A Quiet Word:
Lobbying, Crony Capitalism
and Broken Politics in Britain

The Scottish Affairs Select Committee is a select committee of the House of Commons in the Parliament of the United Kingdom. The remit of the Committee is to examine the expenditure, administration and policy of the Scotland Office (and prior to that, the Scottish Office), and relations with the Scottish Parliament. It also looks at the administration and expenditure of the Advocate General for Scotland. [1]
Above text from Wikipedia is available under the CC-BY-SA license.

March 2014

THE REFERENDUM ON SEPARATION FOR SCOTLAND  

February 2014

THE IMPACT OF THE BEDROOM TAX IN SCOTLAND

  • Rt Hon David Mundell MP, Under-Secretary of State for Scotland gave evidence on 4 Feb. [128]

THE REFERENDUM ON SEPARATION FOR SCOTLAND

January 2014

Blacklisting in Employment

THE REFERENDUM ON SEPARATION FOR SCOTLAND

December 2013

BLACKLISTING IN EMPLOYMENT

  • Nigel Cann, EDF Energy gave evidence on 17 Dec. [118]
  • Barbara Jones, EDF Energy gave evidence on 17 Dec. [118]
  • Patrick Swift, Head of Human Resources, Bam Ferrovial Kier (BFK), gave sworn evidence gave evidence on 18 Dec. [119]

Land reform IN SCOTLAND

The Crown Estate Follow up

The impact of the bedroom tax in Scotland (Continued)

  • Councillor Peter Sullivan, Vice Convenor of Housing and Social Work Services gave evidence on 16 Dec. [120]
  • Elaine McHugh, Head of Housing Services gave evidence on 16 Dec. [120]
  • Brian Cook, Head of Revenue Services gave evidence on 16 Dec. [120]
  • Julie Hunter, Housing Strategy Manager gave evidence on 16 Dec. [120]
  • Amanda Gallacher, Senior Officer, Welfare Rights Team gave evidence on 16 Dec. [120]
  • Keith Dryburgh, Citizens Advice Scotland gave evidence on 16 Dec. [120]
  • Jonny Miller, Managing Director, Airdrie Citizens Advice Bureau gave evidence on 16 Dec. [120]
  • Richard Young, Senior In-Court Advisor, Airdrie Citizens Advice Bureau gave evidence on 16 Dec. [120]
  • Stewart MacDonald, Outreach Officer and Money Advice Assessor, Airdrie Citizens Advice Bureau gave evidence on 16 Dec. [120]
  • Clair Malpas, Regeneration Manager, Cassiltoun Housing Association gave evidence on 16 Dec. [121]
  • Jean Devlin, Castlemilk anti-bedroom tax campaign gave evidence on 16 Dec. [121]
  • Billy McFadyen, Castlemilk Credit Union gave evidence on 16 Dec. [121]
  • Angus McIntosh, Solicitor, Castlemilk Law Centre gave evidence on 16 Dec. [121]
  • Maureen Smith, Solicitor, Castlemilk Law Centre gave evidence on 16 Dec. [121]

The Referendum on Separation for Scotland

November 2013

BLACKLISTING IN EMPLOYMENT

  • Sean Bradley, Legal Services, Welsh Government gave evidence on 21 Nov. [114]
  • Jane Hutt AM, Minister for Finance gave evidence on 21 Nov. [114]
  • Nick Sullivan, gave evidence on 21 Nov. [114]
  • Value Wales. Chair: I welcome everyone to this meeting of the Scottish Affairs Committee. This is the first time that we have had a session such as this in the Assembly building-it is the first time that many of us have been here at all. It is particularl, because you may or may not be aware that we are banned from meeting in the Scottish Parliament building, therefore, the hospitality that you are offering to us here in Wales is particularly important to us. We do not understand why we are banned, because I think that most people in Scotland would understand the difference between Westminster and the Scottish Parliament. There is potential here for confusion between different nations, but we have managed to overcome that, as well as the confusion between different roles. We will start off by asking you to introduce yourself, Jane, to tell us your position gave evidence on 21 Nov. [114]
  • to introduce the minders that you have with you. Jane Hutt: Thank you very much indeed, Ian. I am Jane Hutt, I am the Minister for Finance for Wales and procurement is one of my key responsibilities. Nick Sullivan is an adviser from Value Wales, which is our procurement policy division of the Welsh Government, Sean Bradley is our legal adviser. Perhaps I could just say welcome to the Senedd-croeso i’r Senedd. We certainly very much welcome the Scottish Affairs Committee, we are very glad that you decided to meet here, that I did not have to go to Westminster. We also welcome and host the Welsh Affairs Committee, on many occasions gave evidence on 21 Nov. [114]
  • in our Welsh Senedd.Chair: Fine. We will just plough straight into it. Jim has the first questions. Q3102Jim McGovern: Thank you very much for coming along. Could you tell us whether you have any idea just how widespread the practice of blacklisting was i, that leads me on to the second part of the question gave evidence on 21 Nov. [114]
  • which is: is it still ongoing? Jane Hutt: Thank you very much, Jim. In terms of the blacklisting, the issues that we are now trying to address to eradicate blacklisting, we were very glad that the Scottish Affairs Committee led on this, because that drew attention to it. It was back in June that I had representations from the trade unions-the GMB, in particular, came to see me last June-and that was really on the back of what you had revealed through the Scottish Affairs Committee inquiry. We then looked straight into it, I can also account for how that led to our policy advice note on blacklisting in the construction industry, which we published in September. By this time, we understand that about 111 of the 3, 000 individuals on the Consulting Association blacklist are based in Wales. We are not clear whether all those people are aware that they are on the blacklist. I know that the Information Commissioner’s Office itself has only identified, I believe, 446 individuals on the Consulting Association’s list. Therefore, we are not sure whether there are others. However, since June, when I made my announcement in September, when I published my policy advice note, high-profile meetings have been held, there has been a great deal of publicity, particularly with the trade unions. So, I have urged people to come forward, I did so again yesterday at a national day of action that we held. Furthermore, we are now expecting, working with, all our public bodies to deliver on our policy advice note. They have not made us aware of any further cases gave evidence on 21 Nov. [114]
  • then we would like to pass that on. Do you feel that the Welsh Government position has been successful up to now? Jane Hutt: We took the representations that were made to us last year very seriously. We feel that we have-we seek to have-an ethical public , I launched a public procurement policy statement. I am not sure whether it has been shared with you, but it might be helpful if I were to share it with the Committee. When we produced this policy advice note, when I said that I wanted to eradicate blacklisting in the construction industry, we got an immediate, strong and positive response. When people looked at the policy advice note, which you have, they saw that it is very clear about how the public sector can deliver on this. I believe that it is best practice. As you know, it gives the whole background to blacklisting and the legislative framework, it takes us back to the situation that we were in last year, it looks at whether contracting authorities can exclude blacklisters and when exclusion will be proportionate. We look at all of the guidance, what type of information contracting authorities can request from contractors. One of the most important things that we have done is that we have now changed our practices, we have put questions into our supplier qualification information database so that nobody blacklisting can get past. Anyone filling in our supplier qualification information database questionnaire is asked a question about blacklisting; the first step is to be asked that question. This is an area of great expertise, I believe that this is regarded as good practice by those involved in the area. In fact gave evidence on 21 Nov. [114]
  • we have been shortlisted for an award that will be awarded on Monday-a Liberty Human Rights Award-for this policy practice note that we have issued. Q3104Jim McGovern: Thank you very much for that. Obviously, by its very nature, blacklisting is secretive, sinister and done in the dark. As you quite rightly said, a lot of people do not even know that they are on a blacklist. When you say that there is a published advice note gave evidence on 21 Nov. [114]
  • is it enforceable? Jane Hutt: It is guidance: it is a policy advice note. I have already mentioned the public procurement policy statement that I made last December, which lays out the principles of our procurement policy and how we want to deliver on ethical public procurement policy. We have another example, which we believe is good practice, in that we have a strong community benefits policy. In fact, we now have a compact with local government, for example, so that it has to enforce the community benefits. That means the supplier indicating not only how it will provide jobs for the local workforce, but the commitment that it is making to employing apprentices and to local job opportunities. The community benefits policy is being delivered on the basis of guidance. We are doing this in the context of the powers that we have, as a Welsh Government and in the National Assembly for Wales. Clearly gave evidence on 21 Nov. [114]
  • this now has to be judged against implementation. Q3105Jim McGovern: Thank you very much, Jane. Finally, when I spoke to one of your colleagues earlier on at lunchtime gave evidence on 21 Nov. [114]
  • she mentioned i2i. Is that what you are referring to? Jane Hutt: That is a separate but very aligned piece of guidance, which was specifically developed for social housing. It might be worth you saying something about that gave evidence on 21 Nov. [114]
  • Nick. It is very much part of our suite of public procurement policies. Jim McGovern: Sorry, gave evidence on 21 Nov. [114]
  • I did not mean to digress; I thought that it might be the same subject. Jane Hutt: No, gave evidence on 21 Nov. [114]
  • it is very valuable. Nick Sullivan: Inform to Involve-i2i-as the Minister said, works specifically within the social housing sector, seeks to work with registered social landlords and stock-transfer organisations to use the investment to develop new housing stock, maintain housing stock and provide targeted recruitment and training opportunities. It has been very successful in terms of the extent of opportunities it has created in employment and training for people who had been disadvantaged previously. We have incorporated the outputs from i2i into the community benefits policy, which the Minister referred to, which provides a more holistic approach to maximising the impact of public procurement spend gave evidence on 21 Nov. [114]
  • so that it looks not only at targeted recruitment and training opportunities but at how we can use procurement to involve smaller businesses through the supply chain and so on. Jim McGovern: That is very helpful. Thank you. Jane Hutt: So, gave evidence on 21 Nov. [114]
  • it is very much about the community benefits. It is not about blacklisting. Q3106 Chair: I will just follow up on one of those points, before we move on to something else, that is about the note. What significance is there in the fact that this is only an advice note? Is it mandatory for, say gave evidence on 21 Nov. [114]
  • health boards? I am not quite sure what it covers exactly as an advice note. Are people free to ignore the advice? Jane Hutt: Well, as I said, it is guidance. It is not statutory guidance. All of our public procurement policy is guidance. The advice note lays out the legislative framework, the difficulty with the legislative framework is that you can have law that is not implemented in terms of actual delivery and regulations. It is guidance within our powers in terms of regulations. It is about the way in which we work in Wales, which is to have a very close working relationship and oversight of how the public sector is delivering on procurement. We have a public service leadership group, chaired by my colleague the Minister for Local Government and Government Business. As part of one of its work streams, we have a public policy procurement board that has representation from local government and from across the public sector. We have set targets for that board on delivering community benefits and value for money. This morning, I have come from launching, with my colleague, a national procurement service. We have 78 public sector bodies in Wales that have now formed one procurement operation, called the national procurement service. That includes all local authorities, health boards, police and fire services, universities and all further education colleges. They are all now procuring together. So, we have a very tight way of doing public procurement. It is within our powers, as the National Assembly for Wales and the Welsh Government, to deliver this very strong guidance, we believe that it has already been very effective. Yesterday, we had a meeting with Unite, UCATT and the GMB, at which there were a lot of members of the workforce and trade unions. They reported back that they had already seen how public sector bodies were changing the way in which they were procuring. As I said, if a company cannot get through the supplier qualification information database gave evidence on 21 Nov. [114]
  • it is not going to get anywhere near getting a contract. I do not know whether you want to explore the legal possibilities and parameters. Q3107 Chair: I do want us to be a bit clearer about this, because we want to go back to Parliament with recommendations about various things, we are clear that you have done more than anybody else, but we want to clarify how near to perfection you are. Therefore, we want to be clear about whether more is possible. I am still not, in my own mind gave evidence on 21 Nov. [114]
  • clear about the significance of this being an advice note. You mentioned that 78 bodies have come together in a national procurement strategy. Jane Hutt: A service. It is actually a service. Q3108 Chair: A service-sorry. If one group of those bodies, say FE colleges, decides not to pay any attention to this and to hire somebody who is a known blacklister, do you have any sanctions over that? Or, is this simply a case of saying, ‘Here’s a suggestion, if you don’t want to do it gave evidence on 21 Nov. [114]
  • that’s fair enough’? Jane Hutt: To be fair, gave evidence on 21 Nov. [114]
  • the national procurement service that I have just described is a formal commitment that you will only procure through that route. That should exclude blacklisting per se because those organisations have agreed that they will only procure what we call comm, gave evidence on 21 Nov. [114]
  • common and repetitive spend is not likely to cover new buildings. Jane Hutt: No. It is a starting point. The national procurement service covers about 20% to 30% of the contracts that the public sector would have to procure. I went back to the fact that w, but we know that it is not being implemented. Of course, it was strengthened as a result of the information commissioner’s work and we have the Data Protection Act 1998, the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 and the Employment Relations Act 1999, but you have exposed that these are not delivering, have you not gave evidence on 21 Nov. [114]
  • through your Scottish Affairs Committee inquiry? Q3110 Chair: When we come to make recommendations, I think that we will obviously say that what you have done is welcomed. However, I am not clear whether or not we would then want to say that this should be mandatory. You have mentioned a couple of times the term ‘within powers’; I am not clear whether that is a question of the powers that have been delegated to the National Assembly for Wales or whether it is a matter of the European Union legislation. What are the powers that stop you doing what, presumably gave evidence on 21 Nov. [114]
  • you might want to do? Jane Hutt: It is within our settlement in terms of our powers as a National Assembly for Wales and a Welsh Government. I will bring our lawyer in here. In terms of European regulations-Scotland is different, as it has powers-our powers are linked entirely to England and Northern Ireland. Of course, we are looking very carefully at what this is going to mean and what prospects we would have in Wales in terms of being able to have more power to determine the way in which we deliver on those regulations. Scotland does have powers. For example gave evidence on 21 Nov. [114]
  • the Scottish Government has powers- Q3111 Chair: So, gave evidence on 21 Nov. [114]
  • the Scottish Government has the powers that you lack at present and this lack of powers stops you from making this mandatory. Is that the- Sean Bradley: May I come in here? The situation is different in each part of the UK. In England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, there are different powers that the Executives and the legislatures can exercise. In terms of this policy advice note, we think that this is as much as the Welsh Ministers can do, at the moment, with the powers that they have. Your question was whether it is statutory guidance and whether it is binding: it is an advice note, so it is guidance from the Welsh Ministers. However, it does have a legal impact to the extent that the Welsh Ministers are committing to comply with this policy advice note in their own procurement. That will read over to the very-large-scale procurements that the national procurement service will carry out, therefore, aggregating demand across the public sector in Wales. In Scotland, there is a different situation and there is a different devolution settlement. The Scottish Parliament has legislative competence to do everything other than what is reserved. So gave evidence on 21 Nov. [114]
  • we are in a fundamentally different position. Q3112 Chair: Fine. It is important that we clarify this: there are powers that you do not have and their absence stops you making this mandatory, gave evidence on 21 Nov. [114]
  • but the Scottish Parliament has these powers. Sean Bradley: The Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Ministers have powers to regulate in relation to procurement and the Scottish Government has regulations-Chair: So, they could go beyond what you have done gave evidence on 21 Nov. [114]
  • without an adjustment of the devolved powers. Sean Bradley: It is difficult for me to answer that, because, obviously gave evidence on 21 Nov. [114]
  • lawyers for the Scottish Government would need to take a view on that.Chair: There is also the point that you are here, you see, because you are here gave evidence on 21 Nov. [114]
  • we are asking you. Sean Bradley: I do not know how much detail you want to get into in terms of the nuances-Chair: I am trying to establish the principles. If there are big, complicated words, that is for staff to work out, on our side gave evidence on 21 Nov. [114]
  • but the principle that I want to clarify is that what is stopping you from making this mandatory is a lack of devolved powers. Jane Hutt: Absolutely. Q3113 Chair: Now that you have made that clear, we will then go back and try to clarify what the position is in Scotland. One of the observations that we were going to make to you is that we thought that even though you have done a great deal, it is perhaps a bit wimpish, because it is only advisory and not mandatory gave evidence on 21 Nov. [114]
  • but you have now clarified that. That has been very helpful. Jane Hutt: If I may, I will just go back to the point about how we then police guidance that is not mandatory. We know that we have laws across the land that are not implemented. We know that policy can be effective if there is leadership. The point that has been made about the fact that this is guidance from Welsh Ministers is very strong. We have to be held to account for this guidance, in terms of delivery. One example of how we try to ensure that our procurement policy is delivered is that we have what we call ‘procurement fitness checks’. All public sector bodies are going to be subject to these procurement fitness checks and they will have to open up their books and practices to a supervisory expert group, which will go in to identify whether they are delivering according to our guidance. So, there are tools for the job in terms of how we deliver on our policies here. It is not mandatory, but it is backed by Welsh Ministers. We have all these checks, such as the procurement fitness checks, very strong expectations regarding delivery due to our close working with the public sector. There will be naming and shaming. There is no doubt that we are serious about this. Also, we have talked a lot about this in terms of the contracting authorities. We have engaged with business and with the construction sector in Wales about this. This advice note, ‘Blacklisting in the Construction Industry’, is a message to the construction industry. We have, for example, a constructing excellence team; we work with the construction industry in Wales because we are always trying to boost the benefits to Welsh construction companies, in terms of public procurement. We have framework contracts. We are a small country and we can pretty much narrow things down and know what is going on. The message to the workers and to the trade unions is that we are standing up for them. We must not underestimate that political and ministerial leadership can have a lot of clout gave evidence on 21 Nov. [114]
  • even in the absence of mandatory guidance. Q3114 Chair: I understand that, but, in a sense, the point that you make there about naming and shaming is an indication that the policy has failed, because you would not name and shame anybody if they were abiding by your advice note, which is, again, an indication that people might choose to go beyond it. Lindsay gave evidence on 21 Nov. [114]
  • would you like to come in and follow this up? Q3115 Lindsay Roy: Yes.First of all, gave evidence on 21 Nov. [114]
  • I congratulate the Welsh Government on being proactive in producing these guidelines and for going to the full extent of your powers. What impact have the Government guidelines on procurement had on the practice of blacklisting to date? Jane Hutt: We pro, so it is still early days. That went to every public body in Wales, with very clear guidance showing them how they can exclude blacklisters in terms of future contracts. Then, of course, we have been working on making sure that we have these questions in the pre-qualification questionnaire to make sure that it could not go any further beyond that. Since that has happened, as far as the public sector is concerned, it has been very well received and we are aware that it is incorporating it into its procurement processes. That is something, again, where, for example, we are looking at supporting our public sector contractors in terms of giving them standard clauses that they could use. It is very important that we help them to deliver on this. That is something that is already making a difference, but they need more support and guidance. Nick gave evidence on 21 Nov. [114]
  • you might want to say something about how we are taking forward these clauses. Nick Sullivan: Yes. There is a piece of work under way within Welsh Government. The corporate procurement service team is working with colleagues in legal services, in response to the advice note, to draft the required standard contract clause that can be incorporated into all future contracts, to strengthen the contracting organisation’s right to be able to terminate in the context of Welsh Government, where contractors are found to be blacklisting. As the Minister alluded to earlier, there is a well co-ordinated gave evidence on 21 Nov. [114]
  • tightly knit community of procurement professionals across Wales and we would look to share that best practice with other sectors-local government and health-so that they can take similar actions. Q3116 Lindsay Roy: With all due respect, gave evidence on 21 Nov. [114]
  • writing the pre-qualification questionnaire is the easy bit. The most challenging bit is monitoring how effective that is. You said that you were vigilant. I think that you have already indicated a number of ways in which you are being vigilant. Would you, in a sense, is partly done through how we are monitoring all our contracts on an operational basis. We need to have more of a ministerial oversight in terms of monitoring the implementation of our policy advice note. We are working on that now with our trade union colleagues and our public sector contractors to see what would be appropriate. It is only a few months-weeks, really-since we have implemented the advice note, but already we have seen this change. It goes back to the fact that we know that there is so much legislation that has not been implemented because it has not had rigorous guidance. The guidance is very practical and operational, such as helping authorities with these clauses that we can put in. I do think that the PQQ questions are very important, business and the construction industry were very keen for us to have these PQQs. They complain about the bureaucracy of public procurement, anyway, they have welcomed these. You are not going to get much further if you cannot answer those questions and, then, the contractor can be very clear that if there is any doubt gave evidence on 21 Nov. [114]
  • further questions need to be asked. Q3117Lindsay Roy: Is there a cultural change among all the contractors? Jane Hutt: It is probably early days for us to- Lindsay Roy: Are you noticing any cultural change at all? Jane Hutt: We are seeing cultural change, already, as I said yesterday, trade union leaders in the public sector are saying that public sector contractors are coming to them and saying that they are making a change. This advice note was welcomed by all those engaged-not just the trade unions; it was welcomed by the construction industry-because they know that Wales is a small country, we all know who will be bidding, what the contracts are worth and where we are taking them in terms of delivery. They know that there is a political expectation here in Wales, so, there is already a cultural change. The other thing is that, in a sense, because they are coming back to us for further advice and guidance, because we know that we are going to do these fitness checks, they know that they have to deliver on it. So, as the Chair has said, we have kind of stepped out in Wales and said that, within our powers, we want to eradicate blacklisting, we mean this. This is Ministers in the Welsh Government leading this, we expect the public sector, which we fund, of course-it is our money gave evidence on 21 Nov. [114]
  • mostly-to deliver on it. Q3118 Lindsay Roy: There would be a reputational risk for companies that do not comply, gave evidence on 21 Nov. [114]
  • Jane Hutt: It is very interesting what is happening now in terms of the consortium announced earlier this week. Obviously, you have already had an impact, as I said, in terms of your inquiry. I hope that we have had an impact, but things are changing. Also, of course, court cases are coming forward. So, we all have a responsibility to make this meaningful gave evidence on 21 Nov. [114]
  • have we not? Q3119 Lindsay Roy: I take it that, so early in the stage of this development gave evidence on 21 Nov. [114]
  • have we?Nick Sullivan: No. Jane Hutt: It is very early days. Obviously, we also have to look at the lawyers’ side. If it comes to the crunch and it is identified that there is evidence of blacklisting from a contractor, we have to look at the legal side in terms of exclusion, in terms of the law. That is, again, a guide for the contractors on this, we will have to look at things on a case-by-case basis. That is within the EU procurement directives in any case. So gave evidence on 21 Nov. [114]
  • that obviously has to be recognised. We have not yet got to the position where we have been made aware of needing to do that. Q3120 Lindsay Roy: I take it that if you found deviations, gave evidence on 21 Nov. [114]
  • you would exclude companies from being allowed to tender again. Jane Hutt: That is the intention of the policy note. Lindsay Roy: You are quite firm and robust on that. Thank you very much.Q3121 Chair: I would just like to come back to a couple of points., throughout that whole process gave evidence on 21 Nov. [114]
  • they were actually doing it. What is there that makes you assume that people who have consistently lied in the past will now tell the truth? Jane Hutt: Yes. This has to be tested, does it not? There have been no questions on blacklisting upfront gave evidence on 21 Nov. [114]
  • have there?Chair: Not quite in this method, but they have been asked in other contexts and other frameworks and have always denied it gave evidence on 21 Nov. [114]
  • until they were caught. Jane Hutt: Yes. It may be worth us sharing the questions with you. Would that be helpful?Chair: Yes. I think that we have seen the gist. There is nothing wrong with the questions; I was perfectly happy with the questions. The issue, we would then have to take appropriate action in light of that. However, to an extent gave evidence on 21 Nov. [114]
  • we are only as good as the information- Q3122 Chair: I understand that, which leads me on then to the question of reviewing things afterwards. We have just been discussing in the Committee with Unite and other people the Crossrail situation, where someone was blacklisted. My understanding of part of the settlement reached there was that, in future, Unite and some of the other construction unions would have the opportunity to raise directly with the companies any issues where they thought there had been anything akin to blacklisting so that, in a sense, there was an examination taking place after the event by the unions, which might help to keep people honest in the first place. To give an example, if a company is setting up a new site and is recruiting a substantial number of employees, 100 activists who are known to the union go forward and none of them gets employed, it would tend to make you wonder. However, if 99 of them were employed and one was not, you could think perhaps that it was an issue with skills and so on with that one person. In between that gave evidence on 21 Nov. [114]
  • it starts to become an issue of defining a pattern and what is acceptable and what is not. I was not clear whether or not there was any way in which the representatives of the workforces would be involved in drawing things to your attention that gave them, we know that being a member of a trade union, let alone raising issues about health and safety, has led to blacklisting and exclusion. We are working closely with the Wales TUC, which is quite operational, in terms of alerting us, our officials and the public contractors to issues. It is interesting that the First Minister wrote to all the companies as a result of the revelations about Crossrail and received replies from two of them providing assurances that they had condemned the use of blacklists. You are probably aware of this. He wrote to BAM, Ferrovial and Kier gave evidence on 21 Nov. [114]
  • Ferrovial and Kier provided those assurances- Q3123 Chair: However, gave evidence on 21 Nov. [114]
  • they had been doing it. Jane Hutt: I know. Chair: They had been doing it. I am sorry to interrupt, but Balfour Beatty had given pledges to the Olympic committee that it was not using blacklists and then it admitted subsequently that it had been. So, there is an issue here about people who cannot be trusted. You were saying that you have good relationships with the TUC and so on in Wales. I was not clear whether or not there was, as it were, an understood mechanism where, if it identified a hospital development that it was worried about, there was a mechanism by which it could come back to you as the Welsh Government, where the contractors involved knew about it in order to try to keep them honest. So, they would know that it was not a question of you catching them out gave evidence on 21 Nov. [114]
  • but that there was a reporting mechanism involving the representatives of the workforce as well. Jane Hutt: We may need to look at that in terms of strengthening the guidance. The question was put about whether there is already a change in the culture and, which besmirches them and their public standing, does it not, certainly in a country like Wales? They are clearly identified and have been named. If you get by the fact that we have Welsh Minister saying this about blacklisting, that we have guidance notes to procurers, procurement fitness checks and PQQ questions, still get your contract, if the workforce experiences this or people are being excluded or are known to be excluded gave evidence on 21 Nov. [114]
  • we have to find a way for them to come straight to us. I do not know whether we could do this within the parameters of the contract- Q3124 Chair: That is surely the wrong question to ask a lawyer, because, in my experience of local government, if you ask them, ‘Can we do this?’, the answer, invariably, is, ‘no’. However, if you ask them, ‘How can we do this?’, they will be much more helpful in those circumstances. So, if the Minister had asked you a slightly different question: ‘How can this be done?’ gave evidence on 21 Nov. [114]
  • what would you advise her? Sean Bradley: In the same way that we have domestic powers that we have to think about, this area of procurement is highly regulated by EU law as well. So, there are lots of things that we need to factor in at that level about our processes and how we make decisions. For example, decisions would have to be based on good, reliable evidence. We have to look at each situation on its merits, on a case-by-case basis, because we are walking a bit of a tightrope. Our decision-making process and the policy advice note have been put together very much with this in mind. It has to stand up to scrutiny because, if we make a decision to exclude a bidder, that bidder can take us to court to challenge that decision. So, it has to stand up to scrutiny. We have lots of different things that we have to balance. Of course, unions and others can always approach the Welsh Government with concerns gave evidence on 21 Nov. [114]
  • there is an open channel of communication.Chair: So that is a ‘yes’, gave evidence on 21 Nov. [114]
  • then. Sean Bradley: It has to be put in the context of our legal decision-making process. Q3125 Chair: Given that you have said that, before I go on to the question about the legislative framework, I wonder if I could come back to this question of your advice note and the points relating to whether contracting authorities can exclude blacklisters. There are three points: exclusion must be proportionate; it must be considered on a case-by-case basis, a blanket ban would not be lawful. I am not sure what that means. As to a case-by-case basis, you could take each individual firm that has been proven to be using the facilities of the Consulting Association, but that is not a case-by-case basis, then you could say, ‘Right gave evidence on 21 Nov. [114]
  • you are barred until you have cleansed’. Is that legal? Sean Bradley: I suppose what we would say to that is that any decision we make has to be proportionate, both in a domestic law sense and an EU law sense. So, you have to look at whether-and this is where the concept of self-cleansing comes from-as you go through these four steps, there has been repair of the damage caused gave evidence on 21 Nov. [114]
  • has the company taken the appropriate personnel measures to- Chair: Sorry, I understand that, we will come on to self-cleansing later. However, I would take the view that, until some of these people are seen to be self-cleansed, it is reasonable for you to bar them. In terms of the circumstances of barring, I just want to clarify the three clauses here: that exclusion has to be proportionate, the question of a case-by-case basis, a blanket ban not being lawful. I am not clear what that means. Again, we will make recommendations about this. I would have thought that McAlpine, for example, which was clearly the driving force behind much of this, was as guilty as sin in my view, from the evidence that we have. I think you have enough evidence to say that it is barred until it is self-cleansed. Is that your view as well? Otherwise gave evidence on 21 Nov. [114]
  • what do ‘case-by-case’ and ‘blanket ban not being lawful’ mean? Sean Bradley: There is information, as we have said, that we are aware of, companies that we know of because they have admitted to being involved in this practice. There may be other information and other companies that have been involved in this that we do not know about. What we cannot do as a public authority is just say, ‘Well, in any given circumstance gave evidence on 21 Nov. [114]
  • this will be the consequence’. We have to be able to- Q3126Chair: I understand that, but, in relation to your point about exclusion having to be justified in the evidence, if we as a Select Committee had identified all the firms involved in the Consulting Association that were guilty of paying money in order to have information about blacklisting, would it be reasonable and justifiable, according to your definition gave evidence on 21 Nov. [114]
  • to bar all of them? Sean Bradley: Again, if those companies were to bid for a contract gave evidence on 21 Nov. [114]
  • ‘You are barred from public sector contracts until such time as you have self-cleansed’. Is that not reasonable in these circumstances? Sean Bradley: Our presumption, what is behind the policy advice note, is that where companies have been engaged in this activity, that is supported by evidence, we make a decision based on due process-so, we raise these issues with the companies involved, we are not satisfied by the responses that they give-then this is an action that we can take. In terms of reading over to particular companies or particular questions, it is not something that we can really do gave evidence on 21 Nov. [114]
  • because we would need to look at each individual case on its merits. Chair: I understand that, it might very well be that they have-they call it a baptism with a hose, when all the companies cleanse themselves by adopting this whole process that is being discussed at the moment about a compensation group. I understand that, but until it is done gave evidence on 21 Nov. [114]
  • is it not reasonable for them all to be barred until they have demonstrated that they are cleansed? Sean Bradley: Yes, gave evidence on 21 Nov. [114]
  • that all of these firms should be banned until they have purified themselves? Sean Bradley: Again, to bring it back to the legal context of the decision-making process, that would be the assumption behind your policy gave evidence on 21 Nov. [114]
  • then you go forward to see whether they get out of that by cleansing themselves. Jane Hutt: Let us go on to the self-cleansing issue. Quite honestly, gave evidence on 21 Nov. [114]
  • we know the companies and you know them. We know them.Chair: Absolutely. Jane Hutt: To a certain extent, they are in the public domain and they have obviously become very nervous about what has happened in terms of your action and our action. The fact is that we want to be in a position, through this policy, to justify exclusion, do we not? That is because, in law, blacklisting can amount to an act of grave misconduct. Obviously, we have not gone to court on this yet, but it will happen gave evidence on 21 Nov. [114]
  • I am sure.Chair: Absolutely. Jane Hutt: I am sure that they will take us to court. Once you start implementing this, gave evidence on 21 Nov. [114]
  • the law will be- Q3130Chair: That is right. The mood music from the meetings that certainly I and one of the staff have had with them is that not only do they regret having been caught, but they also regret what they have done and are willing to accept that. I am just trying to establish that if they do not go through this cleansing process gave evidence on 21 Nov. [114]
  • they are guilty. Jane Hutt: Yes.Chair: Pamela, gave evidence on 21 Nov. [114]
  • do you want to pick this up? Q3131 Pamela Nash: Minister, when this advice note was being written gave evidence on 21 Nov. [114]
  • I am sure that the risks to public bodies were considered. Are there any risks to public bodies in refusing companies that are deemed to be blacklisters the right to be on a shortlist? Jane Hutt: Not that we are aware of at this stage. This note only went, gave evidence on 21 Nov. [114]
  • so we are only two months into the implementation of it. Q3132 Pamela Nash: Was any risk identified in writing this note? I do not mean beforehand. I am presuming that the legal side of this has been looked into to show that the public body would not be a, gave evidence on 21 Nov. [114]
  • it goes back to how you deliver on those public contract regulations in terms of whether you consider them case by case or whether there is a blanket ban. The point about the exclusion is that self-cleansing has to be a means of them proving that this is , there was new legislation that came in in 2010 specifically on blacklisting, but do you think that legislation does now prevent companies that have been deemed to be blacklisters from tendering for public contracts? I am thinking about UK legislation gave evidence on 21 Nov. [114]
  • but I would be interested to hear what you have to say about the EU legislation as well. Jane Hutt: This is very timely in terms of your inquiry and how we will deal with this and, hopefully, help to inform the regulations coming from the EU directives. This goes back to the point in relation to the legislative framework; we have quite a lot of legislation, have we not, it has not been implemented? It has been strengthened, but it was only the 2010 blacklisting regulations from the 1999 Act. You would think that there was enough there, would you not gave evidence on 21 Nov. [114]
  • but it clearly- Pamela Nash: That is what we are asking you and that is part of our inquiry. Jane Hutt: It is not enough, that is why we needed to produce the guidance, which we have done through this policy advice note. We believe that, within our powers, it is as strong as it can be. However, we have to help our public sector contractors to implement it. They all have their lawyers, as the Chair has said, everyone will be cautioned. There is a lot of risk-averse activity within the public sector. I tend not to be a very risk-averse Minister for Finance, which can lead you into difficulties. However, clearly, we also have to be absolutely fair in terms of the outcome and what we want to see. We want a good, ethical, construction sector gave evidence on 21 Nov. [114]
  • do we not? That is what we need to seek out of this as well. Q3134Pamela Nash: May I ask, then, Minister, whether there is anything that, while looking at this, you have thought would be a helpful change in legislation? Obviously, we are looking at it within the current legislative framework, but we are also looking at what recommendations we might make at the end of this inquiry. Is there anything that you think should be legislated for that is not at present? Just to be clear, I ask this with regard to dealing with the past and the past situation with regard to blacklisting gave evidence on 21 Nov. [114]
  • but also in terms of preventing it from happening today and in the future. Jane Hutt: The EU procurement directives will be very important to us, they will be adopted early next year. Hopefully, they will help us to strengthen our procurement policy. That is something that we are looking at very carefully. A lot of this will be about the delivery of good regulations in terms not just of the legislation that we have, but the procurement directives. So, we have taken a step forward with this, with our policy advice note, we are saying that this is what we expect, we are giving detailed guidance and changing the PQQs, we have procurement fitness checks and we have compacts with local government, but I do not think that I can say today that I know, if we then wanted to develop a new law on this gave evidence on 21 Nov. [114]
  • a Welsh law-and we do not have the powers to do that yet-what tenets would be in that law that are not there now. Q3135Pamela Nash: There are gaps in the UK law as well, gave evidence on 21 Nov. [114]
  • so we want to make recommendations to the UK Government. Jane Hutt: That is very helpful. I do not know how long your inquiry will go on for, but it would be helpful gave evidence on 21 Nov. [114]
  • if I could come back to you with some more views on that. Pamela Nash: Yes, gave evidence on 21 Nov. [114]
  • that would be helpful to us. Jane Hutt: It is early days and, if it is all right with you and the Chair gave evidence on 21 Nov. [114]
  • could we come back to you on that? Q3136 Chair: Yes. We will probably produce another interim report and then we will carry on, because we have identified some examples of particularly good practice that we want to explore and then possibly make recommendations that they should be adopted elsewhere. So, ideally, we would have one and then an additional report coming out maybe in January. So, could you give us clarification on that? One of the points that I wanted to ask about was what additional powers you in Wales would want and whether or not they are contained within the package that is being discussed at the moment, or whether they are ‘additional’ additional powers gave evidence on 21 Nov. [114]
  • as it were? Jane Hutt: We may want to produce updated guidance following your interim report. We are aware that you are looking at whether a public inquiry would be appropriate. We would like to consider that and contribute our comments on this as well. , the Silk commission looked at fiscal powers and the UK Government only reported on that on Monday. However, there is a second part to that commission’s work that is looking at our wider powers. We thought that we should have powers over procurement policy, which the Scottish Government has, for example. We have also looked at having the powers to regulate through the European procurement directives. There is a case for saying that that would be just as strong as having another Welsh law or another piece of Welsh legislation. So, at this point, we are discussing this with the UK Government in terms of opportunities to use the EU procurement directives in a more tailored way to meet Wales’s policy ambitions. You may make recommendations that we agree with gave evidence on 21 Nov. [114]
  • but the UK Government may not agree with. Chair: I find that difficult to believe. Jane Hutt: We need to make sure that we can deliver what we want to do in terms of policy. Chair: If we work on the basis that you come back to us, in time for us to produce something in January, about what additional powers you want and also whether there are any powers or changes in UK legislation that you would want, that would be helpful. Lindsay, you wanted to come in on this gave evidence on 21 Nov. [114]
  • then Jim. Q3137 Lindsay Roy: Do you see any issues in relation to the blacklisting as far as direct employment by a contractor is concerned, gave evidence on 21 Nov. [114]
  • employment through agencies? Jane Hutt: This is something on which we have had recent discussions with the trade unions, such as Unite and its construction section gave evidence on 21 Nov. [114]
  • not just from a Wales perspective but from a UK perspective. We are seeking advice on that. I cannot answer it any more fully today. Q3138 Lindsay Roy: Okay. Are there also issues around bogus self-employment? Jane Hutt: Yes, gave evidence on 21 Nov. [114]
  • that forms part of our consultation. Nick may be able to update me on this. We are looking to receive further policy advice notes on these matters. Nick Sullivan: Yes. Lindsay Roy: It would be helpful if we could get those in due course. Jane Hutt: Okay, Laing O’Rourke and the contracts that have been struck at Hinkley Point have been put forward to us as examples of best practice. Part of the cleansing exercise with constructors as a whole may very well be for us to say that that is the standard that we expect them to abide by, but there is a fair amount of blood and water to flow under the bridge before we get to that position. However gave evidence on 21 Nov. [114]
  • that is the direction in which we are moving. Q3140Jim McGovern: Possibly finally on this subject of legislation, I put a question to you earlier, Jane, about whether this advice note is enforceable. I think that it was you, Sean, who said that it would need to be pretty watertight or it would be challenged in the courts. So gave evidence on 21 Nov. [114]
  • what would your defence be if you were challenged in court? Jane Hutt: There is a lot of legislation there. We have laid out the legislative framework, which we would use as the statutory basis for our advice note. This is guidance to implement legislation gave evidence on 21 Nov. [114]
  • it seems to me. Jim McGovern: I am just concerned that if you get to the stage-and I hope that you do not-where you have to exclude a company from bidding, if they go to court, I just hope that you would be optimistic and confident that you would win. Lawyers will make money gave evidence on 21 Nov. [114]
  • that is for sure. Jane Hutt: I suppose that when it comes to law and the purpose of law, there is a moral imperative here gave evidence on 21 Nov. [114]
  • is there not? Jim McGovern: Yes. Jane Hutt: That is why we have sought legislation and why you are undertaking this inquiry. There is a moral imperative. There is also a judgment in terms of how we are sticking our necks out. I do believe-and I am advised, thanks. On the subject of this self-cleansing-I must admit that this is the first time that I have heard that expression-we have taken evidence from a number of witnesses, including people who have been blacklisted and people who have blacklisted. Probably, one of the best examples would be Cullum McAlpine of Sir Robert McAlpine. Do you think that it is enough to admit responsibility and apologise and say, ‘I won’t do it again’? Is that self-cleansing? As far as we are aware gave evidence on 21 Nov. [114]
  • no one who has been involved in blacklisting individuals has ever been reprimanded or sacked or disciplined in any way. Jane Hutt: I think that, again, this self-cleansing concerns circumstances where an operator has taken measures to put right its earlier wrongdoing and to prevent it from recurring, when that contractor has demonstrated that it has self-cleansed, the difficulty in terms of whether it is disproportionate to exclude. As you know, we have a four-stage assessment here in terms of self-cleansing. I do not need to read it all out to you, because you have it gave evidence on 21 Nov. [114]
  • do you not? Jim McGovern: Yes. Jane Hutt: I think that the advice is that it is not possible to exclude contractors solely on the basis that they have not apologised for blacklisting, but there is some scope to consider whether the lack of an apology or a statement of regret indicates insufficient self-cleansing. Again, this must be considered on a case-by-case basis. When I talked to the trade unions yesterday, they were certainly clear that saying ‘sorry’ is not good enough. There is the question of compensation and the level and measure of that compensation. Clearly, the second point of the self-cleansing stages is what the contractor has done to repair the damage caused-has this taken the form of compensation to the victims of blacklisting? This is now going to have to be clearly demonstrated, is it not, in terms of whether this self-cleansing works? I do not know whether either of you, Sean or Nick gave evidence on 21 Nov. [114]
  • want to tell us where the self-cleansing guidance is- Q3142Jim McGovern: For the record, I should perhaps point out that when you are considering future bids, Cullum McAlpine is probably one of the most elusive witnesses that we have ever had the misfortune to listen to. I can assure you that he did not apologise. He brought a lawyer with him and every time that he was asked an awkward question gave evidence on 21 Nov. [114]
  • he refused to answer it on his lawyer’s advice. Jane Hutt: Right. I had better not turn to Sean. I will not ask my lawyer to answer that question. Do you want to say anything, gave evidence on 21 Nov. [114]
  • Nick? Nick Sullivan: Well, gave evidence on 21 Nov. [114]
  • other than- Jane Hutt: He is not a lawyer. Nick Sullivan: No, I am not a lawyer, as you can tell. The concept of self-cleansing comes from commercial law. I think that one of your earlier points was whether an apology was sufficient and whether dismissal should be considered. I think that that is an action that forms part of the consideration in the process. An individual business would have to consider whether it was the action of one individual within the organisation-acting as a maverick-who was engaged in blacklisting gave evidence on 21 Nov. [114]
  • or whether it was a systemic failure within the organisation. Q3143 Jim McGovern: The people who have spoken to us used the phrase that was quite often used at the Nuremberg trials-‘I was only following orders’. So, how would Cullum McAlpine dismiss himself? He could not gave evidence on 21 Nov. [114]
  • could he? Jane Hutt: I am afraid that we are going to have to bring our lawyer in.Chair: This is going to be a very expensive afternoon for you, Minister; I mean, with the number of words spoken gave evidence on 21 Nov. [114]
  • you can hear the ‘kerching’ every time that he speaks. Sean Bradley: It does not work that way, I am afraid; I am getting a bad name here. On self-cleansing, it is not called ‘self-cleansing’, but it is in the new procurement directive, or the current version of it, which is due to be adopted early next year, this goes through the same tests. The way that it is approached in the procurement law sense is that, ordinarily, the presumption is that you would not exclude bidders from a procurement process. There are some circumstances where you must exclude them, then there are other grounds where you may exclude them; so, you have discretion. One of those is where you think that the bidder has committed grave misconduct. We say that blacklisting clearly falls within that category, that, therefore, in principle, we are allowed to exclude them. However, coming back to the proportionality issue, EU law then goes on to say that, before you make that decision, you have to look at whether the bidder has taken these steps to put right what has happened in the past. One of them is compensation-whether compensation has been paid-and whether the bidder has clarified the facts and has acted in a collaborative way with the investigating authorities. Then, there are the other steps about the staffing and personnel measures. This would be relevant to considering who did it, what happened, whether they are still there. The other consideration is the wider structural changes that the organisation has made. Unless the company that has been involved in the blacklisting can demonstrate, to our satisfaction, that it has done those things properly, we say that we are then entitled to exclude it from a tender. Therefore gave evidence on 21 Nov. [114]
  • you wanted to come in on this. Q3144 Graeme Morrice: I think, Chair, that that last answer perfectly answers the question that I was going to ask. Do not apologise for that; the disadvantage of being far down the pecking order, invariably, is that, when you get to your question, the answer has already been given. My question was about what conditions need to be satisfied to allow a company that was engaged in blacklisting to get back involved in the public sector contract procurement process. I think that you have ably covered that issue, in detail. Perhaps we can focus on the question of compensation. You have clearly mentioned that a company recognising that it is liable to pay compensation is a key component of its being allowed back on to the list, if you like. Can you maybe just look at who, in particular, you believe should be compensated? Is it simply people who are on the blacklist that is publicly available gave evidence on 21 Nov. [114]
  • whom you will be aware of? Is it those who can prove that they have been denied work as a result of this? What are the specific criteria there? Sean Bradley: To be perfectly honest, we have not thought about what we would do in that much detail at that stage. They are the kind of questions that we would have to ask ourselves when we are looking at a particular application, a particular bidder. However gave evidence on 21 Nov. [114]
  • what we would want to be satisfied with is that there has been effective repair to the individuals who have suffered as a result of this. Jane Hutt: We talk about the ‘victim’ of blacklisting. However, there could be a case whereby it is not just the member of the workforce or the person who did not get the job who is affected, but the family as well, I think that the word is ‘victims’ of blacklisting. Obviously, we have not tested this yet, but it seems to me, very clearly gave evidence on 21 Nov. [114]
  • that it is ‘victims’. Q3145 Graeme Morrice: Yes.That is useful. Obviously, gave evidence on 21 Nov. [114]
  • there are barriers there to people receiving compensation-you will be aware of that. Jane Hutt: Yes. Quite a lot of questions have been asked about this compensation scheme that has been set up. Graeme Morrice: I was going to touch on that, Minister. You are obviously aware that a scheme was launched in June by eight construction companies to pay compensation to blacklisted workers. In your view gave evidence on 21 Nov. [114]
  • is that enough to tick the box in terms of meeting the requirements for self-cleansing? Jane Hutt: As far as I understand it, from what we have already read about the scheme that is being proposed, the Information Commissioner’s Office has to be more involved and do more work, clearly, because it has not identified all the victims of blacklisting. Also, only eight have engaged in terms of the apology and offering compensation. So, we do not know where the remaining 44 are-there were 44 involved in the blacklisting, were there not? I am sure that you will be asking questions as a committee, as part of your inquiry, about how it will be administered, how compensation will be afforded and whether it will help people, not only to get compensation, but to get back into employment, whether there will be caps on compensation in terms of time limits. These questions have been asked and I think that combined efforts have put this onto the corporate agenda, we would not be discussing it again if there had not been some reaction. However, what I would say, today gave evidence on 21 Nov. [114]
  • is that we want to be assured-I want to be assured-that those individuals who have been wrongly blacklisted will no longer be prohibited from work in the future. Q3146 Graeme Morrice: Thank you for that answer, Minister. Earlier today when we were discussing this with the unions, they flagged up that there seems to be a very successful forum that you have, called ‘the social partnership’, they felt that that was a useful platform to raise this issue, in particular, in discourse with you and business. Presumably, in terms of your obtaining intelligence about who has been blacklisted, who should be compensated and what companies are self-cleansing, you will be working very much hand-in-glove with the trade unions on this matter and, indeed gave evidence on 21 Nov. [114]
  • the industry as well. Jane Hutt: Yes. To answer an earlier question, we are not sure if we know about all the Welsh workers who have been affected adversely by this. We want more information on that. This is high profile in the Assembly. Next week, I have to answer oral questions and I am aware now that my first question is on blacklisting, which I welcome. As I said earlier, it is not just our close social partnership with the trade unions; we work very closely with the construction sector, also with business employers and representative organisations gave evidence on 21 Nov. [114]
  • we want to move forward. We want companies to be able to show that they are ethical companies working in Wales and the Welsh economy. Q3147Graeme Morrice: Yes. Your ethical policy is clearly to be admired and, as was said earlier, we certainly applaud your efforts to date in that regard. In terms of formulating your guidance gave evidence on 21 Nov. [114]
  • presumably you had discussions with UK Government Ministers on that. Jane Hutt: No. Q3148Graeme Morrice: Okay. You did not have discussions with Scottish Government Ministers either, gave evidence on 21 Nov. [114]
  • I take it. Jane Hutt: No. Graeme Morrice: Okay.Chair: Pamela, gave evidence on 21 Nov. [114]
  • did you want to follow something up here? Q3149 Pamela Nash: Yes. Minister, this might be a little bit out of your remit, so you do not have to answer. Graeme was just asking you about victims and how you identify a victim. While we have concentrated, in this session, on those people who are prevented from working and the effect on their families, the other group of victims is those who may have suffered as a result of health and safety at work being reduced, because health and safety and trade union representatives were blacklisted and not encouraged. In your preliminary discussions before coming up with the advice note and the work that you have done on blacklisting, have there been discussions about that gave evidence on 21 Nov. [114]
  • about those victims of reduced health and safety in the workplace? Jane Hutt: We have not had those discussions. We very much started down this route of developing this advice note as a result of representations from the trade unions and the fact that the, I think that, in a sense, we are very much at the start of now being able to look at this in greater depth in terms of what it could mean beyond just those who have been prevented from working. I have already mentioned, in response, my concerns about the families affected as well. I do not know whether the Committee is aware that, yesterday gave evidence on 21 Nov. [114]
  • we supported a new law addressing the loss of life and health as a result of asbestos-related diseases. We passed a new Welsh law yesterday on that matter. I think that it is an indication of where we are looking way beyond the issues in relation to healt, from my own experience, I recognise quite a lot of the names on them from Scotland-people who have not, as far as I am aware, contacted the ICO and are not aware that they are on the list. I saw them under conditions of confidentiality, so I cannot approach those people and tell them, but I think that there will be a major issue about contacting those who are affected, in protecting others in situations where those affected have passed on-that is, the descendants, who would be entitled to compensation in due course. Actually, that is one of the points that I welcome from the discussions that we have had with the companies that are setting this up. They did mention their view that, although they had not even thought of it before, they accept that it is fair that there is to be compensation and that it should go to descendants, where the people affected have passed on. Just to flag up the point about the eight companies only, we have agreed that we will write to all of the others to ask why they have not signed up. Some of the 44, I think, have gone out of business and some have been taken over by others, but there is quite a substantial number there, we will perhaps be bringing some of them in and seeking clarification on that. On the question of compensation-I suppose that this is perhaps a point for the man who likes to say ‘no’-compensation cannot just be tuppence. We are generally taking the view that there is a gang of four, as it were-the three unions and the blacklisting support group-which is now starting to go into negotiations, any agreement that is reached has to be reached with it in order to be a reasonable agreement. It might be that it starts suggesting absolutely ridiculous sums, believing that it has a veto, but I am working on the basis that it will not do that. Therefore, I think that our view is that any settlement that is to be accepted as fair and reasonable for the purposes of what you are discussing, in general terms, of what we have also been discussing, has to be reached by a consensus between the firms and the gang of four-the unions and the blacklist support group. The easiest bit of that is the question of who pays in and how much. Once you have established the overall amount, the tariff then gets split up, I would have thought, according to how many people at various times in the firms used blacklisting; you will have heavy users and lighter users. That seems easy enough to us. We are intending to have meetings and produce advice based on what we have identified as best practice on two of the issues. I have already mentioned Hinkley Point, which seems to be going down the road of direct employment only rather than employment through agencies, which I think the four organisations-the unions and the blacklisting support group-see as being the model, but they also have reservations about wanting to have some system whereby, after the workforce has been taken on, you can review. I mentioned that to you earlier. I think that they have identified possibly Crossrail as having the best practice there, because what concerned me about your note was the self-cleansing via the four-stage process. Stages 3 and 4 were process issues within the companies about staffing, personnel measures and the structure of the organisation. We wanted to concentrate more upon outputs and outcomes, rather than how the companies have restructured themselves, they would be judged by whether or not it was working in practice. So, we have been a bit concerned, when speaking to some of the people involved in this, about how they tend to think that, if you tick enough boxes, that gets you off the hook, whereas we were very much saying, ‘No, it’s got to be measured by what happens in practice over the period’. That is likely to be the way in which we move forward in terms of our recommendation. Unfortunately, from the point of view of Hansard, the fact that your lawyer friend is nodding will not be recorded, so I just thought I would mention it to make sure that it is on the record that there seems to be an agreement from that quarter. Even though he perhaps cannot bring himself to say that he agrees, the head has moved to indicate support for those proposals. I think that those are just about all the points that we wanted to raise with you. When we have witnesses in front of us, we always ask at the end whether there are any answers that they had prepared to questions that we have not asked, just to make sure that, if there is anything else that they feel that we have not covered, they have the chance to make sure that it gets on our agenda. The same will apply later on. If you think, in a couple of days’ time, ‘Oh, I wish I’d raised such-and-such, ’ we know that you will be in touch with our staff, but we would welcome you not just responding to points that we have raised. If there is anything else that you think is significant that we have not touched upon, we would very much welcome responses from you on that. So gave evidence on 21 Nov. [114]
  • are there any other points? Jane Hutt: Very briefly-in a sense, it is giving voice to the nodding heads over here-we have said, as I think you know, that we are awaiting the results of your inquiry to see whether we need to take further action to revise and develop our guidance, that final point would be very helpful to us in that respect. We have taken a step forward and we have come out in order to be constructively scrutinised today about it, which I value, but we know that we can improve on what we have done already. I hope that we have identified to you our clear commitment to get this right in order to eradicate blacklisting within the context of our Welsh Government powers and leadership, I hope that you will feel that we are-I cannot say partners, perhaps, but we certainly want to respond positively to you, make sure that we learn from your inquiry and can review gave evidence on 21 Nov. [114]
  • if necessary. We will also come back to you with more views about the sort of powers that we might feel that we would need and about the comments that you have made this afternoon that could help us to improve the policy note that we have issued. Chair: T, I will just say that we have all very much appreciated your openness and frankness-well, up to a point-and the fact that you have gone beyond anybody else in the UK. Any hard questions that we have asked you have all been for your own good in the interests of helping the building workers, both past and future, that we are trying to assist. So, thank you very much gave evidence on 21 Nov. [114]

Scotland office annual report AND ACCOUNTS

  • Rt Hon Alistair Carmichael MP, Secretary of State for Scotland gave evidence on 20 Nov. [113]
  • Rt Hon David Mundell MP, Under-Secretary of State for Scotland gave evidence on 20 Nov. [113]
  • Alun Evans, Scotland Office gave evidence on 20 Nov. [113]

THE IMPACT OF THE BEDROOM TAX AND OTHER

The Referendum on Separation for Scotland

  • Rt Hon Alistair Carmichael MP, Secretary of State for Scotland gave evidence on 12 Nov. [112]
  • Dr Andrew Murrison MP, Ministry of Defence gave evidence on 12 Nov. [112]
  • Margaret Porteous, Deputy Director (Policy) in the Scotland Office gave evidence on 12 Nov. [112]

October 2013

Minutes of EvidenceHC 288

  • Councillor Matt Kerr, Executive Member for Health and Social Care, Homelessness and Welfare Reform, Glasgow City Council gave evidence on 9 Oct. [106]
  • Morag Johnston, Assistant Director, Financial Services, Glasgow City Council gave evidence on 9 Oct. [106]
  • Richard Gass, Manager of Social Work Services, Service Modernisation, Glasgow City Council gave evidence on 9 Oct. [106]
  • Councillor David Ross, Fife Council gave evidence on 18 Oct. [107]
  • Louise Sutherland, Fife Council gave evidence on 18 Oct. [107]
  • Eileen Rowand, Fife Council gave evidence on 18 Oct. [107]
  • Graham Sutherland, Fife Law Centre gave evidence on 18 Oct. [107]
  • Michael Cameron, Chief Executive gave evidence on 30 Oct. [110]
  • Kirstie Corbett, Analysis and Research Manager, Scottish Housing Regulator gave evidence on 30 Oct. [110]

THE REFERENDUM ON SEPARATION FOR SCOTLAND

  • Rt Hon Danny Alexander MP, Chief Secretary to the Treasury gave evidence on 23 Oct. [108]
  • Stephen Farrington, HM Treasury gave evidence on 23 Oct. [108]
  • Rt Hon Alistair Carmichael MP, Secretary of State for Scotland gave evidence on 23 Oct. [108]
  • Chris Flatt, Scotland Office gave evidence on 23 Oct. [108]
  • Dr Patrick Mileham, Royal Tank Regiment, writer on military history gave evidence on 29 Oct. [109]

September 2013

BLACKLISTING IN EMPLOYMENT

Minutes of EvidenceHC 288

  • Gordon MacRae, Head of Communications and Policy, Shelter Scotland gave evidence on 10 Sep. [104]
  • Alastair MacGregor, Chief Executive, Argyll Community Housing Association gave evidence on 10 Sep. [104]

THE REFERENDUM ON SEPARATION FOR SCOTLAND

ZERO-HOURS CONTRACTS

July 2013

BLACKLISTING IN EMPLOYMENT

Examination of Witness

Power Outages in the West of Scotland

  • Mark Rough, Scottish and Southern Energy gave evidence on 3 Jul. [97]
  • Lisa Doogan, Scottish and Southern Energy gave evidence on 3 Jul. [97]
  • Guy Jefferson, ScottishPower Energy Networks gave evidence on 3 Jul. [97]
  • Vicky Kelsall, ScottishPower Energy Networks gave evidence on 3 Jul. [97]
  • Elma Murray, Chief Executive, North Ayrshire Council gave evidence on 10 Jul. [99]
  • Alistair Speedie, Director of Planning and Environment Services, Dumfries and Galloway Council gave evidence on 10 Jul. [99]
  • Ian Carruthers, Dumfries and Galloway Council gave evidence on 10 Jul. [99]

THE REFERENDUM ON SEPARATION FOR SCOTLAND

June 2013

Examination of Witness

Minutes of EvidenceHC 288

  • Dr Mary Taylor, Chief Executive, Scottish Federation of Housing Associations gave evidence on 11 Jun. [91]
  • David Bookbinder, Head of Policy and Public Affairs, Chartered Institute of Housing in Scotland gave evidence on 11 Jun. [91]

Power Outages in the West of Scotland

The Referendum on Separation for Scotland

The Referendum on Separation for Scotland: Financial Services and Banking

  • Sajid Javid MP, Economic Secretary to the Treasury gave evidence on 19 Jun. [94]
  • Rt Hon Michael Moore MP, Secretary of State for Scotland gave evidence on 19 Jun. [94]
  • Andy Drought, Scotland Office gave evidence on 19 Jun. [94]
  • Paul Doyle, HM Treasury gave evidence on 19 Jun. [94]

May 2013

THE REFERENDUM ON SEPARATION FOR SCOTLAND

  • Ronald Bowie, Hymans Robertson, pensions consultancy gave evidence on 14 May. [88]
  • Professor David Bell, Stirling University gave evidence on 14 May. [88]
  • David Wood, Institute of Chartered Accountants of Scotland, Technical Policy and Services gave evidence on 14 May. [88]
  • Christine Scott, ICAS Assistant Director, Charities and Pensions gave evidence on 14 May. [88]
  • Rt Hon Michael Moore MP, Secretary of State for Scotland gave evidence on 15 May. [89]
  • Rt Hon Danny Alexander MP, Chief Secretary to the Treasury gave evidence on 15 May. [89]
  • Chris Flatt, Scotland Office gave evidence on 15 May. [89]
  • Stephen Farrington, Deputy Director, Economics Group, HMÂ Treasury gave evidence on 15 May. [89]

April 2013

Minutes of EvidenceHC 1093

  • Iain McMillan, Director gave evidence on 16 Apr. [87]
  • Laura McMahon, CBI Scotland gave evidence on 16 Apr. [87]

March 2013

Examination of Witness

Remploy Marine Textiles Fife

  • Esther McVey MP, Minister for Disabled People, Department of Work and Pensions gave evidence on 21 Mar. [83]
  • Ian Russell CBE, Remploy gave evidence on 21 Mar. [83]
  • Jeremy Moore, Director for Disability and Work Opportunities, Department of Work and Pensions gave evidence on 21 Mar. [83]

Remploy Marine Textiles: Fife

  • Councillor David Ross, Depute Leader, Fife Council gave evidence on 13 Mar. [82]
  • John Moist, Friends of Remploy gave evidence on 13 Mar. [82]
  • Lyn Turner, Friends of Remploy and Regional Secretary of Unite gave evidence on 13 Mar. [82]

THE REFERENDUM ON SEPARATION FOR SCOTLAND

The Referendum on Separation for Scotland: Defence

  • Martin McCurley, Unite, Coulport gave evidence on 7 Mar. [79]
  • Jim Conroy, Unite, Faslane gave evidence on 7 Mar. [79]
  • Richie Calder, Unite, Faslane gave evidence on 7 Mar. [79]

February 2013

Examination of Witness

  • Jack Winder, former Director, Caprim Ltd, gave sworn evidence gave evidence on 5 Feb. [76]
  • Stanley Hardy TD, former Director, Caprim Ltd gave evidence on 12 Feb. [78]

THE REFERENDUM ON SEPARATION FOR SCOTLAND

  • Rt Hon Michael Moore MP, Secretary of State for Scotland gave evidence on 13 Feb. [77]
  • Rt Hon David Mundell MP, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland gave evidence on 13 Feb. [77]
  • Rt Hon Lord Wallace of Tankerness QC, Advocate General for Scotland gave evidence on 13 Feb. [77]

January 2013

Examination of Witness

  • Cullum McAlpine, Director, Sir Robert McAlpine Ltd, gave sworn evidence gave evidence on 22 Jan. [73]

THE REFERENDUM ON SEPARATION FOR SCOTLAND

  • Professor Colin Harvey, School of Law, Queen’s University, Belfast gave evidence on 9 Jan. [72]

THE REFERENDUM ON SEPARATION FOR SCOTLAND: DEFENCE

  • Professor Malcolm Chalmers, Royal United Services Institute gave evidence on 23 Jan. [74]
  • Professor Ron Smith, Birkbeck College gave evidence on 23 Jan. [74]
  • Stuart Crawford, former Lieutenant-Colonel in the Royal Tank Regiment gave evidence on 30 Jan. [75]
  • Richard Marsh, Economist, 4-Consulting gave evidence on 30 Jan. [75]

December 2012

THE REFERENDUM ON SEPARATION FOR SCOTLAND: DEFENCE

  • Philip Dunne MP, Minister for Defence Equipment, Support and Technology gave evidence on 19 Dec. [71]
  • Vice Admiral Andrew Mathews CB FREng, Defence Equipment and Support, Chief of Matériel (Fleet) gave evidence on 19 Dec. [71]
  • Les Mosco BSc FCIPS, Ministry of Defence gave evidence on 19 Dec. [71]

November 2012

Examination of Witness

  • Alan Wainwright, gave evidence on 6 Nov. [67]
  • Mr Ian Kerr, former Chief Officer of The Consulting Association, gave sworn evidence gave evidence on 27 Nov. [70]

THE REFERENDUM ON SEPARATION FOR SCOTLAND

  • Blair Jenkins, Chief Executive, Yes Scotland campaign gave evidence on 20 Nov. [69]
  • Blair McDougall, Campaign Director, Better Together campaign gave evidence on 20 Nov. [69]

October 2012

Minutes of EvidenceHC 156

THE REFERENDUM ON SEPARATION FOR SCOTLAND

  • Rt Hon Michael Moore MP, Secretary of State for Scotland gave evidence on 31 Oct. [64]
  • Rt Hon David Mundell MP, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland gave evidence on 31 Oct. [64]
  • Alun Evans, Director gave evidence on 31 Oct. [64]
  • Chris Flatt, Scotland Office gave evidence on 31 Oct. [64]

September 2012

Her Majesty’s Coastguard in Scotland

  • Stuart Atkinson, Public and Commercial Services Union Official, Maritime and Coastguard Section gave evidence on 4 Sep. [66]
  • Dave Macbeth, Public and Commercial Services Union gave evidence on 4 Sep. [66]
  • Clive Welch, retired coastguard and past President of the Maritime and Coastguard Agency section of the Public and Commercial Services Union gave evidence on 4 Sep. [66]

Minutes of EvidenceHC 156

  • Gail Cartmail, Unite gave evidence on 4 Sep. [86]
  • Justin Bowden, GMB gave evidence on 4 Sep. [86]
  • Harry Donaldson, Regional Secretary, GMB Scotland gave evidence on 4 Sep. [86]

THE FUTURE OF HM COASTGUARD IN SCOTLAND

THE REFERENDUM ON SEPARATION FOR SCOTLAND

  • Rt Hon Michael Moore MP, Secretary of State for Scotland gave evidence on 17 Sep. [61]
  • Rt Hon David Mundell MP, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland gave evidence on 17 Sep. [61]
  • Alun Evans, Scotland Office gave evidence on 17 Sep. [61]
  • Professor Bernard Ryan, University of Kent Law School gave evidence on 5 Sep. [68]
  • Professor Jo Shaw, University of Edinburgh Law School gave evidence on 5 Sep. [68]

THE REFERENDUM ON SEPARATION FOR SCOTLAND: DEFENCE

  • Professor William Walker, School of International Relations, University of St Andrews gave evidence on 12 Sep. [59]
  • Dr Phillips O'Brien, University of Glasgow gave evidence on 12 Sep. [60]
  • Dr Phillips O’Brien, University of Glasgow gave evidence on 12 Sep. [59]

July 2012

Minutes of EvidenceHC 156

The Referendum on Separation for Scotland

  • John McCormick, Electoral Commissioner with responsibility for Scotland gave evidence on 4 Jul. [56]
  • Lisa Klein, Director of Party and Election Finance gave evidence on 4 Jul. [56]
  • Andy O'Neill, Electoral Commission gave evidence on 4 Jul. [56]
  • Professor Sarah Birch, University of Essex gave evidence on 4 Jul. [56]
  • Professor Justin Fisher, Brunel University gave evidence on 4 Jul. [56]

THE REFERENDUM ON SEPARATION FOR SCOTLAND 2

June 2012

Examination of Witness

Minutes of EvidenceHC 156

  • Francis Graham, gave evidence on 19 Jun. [54]
  • Steuart Merchant, gave evidence on 19 Jun. [54]

THE REFERENDUM ON SEPARATION FOR SCOTLAND

  • Nick Harvey MP, Minister of State for the Armed Forces gave evidence on 13 Jun. [52]
  • Peter Luff MP, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Equipment, Support and Technology) gave evidence on 13 Jun. [52]
  • Stuart Crawford, former Lieutenant Colonel in the Royal Tank Regiment gave evidence on 20 Jun. [53]
  • Richard Marsh, Economist, 4-consulting gave evidence on 20 Jun. [53]
  • Jeremy Purvis, Reform Scotland gave evidence on 27 Jun. [55]

May 2012

Examination of Witness

  • Maria Fyfe, former Glasgow MP and leading anti-blacklisting campaigner gave evidence on 22 May. [49]

THE REFERENDUM ON SEPARATION FOR SCOTLAND

April 2012

The Referendum on Separation for Scotland

  • Martin Boon, Head of Social and Government Research, ICM Research gave evidence on 18 Apr. [47]
  • Nigel Smith, Chair of the Cross-Party Campaign for a Yes Vote in the 1997 Scottish Devolution Referendum gave evidence on 18 Apr. [47]
  • Andrew Hawkins, ComRes gave evidence on 18 Apr. [47]
  • Mark Diffley, Research Director Ipsos Mori Scotland gave evidence on 18 Apr. [47]

March 2012

The Referendum on Separation for Scotland

  • Professor Vernon Bogdanor, Research Professor at King’s College, London gave evidence on 7 Mar. [44]
  • Professor John Curtice, University of Strathclyde gave evidence on 7 Mar. [44]
  • Peter Kellner, YouGov gave evidence on 7 Mar. [44]
  • Professor Iain McLean, Nuffield College, Oxford gave evidence on 7 Mar. [44]
  • Professor John Kay, London School of Economics gave evidence on 14 Mar. [45]
  • Martin Wolf CBE, Financial Times gave evidence on 14 Mar. [45]
  • Matthew Elliott, Campaign Director, NOtoAV campaign gave evidence on 14 Mar. [45]
  • William Norton, Referendum Agent, NOtoAV campaign gave evidence on 14 Mar. [45]
  • Katie Ghose, Electoral Reform Society gave evidence on 14 Mar. [45]
  • Willie Sullivan, Scottish Director of Electoral Reform Society and head of field operations, Yes to Fairer Votes campaign gave evidence on 14 Mar. [45]
  • Owen Kelly, Scottish Financial Enterprise gave evidence on 21 Mar. [46]
  • Iain McMillan, CBI Scotland gave evidence on 21 Mar. [46]
  • David Lonsdale, CBI Scotland gave evidence on 21 Mar. [46]
  • Dr Matt Qvortrup, Senior Lecturer of Comparative Politics, Centre for International Security and Resilience gave evidence on 21 Mar. [46]
  • Daran Hill, Managing Director, Positif Politics (yes campaign) gave evidence on 21 Mar. [46]
  • Rachel Banner, True Wales (no campaign) gave evidence on 21 Mar. [46]
  • John McCormick, Electoral Commissioner for Scotland gave evidence on 21 Mar. [46]
  • Andy O’Neill, Head of Office gave evidence on 21 Mar. [46]
  • Lisa Klein, Director of Party and Election Finance gave evidence on 21 Mar. [46]
  • Andrew Scallan, Electoral Commission gave evidence on 21 Mar. [46]

February 2012

A ROBUST GRID FOR 21ST CENTURY SCOTLAND

THE REFERENDUM ON SEPARATION FOR SCOTLAND

  • Rt Hon Michael Moore MP, Secretary of State for Scotland gave evidence on 22 Feb. [42]
  • Rt Hon David Mundell MP, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland gave evidence on 22 Feb. [42]
  • Alisdair McIntosh, Scotland Office gave evidence on 22 Feb. [42]
  • Professor Alan Page, University of Dundee gave evidence on 27 Feb. [43]
  • Professor Stephen Tierney, University of Edinburgh gave evidence on 27 Feb. [43]
  • Aidan O'Neill, Queen’s Counsel gave evidence on 27 Feb. [43]

January 2012

A Robust Grid for 21st Century Scotland

  • Jane Fowler, Argyll and Bute Council gave evidence on 25 Jan. [40]
  • Alastair Redman, Sub-Postmaster, Portnahaven Post Office, Isle of Islay gave evidence on 25 Jan. [40]

HEALTH AND SAFETY in Scotland  

  • Professor Ragnar Löfstedt, Director of King's Centre for Risk Management at King's College, London, Chair of the Independent Review of Health and Safety Legislation gave evidence on 11 Jan. [39]
  • Sarah Veale, TUC and member of the Review Advisory Panel gave evidence on 11 Jan. [39]
  • Adam Marshall, British Chambers of Commerce and member of the Review Advisory Panel gave evidence on 11 Jan. [39]
  • Chris Grayling MP, Department for Work and Pensions gave evidence on 11 Jan. [39]
  • Judith Hackitt, Health and Safety Executive gave evidence on 11 Jan. [39]
  • Paul Stollard, Director Field Operations, Health and Safety Executive Scotland gave evidence on 11 Jan. [39]
  • Professor Ragnar Löfstedt, Director of King’s Centre for Risk Management at King’s College, London, Chair of the Independent Review of Health and Safety Legislation gave evidence on 11 Jan. [39]
  • Adam Marshall, British Chambers of Commerce and member of the Review Advisory Panel gave evidence on 11 Jan. [39]

December 2011

CROWN ESTATES

  • Right Hon Michael Moore MP, Secretary of State for Scotland gave evidence on 14 Dec. [36]
  • David Mundell, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland gave evidence on 14 Dec. [37]
  • Miss Chloe Smith MP, Economic Secretary to the Treasury gave evidence on 14 Dec. [36]
  • Paula Diggle, HM Treasury gave evidence on 14 Dec. [36]
  • Alisdair McIntosh, Scotland Office gave evidence on 14 Dec. [36]
  • Right Hon David Mundell MP, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland gave evidence on 14 Dec. [36]

HEALTH AND SAFETY IN SCOTLAND  

THE CROWN ESTATE IN SCOTLAND

  • Lorne MacLeod, Community Land Scotland gave evidence on 7 Dec. [34]
  • Andy Wightman, gave evidence on 7 Dec. [34]
  • Gareth Williams, Scottish Council for Development and Industry gave evidence on 7 Dec. [34]
  • Andrew Jamieson, Policy and Innovation Director at ScottishPower Renewables gave evidence on 7 Dec. [34]
  • Linda Rosborough, Marine Scotland gave evidence on 12 Dec. [35]
  • David Wilson, Director of Energy and Climate Change gave evidence on 12 Dec. [35]
  • Gareth Baird, Crown Estate gave evidence on 12 Dec. [35]
  • Rob Hastings, Director of the Marine Estate gave evidence on 12 Dec. [35]
  • Tom Mallows, Consents and External Relations Manager gave evidence on 12 Dec. [35]
  • Alasdair Rankin, Head of New Business Development in the Marine Estate gave evidence on 12 Dec. [35]

November 2011

HEALTH AND SAFETY IN SCOTLAND  

The Crown Estate in Scotland

THE REFERENDUM ON SEPARATION FOR SCOTLAND

October 2011

Health and Safety in Scotland  

SCOTLAND OFFICE AND OFFICE OF THE ADVOCATE GENERAL FOR SCOTLAND ANNUAL REPORT 2011

  • Rt Hon Michael Moore MP, Secretary of State for Scotland gave evidence on 19 Oct. [25]
  • Rt Hon. David Mundell MP, Under-Secretary of State for Scotland gave evidence on 19 Oct. [25]
  • Alisdair McIntosh, Scotland Office gave evidence on 19 Oct. [25]

The Crown Estate in Scotland

THE FAMILY RETURN PROJECT

July 2011

Health and Safety in Scotland

Scotland Office and the office of the Advocate General for Scotland Annual Report 2011

  • Rt Hon Michael Moore MP, Secretary of State for Scotland gave evidence on 13 Jul. [24]
  • Rt Hon David Mundell MP, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland gave evidence on 13 Jul. [24]
  • Chris Flatt, Scotland Office gave evidence on 13 Jul. [24]

June 2011

Health and Safety in Scotland

The Crown Estate in Scotland

The implications of the Strategic Defence and Security Review for Scotland

  • Rt Hon Liam Fox MP, gave evidence on 7 Jun. [22]
  • Secretary of State for Defence, gave evidence on 7 Jun. [22]

May 2011

The Student Immigration System in Scotland

April 2011

Student Immigration System in Scotland

The Student Immigration System in Scotland

  • Joy Elliot, NUS NEC, International Students Representative gave evidence on 4 Apr. [17]
  • Robin Parker, NUS President Elect, currently President of the University of Aberdeen's Student Association gave evidence on 4 Apr. [17]
  • Lesley McIntosh, President, University and College Union Scotland gave evidence on 4 Apr. [17]
  • Helen Martin, STUC gave evidence on 4 Apr. [17]
  • Shona Cormack, Robert Gordon University gave evidence on 4 Apr. [17]
  • Professor John Duffield, Edinburgh Napier University gave evidence on 4 Apr. [17]
  • Alastair Sim, Universities Scotland gave evidence on 4 Apr. [17]
  • Professor Ian Diamond, University of Aberdeen gave evidence on 4 Apr. [17]

March 2011

The Scotland Bill

February 2011

The Scotland Bill

  • Professor Sir Kenneth Calman, University of Glasgow gave evidence on 2 Feb. [8]
  • Professor Jim Gallagher, gave evidence on 2 Feb. [8]
  • Ruchir Shah, Scottish Council for Voluntary Organisations gave evidence on 2 Feb. [8]
  • David Griffiths, Chief Executive, Ecas, member of the Scottish Council for Voluntary Organisations Policy Committee gave evidence on 2 Feb. [8]
  • Professor Anton Muscatelli, Principal, Glasgow University gave evidence on 8 Feb. [9]
  • Professor Michael Keating, University of Aberdeen gave evidence on 8 Feb. [9]
  • Sarah Walker, PSN, Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs gave evidence on 8 Feb. [9]
  • Pamela Mulholland, Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs gave evidence on 8 Feb. [9]
  • Terry Murden, Business Editor, The Scotsman and Scotland on Sunday gave evidence on 9 Feb. [10]
  • Bill Jamieson, The Scotsman gave evidence on 9 Feb. [10]
  • Dave Moxham, Scottish Trades Union Congress gave evidence on 9 Feb. [10]
  • Andy Wightman, gave evidence on 9 Feb. [10]
  • Alan Trench, The Constitution Unit, University College London gave evidence on 16 Feb. [11]
  • Professor Iain McLean, gave evidence on 16 Feb. [11]
  • Professor Drew Scott, gave evidence on 16 Feb. [11]
  • Professor Andrew Hughes Hallett, gave evidence on 16 Feb. [11]
  • Rt Hon Michael Moore MP, Secretary of State for Scotland gave evidence on 16 Feb. [11]
  • Rt Hon David Mundell MP, Scotland Office gave evidence on 16 Feb. [11]
  • Chris Flatt, Deputy Director, Corporate and Constitution Division gave evidence on 16 Feb. [11]
  • Laura Crawforth, Head of Scotland Bill Team gave evidence on 16 Feb. [11]

January 2011

SUPPORTING SCOTLAND’S ECONOMY

UK Border Agency and Glasgow City Council

  • Damian Green MP, Minister of State for Immigration gave evidence on 19 Jan. [7]
  • Matthew Coats, UK Border Agency gave evidence on 19 Jan. [7]
  • Phil Taylor, Regional Director for the Scotland and Northern Ireland Region (Immigration Group) gave evidence on 19 Jan. [7]

December 2010

Postal Services in Scotland

  • Adam Scorer, Director of External Relations gave evidence on 8 Dec. [4]
  • Richard Bates, Head of Community and Public Services Team gave evidence on 8 Dec. [4]
  • Douglas White, Consumer Focus Scotland gave evidence on 8 Dec. [4]
  • George Thomson, General Secretary gave evidence on 8 Dec. [4]
  • Mervyn Jones, National Federation of SubPostmasters gave evidence on 8 Dec. [4]
  • Peter Hunt, Mutuo gave evidence on 14 Dec. [5]
  • John Brown, Regional Secretary (Postal) CWU gave evidence on 14 Dec. [5]
  • Billy Hayes, General Secretary (Postal) CWU gave evidence on 14 Dec. [5]
  • Dave Ward, Deputy General Secretary (Postal) CWU gave evidence on 14 Dec. [5]
  • Brian Scott, Unite gave evidence on 14 Dec. [5]
  • Ian McKay, Royal Mail Group gave evidence on 15 Dec. [6]
  • Paula Vennells, Post Office Ltd gave evidence on 15 Dec. [6]
  • Tim Brown, Postcomm gave evidence on 15 Dec. [6]
  • Jonathan Thompson, Ofcom gave evidence on 15 Dec. [6]
  • Edward Davey, BIS gave evidence on 15 Dec. [6]
  • Mike Whitehead, BIS gave evidence on 15 Dec. [6]

SUPPORTING SCOTLAND’S ECONOMY

November 2010

The implications for Scotland of BOTH the Strategic Defence and Security Review AND THE COMPREHENSIVE SPENDING REVIEW

  • Rt Hon Michael Moore MP, Secretary of State for Scotland gave evidence on 3 Nov. [15]
  • Alisdair McIntosh, Scotland Office gave evidence on 3 Nov. [15]

October 2010

Video games industry in Scotland

July 2010

Examination of Witness

  • Rt Hon Michael Moore MP, Secretary of State for Scotland gave evidence on 21 Jul. [14]
  • Rt Hon David Mundell MP, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State gave evidence on 21 Jul. [14]
  • Mr Alasdair McIntosh, Scotland Office gave evidence on 21 Jul. [14]