UNCORRECTED TRANSCRIPT OF ORAL EVIDENCE To be published as HC 156-xiv HOUSE OF COMMONS ORAL EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE SCOTTISH AFFAIRS COMMITTEE BLACKLISTING IN EMPLOYMENT TUESDAY 5 MARCH 2013 HARVEY FRANCIS Evidence heard in Public Questions 2046 - 2235 USE OF THE TRANSCRIPT 1. This is an uncorrected transcript of evidence taken in public and reported to the House. The transcript has been placed on the internet on the authority of the Committee, and copies have been made available by the Vote Office for the use of Members and others. 2. Any public use of, or reference to, the contents should make clear that neither witnesses nor Members have had the opportunity to correct the record. The transcript is not yet an approved formal record of these proceedings. 3. Members who receive this for the purpose of correcting questions addressed by them to witnesses are asked to send corrections to the Committee Assistant. 4. Prospective witnesses may receive this in preparation for any written or oral evidence they may in due course give to the Committee. 1 Oral Evidence Taken before the Scottish Affairs Committee on Tuesday 5 March 2013 Members present: Mr Ian Davidson (Chair) Graeme Morrice Pamela Nash Sir James Paice Mr Alan Reid Lindsay Roy ________________ Examination of Witness Witness: Harvey Francis, Executive Vice-President, Human Resources, Communications and IT, Skanska UK, gave sworn evidence. Q2046 Chair: Gentlemen, welcome to this meeting of the Scottish Affairs Select Committee. As you will probably be aware, we started with an investigation of health and safety in Scotland and have now moved on to blacklisting, because it became clear that blacklisting was one of the issues affecting health and safety matters in Scotland, particularly in the construction industry. First, I will ask you to introduce yourselves. I understand that Mr Francis has a statement that he then wishes to read out. In fact, the Clerk is just about to remind me, that before I ask you to do that, we want to put you under oath. (Harvey Francis and Simon Hall were sworn) Mr Francis is the witness; Mr Hall is here as an adviser, rather than as a witness. Mr Hall can whisper in Mr Francis’s ear, rather than slipping him notes, but, as was the case previously when people brought folk along, he is not here to give evidence himself. Mr Francis, who are you and why are you here? Read us your three paragraphs. Harvey Francis: Thank you, Chairman. My name is Harvey Francis. I am executive vice-president of human resources, communications and IT at Skanska UK plc. I am a director of that company. I sit on the board and on the executive management team. I am responsible for all human resources matters within Skanska UK plc and have been in post since September 2008. I joined Skanska from outside the construction industry a year before that, in October 2007. Mats Williamson, the chief executive officer of Skanska UK plc at the time this issue came to light, in March 2009, had hoped to be able to join me before the Committee today. However, as I think the Committee is aware, regrettably he is unable to attend today. I will therefore deal with the points Mr Williamson was to cover. I would like to make it clear that I have never personally used the Consulting Association. I was not personally involved in Skanska’s use of the Consulting Association, and I had not heard of the Consulting Association or what it did until Skanska was contacted by a journalist just prior to the Information Commissioner’s Office serving an enforcement notice on the Consulting Association in March 2009. 2 Q2047 Chair: It may be worth while just now to clarify some points on the sub judice rule. In your statement, which has been circulated to members and will appear as part of the record, you mention that you want to have some reservations about what you say to us on some issues. I ask the Clerk to give us the legal advice that we have had about how this applies. Eliot Wilson: I will simply say that the House’s sub judice resolution does not engage in this particular case, because you have not been formally named as defendants and the date for the court case has not yet been set down. It is also worth saying that anything you say to the Committee is, of course, protected by parliamentary privilege and cannot be used in a court. Q2048 Chair: To take account of the fact that you have some reservations about some matters being explained in full to us, we agreed before starting the meeting that some of your evidence could be taken in private at the end of the formal hearing, so that we would have another hearing. This time it would be in private. Obviously records would be taken, and we would want to use that as material we might build on, but it would not be publicly disclosed at this time. As I understand it, it remains the position of the parliamentary authorities that it is then up to us to decide when or whether we wish to use that evidence in any way. I would like to start by clarifying a couple of points relating to what you have said to us today. You said that you joined Skanska in October 2007. In what post was that? Was that also in personnel? Harvey Francis: Yes, it was. At the time, the organisation was split into two core halves: infrastructure, which looked after the civils businesses, and building, which looked after the core construction. I was hired as the HR director for the infrastructure side of the business. I also had responsibility for looking at the way HR was organised and structured, and moving to a different model of delivery. Q2049 Chair: So you had HR responsibilities from October 2007. Harvey Francis: That is correct. Q2050 Chair: First, can I clarify the involvement of Skanska and its predecessor companies with the Economic League and the Consulting Association, as far as you are aware? Harvey Francis: As far as we understand it, there was no link with the Economic League; certainly, our investigation has shown no links with that. Q2051 Chair: Does that apply to your predecessor companies? I refer to the companies you took over, Trafalgar House and Kvaerner. Harvey Francis: That is not clear. I would need to come back to you on that one. Q2052 Chair: We take the view that you as a company inherited the assets but also the liabilities of any of the companies that you took over and that, therefore, the question of what part Skanska or its predecessors played in the Economic League and then the transition to the Consulting Association is relevant. Can you tell us about Skanska’s initial involvement with the Consulting Association? Harvey Francis: Are you referring to Skanska or our predecessor companies? Chair: Either/or—you tell us. Harvey Francis: Okay. Would you mind if I take off my jacket? Chair: No, but I think you should stop there. Harvey Francis: I give you my assurance I shall. 3 We conducted a full investigation into our historical use. It is clear that Skanska and our predecessor companies did use the services of the Consulting Association for reference checking. They also used the news cuttings service and some of the industrial relations-type forums that were run. Q2053 Chair: So you were full and active members of the Consulting Association. Harvey Francis: Yes. Q2054 Chair: You put information in and took information out. Harvey Francis: Yes, the investigation indicates that we both put in and took out. Q2055 Lindsay Roy: What was the nature of the news cuttings service? What was the focus of the information? Harvey Francis: I have never actually seen the cuttings. But from talking to the people who did receive them, I understand that it was pretty much as Ian Kerr outlined when he presented evidence to the Committee—just cuttings from extremist press and things of that kind. As I said, I have not actually seen the copies myself. Q2056 Lindsay Roy: So that did not come out in your investigation. Harvey Francis: There were no hard copies, just people talking about the fact that the cuttings existed. When I talked to people, it did not seem that the cuttings were of any particular value or use. They were something that people read if and when they had time. Q2057 Lindsay Roy: During your investigation, how far did you probe into the nature of these cuttings? Harvey Francis: Probably not hugely, because the primary focus of the investigation was very much on what was happening on the ground—our involvement in the referencing service, primarily. That is what we wanted to get under the skin of, so that we could decide what had happened, get the fullest account we could, and decide what steps we needed to put in place to ensure that it would not happen again. Q2058 Lindsay Roy: Would it be fair to say that that part of the investigation was not particularly robust? Harvey Francis: I would not say it was not particularly robust. I guess it was viewed as of less consequence than the referencing service. That was a judgment call that I took. Q2059 Sir James Paice: Good afternoon. Can you clarify the other aspect of this— the fees that you paid? We understand that you paid £118,000 between 2005 and 2009. Have you been able to uncover any evidence of what services you were getting for those fees? Harvey Francis: Yes, absolutely.