Sir Robert McAlpine director tells MPs contractor did use blacklisting organisation on Olympic stadium
Cullum McAlpine has told MPs contractor Sir Robert McAlpine did use the services of blacklisting organisation the Consulting Association on the Olympic stadium project.
Giving evidence to the Scottish Affairs select committee today, McAlpine, a director of Sir Robert McAlpine (SRM), confirmed the firm did use the services of confirmed blacklisting organisation Consulting Association (TCA) on the Olympic stadium.
This firm has previously denied being involved with blacklisting on the Olympics.
Questioned by committee chair Ian Davidson about claim that SRM was biggest user of TCA towards end of its existence in 2009, McAlpine said SRM used TCA 鈥渁 lot鈥� in 2008.
He said this was to do with fears of employing illegal immigrants, but also because of the amount of work the firm had on.
He said: 鈥淲e were extremely busy. We had a lot of big projects on so we were recruiting a lot. We were building the Colchester Garrison project, a large shopping centre in Bristol, a large shopping centre in Leicester, a major project for the Ministry of Defence 鈥� on Salisbury plain, and we would have started doing ground works on the Olympics.鈥�
Asked if Sir Robert McAlpine used TCA on the Olympic project McAlpine replied 鈥測es鈥�.
McAlpine said the use of TCA on the Olympic stadium project occurred in relation to employees seeking employment on the ground works for the project. However, he added that no one was denied employment as a result of the reference checks with TCA.
He said: 鈥淲e did check workers who came onto the site, and there were no references so nobody was affected.
鈥淏y the time the main project had started TCA had been raided by the ICO.鈥�
He added that large projects with 鈥渇inancial sensitivities and tight timescales鈥� we鈥檙e the most likely projects which SRM would use the TCA.
McAlpine said the blacklisting organisation which he chaired had been set up to protect Sir Robert McAlpine and other firms from 鈥渄eliberately disruptive and unlawful behaviour on construction sites鈥�.
In a statement to MPs (see below), McAlpine confirmed that Sir Robert McAlpine (SRM) had provided the Consulting Associationwith a 拢20K to help with its start up costs. 鈥淭hese funds were made available in the form of a loan and were to cover start-up activity. The loan was repaid once subscription income began to be received,鈥� he said.
He said: 鈥淭he main purpose of TCA was effectively to help the industry act as insurance against those who were intent on illegally disrupting the industry鈥檚 ability to perform contracts for their customers and also to act as a forum for progressing industrial relations.
He added: 鈥淎s far as I and SRM were concerned, TCA was intended to protect SRM and the other construction companies against deliberately disruptive and unlawful behaviour on construction sites and not to be a mechanism for discriminating against members of trade unions.鈥�
鈥淪RM always viewed constructive relations with trade unions as fundamental to the effective and safe operation of its construction projects, and I had no reason to believe that ort major competitors had any different view.鈥�
McAlpine, said his statement was intended to provide the committee with 鈥渂ackground detail on the role of Sir Robert McAlpine in the Consulting Association (TCA)鈥�.
McAlpine, who said his involvement with TCA had ended 鈥渙ver ten years ago鈥�, said he had 鈥渘ever had any knowledge of information being provided to or from TCA by the police, security forces or politicians.鈥�
He confirmed that SRM had met the cost of financial liabilities incurred by TCA when it was dissolved. He said it was the view of SRM was that the members of the organisation should meet the cost of its liabilities.
He said: 鈥淪RM was of the view - and remains of the view - that the subscribing members as a whole should ensure that the outstanding financial liabilities of TCA should be discharged by its then existing membership.
Those liabilities included TCA鈥檚 responsibility for Mr Kerr and his supporting staff and that is why SRM sanctions the payments to which Mr Kerr has alluded to in the closing sections of his testimony.
鈥淥ur view was based on humanitarian rather than commercial factors. Unfortunately that view was not shared by most of the subscribers in 2009.鈥�
黑洞社区鈥檚 assistant editor Will Hurst will be tweeting from the hearing (
Written evidence submitted by Cullum McAlpine, director of Sir Robert McAlpine Ltd.
Thursday 17th January 2013
1. The statement below is intended to provide the Committee with background detail on the role of Sir Robert McAlpine Ltd (SRM) in the Consulting Association (TCA) and the rationale behind the establishment of TCA by the construction and civil engineering industries. I was appointed as a Director of SRM on January 1st 1970; I am currently a non-executive Director.
2. The statement has been prepared on the basis of my recollection; I have not retained any documents which relate to my involvement with TCA, which ceased over ten years ago. I have read the transcript of Mr Ian Kerr鈥檚 evidence to the Committee as published on the Committee鈥檚 website.
3. At the time of the establishment of TCA, its founding members agreed that there should be a chairman. I was appointed by the founding members to ensure that TCA was set up on a secure and viable commercial and financial basis. After my initial term had finished all following chairmen were from a Human Resource background
4. Mr Kerr, (who was already involved informally when I was appointed) in his evidence to the Committee, stated that there were at least 14 founding members from major construction and civil engineering companies. SRM volunteered my services and, at the time of my appointment, it was intended that I should undertake the role for a period of three years. I was succeeded by four chairmen from different companies.
5. In his evidence, Mr Kerr was correct in stating that initial contributions of 拢20,000 were made by SRM. These funds were made available in the form of a loan and were to cover start-up activity. The loan was repaid once subscription income began to be received.
6. The main purpose of TCA was effectively to help the industry act as insurance against those who were intent on illegally disrupting the industry鈥檚 ability to perform contracts for their customers and also to act as a forum for progressing industrial relations.
7. Around the time that TCA was founded there were discussions in respect of the acquisition of the records of the Economic League. It was agreed that, if these records were used, they would need to be amended to remove any and all references which were not relevant to the purposes of TCA going forward. For the avoidance of doubt, I was not personally involved at any time with the Economic League.
8. As far as I and SRM were concerned, TCA was intended to protect SRM and the other construction companies against deliberately disruptive and unlawful behaviour on construction sites, and not to be a mechanism for discriminating against members of trade unions.
9. SRM has always viewed a constructive relationship with trade unions as fundamental to the effective and safe operation of its construction projects, and I had no reason to believe that our major competitors had any different view. Throughout the period that the Committee is investigating, health and safety issues have grown in significance and the relationship between trade unions and construction companies is essential to the industry鈥檚 success in improving its health and safety record.
10. At no time have I looked at the database which was eventually taken by the Information Commissioner鈥檚 Office; other participants may be able to be of assistance to the Committee in that respect. I am therefore unable to offer any detailed comment on the way in which it was compiled and the references which it contained.
11. The finance meetings which I attended focused on material commercial and financial matters (including predictions of anticipated subscription income), and this may be what was in Mr Kerr鈥檚 mind when he referred to the Finance Committee in his oral evidence to you. We certainly at no point discussed individuals鈥� records.
12. The initial founding members were all large companies from the construction industry. In later years, and after my chairmanship had finished, TCA membership was extended to smaller companies and those participating in the mechanical and electrical sub-sector of the construction industry.
13. Whilst my links with, and knowledge of, TCA diminished over the years I have never had any knowledge of information being provided to or from TCA by the police, security forces or politicians. I can specifically confirm that SRM does not have a policy or procedure of passing generic information in respect of individuals to the police or security services.
14. I was made aware of the Information Commissioner鈥檚 visit after it had occurred but not of any discussions between Mr Kerr, Mr Cochrane and the ICO officers. SRM was not one of the companies which received an enforcement notice from the ICO. When TCA was dissolved SRM was of the view 鈥� and remains of the view 鈥� that the subscribing members as a whole should ensure that the outstanding financial liabilities of TCA should be discharged by its then existing membership. Those liabilities included TCA鈥檚 responsibility for Mr Kerr and his supporting staff and that is why SRM sanctioned the payments to which Mr Kerr has alluded in the closing sections of his testimony. Our view was based on humanitarian rather than commercial factors. Unfortunately that view was not shared by most of the subscribers in 2009.
This statement is true and accurate to the best of my knowledge.
January 2013
No comments yet