult to believe. That is my own personal view, Chair.
Pamela Nash
I asked you about potential employees who were being checked. Were any current employees, as Mr Tuckett referred to in his company, who had details checked?
Andrew Ridley-Barker
Not that I am aware of.
Callum Tuckett
Can I just clarify that it was 28 post-acquisition? There were 79 in total and 28 were post-acquisition of the two companies I talked about.
Chair
Since our figures are slightly different, maybe we will ask our staff and whoever is advising you to help clarify it.
Callum Tuckett
We will share our records with you. There is no problem with that at all.
Chair
That openness is very much welcomed.
Pamela Nash
Can I just be clear? Is it 79 in total, or 79 prior to acquisition?
Callum Tuckett
Seventy-nine in total is the number I have.
Pamela Nash
That is including the 28.
Callum Tuckett
Including the 28.
Sir James Paice
Mr Ridley-Barker, I am slightly puzzled that you say, using my colleague’s phrase, that nobody phoned you back but that was your personal view. Presumably, there is something more substantive in the fact that you are part of the compensation scheme. Is that not implicitly accepting that people did phone back and you used their services, or are you just joining the compensation scheme because you subscribed to TCA?
Andrew Ridley-Barker
We recognise that the actions of a few individuals within our organisation were not an act of maverick behaviour. We acknowledged that corporately we were responsible for our actions. We needed to make reparations, set the record straight and right the wrong that our membership of this organisation caused. I fully understand that, and it is why we wanted to join in the construction workers compensation scheme.
Chair
Jim, do you have a point relating directly to this?
Jim McGovern
Yes, and it is a point, please, to Mr Tuckett particularly. Your evidence seems to differ certainly from that of Mr Ridley-Barker. Mr Ridley-Barker is saying, “We knew it was going on, and we regret it and are sorry about it.” You seem to be saying that, although Laing O’Rourke were the parent company, you were completely unaware that this was happening.
Callum Tuckett
No. I am asserting much the same as Mr Ridley-Barker, in that we are embarrassed that we were not aware of it going on. As soon as we did become aware of it going on we addressed it.
Jim McGovern
How long was it going on before you became aware of it?
Callum Tuckett
It was going on for eight years, and I think we discussed that earlier.
Jim McGovern
Yes, I heard that. For eight years you were unaware of it.
Callum Tuckett
Yes, and I was very clear. It is embarrassing.
Jim McGovern
Where does the buck stop then?
Callum Tuckett
We have a corporate responsibility.
Jim McGovern
“It wasn’t me, guv; it was somebody else.”
Callum Tuckett
No, no, absolutely not. It was our company. After we acquired those companies it was our responsibility. We acquired those companies. What I am trying to say, in terms of the ethos of our company, is that it is absolutely against the ethos of our company to do things like this. That is the only point I was trying to make—the only point. We would not be contributing to the scheme if we were in any way saying that this was an acceptable way to behave. It is not. It is absolutely not.
Jim McGovern
But it was happening right under the nose of Laing O’Rourke, and you are saying Laing O’Rourke was unaware of it.
Callum Tuckett
Yes. It is a very difficult thing for me to sit here and defend, because it is not acceptable. It is embarrassing that that was not uncovered. We have developed as an organisation over that time. We have very, very strong corporate governance now, and it is something which I am now proud of. I think that as a corporation we are proud of it, but we missed things. That is a mistake. It is one of the reasons we are actively involving ourselves in the scheme and trying to move forward. People have been wronged by what has been done. There is absolutely no doubt about that, and they should get reasonable reparation for that.
Pamela Nash
Mr Pollard, can I ask you the same question? How many potential employees were checked and then denied employment by Balfour Beatty?
Nick Pollard
I absolutely understand there were hundreds of people who were checked. As I understand it, it was a check made as part of employing people. If they were denied employment it would perhaps be because of this, or perhaps because of other reasons in that checking, too, but there is no way for me to imagine there were not people whose working life was damaged because they were not taken on as a result of checks being made through this. I haven’t got an exact number for you, I am afraid.
Pamela Nash
Have you asked?
Nick Pollard
I have, and I cannot remember whether we had a figure from the report. I think we simply didn’t know, to tell you the truth. I think we simply didn’t know.
Pamela Nash
Going back to a previous question, you were asked by one of my colleagues whether your company had provided information to TCA and you said you did not know. Did you ask for that information in preparation for today? It is a pretty obvious question that you were going to be asked by this Committee.
Nick Pollard
Forgive me. In preparing for today, my understanding was that the thing the Committee was particularly interested in was the compensation scheme that has just been launched, so I devoted most of my preparation, I am afraid, Chair, towards that end rather than trying to bone up on past history. Since you had already had extensive evidence from Mr Peasland and my company, I must admit that I did not try to learn lines to come here. I apologise, Chair, if I misunderstood.
Pamela Nash
I completely appreciate that, and we are coming on to that. However, these are very, very basic questions and, considering the audience who are watching and paying attention to this today, I do think it is pretty reasonable to have expected that we would go over the basic facts of the case. I do not think it is going into depth asking if you gave evidence to the Consulting Association, and how many people were affected within your company. To be clear, you do not know how many people were denied employment after having their files checked at TCA.
Nick Pollard
I do not have a figure with me for that. I can investigate and, like Mr Ridley-Barker, write to you.
Pamela Nash
Can I ask you to investigate both potential employees—people who had been through a recruitment process—and also existing employees, and whether they had their details checked with TCA?
Nick Pollard
I am not aware that we ever checked current employees at all, but I will find out that point.
Pamela Nash
If you could confirm that either way, I would appreciate it. Mr Pollard, would you consider that your company was operating a blacklist?
Nick Pollard
I think we were operating in a completely wrong manner. We were dealing with a company—a consulting business—that was compiling records behind people’s backs and without any factual foundation. It seems to me completely and utterly wrong. I can only apologise. I find it extremely—
Pamela Nash
Just to be clear, what I am asking you is: would you define that as a blacklist?
Nick Pollard
I think that is a matter that the court is trying to decide at the moment as to what—
Chair
No, sorry, we are asking you now: were you complicit in blacklisting?
Nick Pollard
Were we—sorry?
Chair
Were you involved in blacklisting?
Nick Pollard
No, I do not think we were as it is defined as some activity that just simply cuts off union membership, for instance. We were involved in the activity of taking references on people in a way that was just morally wrong. Whether it was legally wrong at that time or not I understand there is an argument about. I do not want to start gypping about mental or verbal gymnastics on blacklisting, but my understanding of blacklisting is not what was done. What was done was wrong—the use of the consultancy.