黑洞社区

For the past year, any mention of construction and the Olympics in the same breath by a public official would have been a cause for industry professionals to enjoy a moment鈥檚 satisfaction. MPs鈥� praise of the delivery of the 2012 venues has been a frequent mood-lifter for the sector and has enabled it to raise its profile among decision makers.

This makes it all the more worrying to hear Labour鈥檚 shadow business secretary Chuka Umunna this week using the term 鈥渘ational scandal鈥� in relation to the blacklist checks against workers made by contractors on public projects including the Olympics. Blacklisting - how often it occurred, who was involved, and whether it still goes on - has been a subject of frequent debate within construction for the past four years. But the practice鈥檚 explosion into public consciousness this week means that the damage it could do to the sector鈥檚 reputation is suddenly very real.

Blacklisting鈥檚 explosion into public consciousness this week means the damage it could do to the sector鈥檚 reputation is suddenly very real

Many of those contractors that were found to have used the blacklist of workers held by The Consulting Association when it was raided in 2009 have since made statements saying that they no longer employ such practices. Some have also made a point of condemning blacklisting.

Of course, such words are not going to be enough for the hundreds of workers with a sense of grievance - as the pending court action from many of them shows - but as a wider damage limitation exercise, assurance of changed ways is clearly a start. It may go some way towards mitigating any punishment that is meted out, partly by reducing pressure from MPs. However, if this assurance that the industry has cleaned up its act is to be worth anything at all in the eyes of politicians - and thereby, of course, also governmental clients - the sector in general needs to be much clearer in its contrition.

Sir Robert McAlpine director Cullum McAlpine admitted to MPs this week that the firm 鈥渄id check workers who came onto the [Olympic] site, although none were denied employment鈥�. This comes two months after another company director wrote to the Olympic Delivery Authority saying 鈥淪ir Robert McAlpine was not involved in any blacklisting (by which I mean discrimination against individuals which would prevent them gaining employment) on the Olympic stadium鈥�. The firm would say, based on its definition of blacklisting, this is not a contradiction. But the impression it leaves - that the industry may not be being fully open about its practices - will only make condemnation of the sector worse.

The blacklisting issue has parallels with the 2008 Office of Fair Trading inquiry into cover pricing. But whereas then there was a convincing case made by firms involved that some aspects of that practice were victimless, the same just cannot be said of blacklisting. With that in mind, contractors under scrutiny would do well to make a clear statement about the extent of their involvement, express remorse, take the media flak, then hope they are allowed to move on. Otherwise, Umunna鈥檚 warning this week that unless contractors 鈥渁pologise and accept responsibility the reputation of the entire industry will be tarnished鈥�, hyperbolic though it may seem, could become a sobering reality.

Sarah Richardson, editor