The Scottish Affairs Committee has produced an interim report into the practice.
Ian Davidson MP, Chair of the Committee, said:
"This is an interim report; our inquiry so far has posed a series of key questions rather than answering them, particularly in regard to whether compensation should be offered to the people who suffered invasion of their privacy and loss of earnings as a result of this blacklist.
"We are now inviting further submissions on the four key question areas raised in this report, and we will be taking evidence from more of the firms involved.”
The MPs branded the blacklisting of building workers by big construction companies via the Consulting Association “a real live conspiracy”.
In its report the committee said:
"For the avoidance of doubt, we wish to make it absolutely clear that we believe, on the evidence that we have seen so far, that the process of blacklisting by a secret and unaccountable process was and is morally indefensible and that those firms and individuals involved in operating the system should have known this."
Construction workers union
GMBwelcomed the report.
“What we see here in the plain light of day are major construction companies involved in shifty, unethical, dishonest practices for which they seem totally unable to apologise and take responsibility,” said
GMBGeneral Secretary Paul Kenny.
“They have yet to compensate a single person they damaged. It is high time they apologised and compensated the 3,213 denied work.”
Mr Kenny was critical of the role played by the Information Commissioner (ICO).
“Less than 10% of those blacklisted know they are on the list,” he said.
“ICO's failure since 2009 to contact those on the blacklist has been pathetic.
“
GMBfound at least five times as many in a fraction of the time with little of the information to go. This ICO performance is woeful and may have delayed claims in the courts for compensation.”
The MPs said construction companies set up a structure which allowed them to submit names and details of workers they deemed to be unsuitable to a central list and to check prospective employees, or the employees of subcontractors on their sites, against this list.
The emphasis throughout was on secrecy, with telephone access to sensitive information restricted to only a few, with lists of names submitted destroyed at the end of each working day and no acknowledgement that such a system existed.
As a result of this process, workers were denied employment without explanation, financial hardship was caused, lives were disrupted and sometimes ruined.
There was no right of appeal or challenge to the information held or the decisions made, and those affected, though they may have had their suspicions, had no evidence that they were being discriminated against in such a systematic and methodical way.
All this was done by companies who benefitted as a result, since industrial relations or health and safety disputes on site could result in delays to contracts, penalty clauses being invoked and financial loss.