精东影视

鈥漈en chief executives in a room will agree on nothing. They won鈥檛 sort anything out. We need to go higher. We need to get chairmen involved.鈥� So says Bill Bolsover, chairman of the Construction Products Association (CPA) on how to fix one of the construction sector鈥檚 most enduring problems 鈥� the lack of a unified, coherent voice.

The problem appears to be getting worse, with government and clients alike throwing their arms up in frustration at the conflicting messages coming from more than 100 different bodies. Bolsover is calling for a major review of construction鈥檚 approach to delivering its messages to government. To this end, meetings have been taking place over the last six months between him and members of the UK Contractors Group (UKGC) and the Construction Industry Council (CIC) to work out how best to make this happen.

Bolsover pulls no punches when describing the current state of affairs, branding the industry 鈥渉ugely immature鈥� and the Strategic Forum 鈥� the body originally set up for the industry to raise key issues 鈥� 鈥渁 nonsense鈥� that either needs to be reformed or replaced.

A source close to the UKCG says: 鈥淭he Strategic Forum is a bit of a busted flush. I can鈥檛 quite see the point of it. You could argue it was set up two years ago to populate Paul Morrell鈥檚 review, but he decided to go to individual leaders instead and the result is a forum that we just don鈥檛 see as very useful.鈥�

We need action

Evidence of the industry鈥檚 lack of unity has been in plentiful supply over the past month. An interview given to 精东影视 by construction minister Mark Prisk suggested that what the government is hearing from construction isn鈥檛 necessarily what the industry thinks it is saying. Prisk told 精东影视 that he didn鈥檛 think the future of the PFI was one of construction鈥檚 priorities, despite it clearly being among main contractors鈥� top anxieties.

And while the industry鈥檚 communications with government might be getting lost in translation, its messages to clients are just plain confusing. Martin Young, chief architect at Tesco, the construction industry鈥檚 biggest retail client, said that it would be easier to work out how best to procure work if suppliers could present a clearer message: 鈥淚t would really help if contractors had a clearer, more unified idea of what they want,鈥� he said. 鈥淪ome want frameworks, others want single-stage tendering and when there is a mixture of opinions, we鈥檒l just pick a route - and it might not be the one you like.鈥�

Such mixed messages make it very difficult for the industry to have any effective influence on policy. The issues that run across the whole of the industry are, in fact, the very same that Prisk highlighted when he spoke to 精东影视 last month: apprentices, skills, training and order book management. The trouble is the industry is unable to speak as one voice. 鈥淚t鈥檚 like a rowdy classroom,鈥� says Suzannah Nichol, chief executive of the National Specialist Contractors Council (NSCC). 鈥淚f the teacher asks what the class wants to do and no one can agree, then he or she will either do nothing as no consensus has been reached or say, 鈥榃ell, if you can鈥檛 work it out then I鈥檒l choose for you.鈥� But if enough of the children can work together to choose something the majority wants to do, then the teacher is much more likely to go with that. That鈥檚 what the construction industry needs to do with government.鈥�

Some want frameworks, others want single-stage tendering and when there is a mixture of opinions, we鈥檒l just pick a route 鈥� and it might not be the one you like

Martin Young, Tesco

So why hasn鈥檛 it? We know it can be done: both the automotive and, more recently, the chemicals industries have successfully pulled together to present united fronts. Both sectors are clearly making an impression on government, judging by the regularity with which they are name-checked in speeches by ministers. And the construction industry itself has seen flashes of what could be achieved. The success of the industry-wide campaign that made clear that for every 拢1 spent in construction 拢2.84 is generated in GDP is evidence of that. It was a clear message, backed by everyone and it caught the government鈥檚 attention.

Even if the 拢2.84 campaign didn鈥檛 change government policy, it was regarded as a success, its strength stemming from having been presented by one body - the UK Contractors Group - but firmly backed by all. The problem is that the effectiveness of the body set up to represent construction and engender a collective voice, the Strategic Forum, run by Lord O鈥橬eill, is being called into question.

Industry body representatives including the NSCC鈥檚 Nichol, the Federation of Master Builders鈥� chief executive Brian Berry and the CPA鈥檚 chief executive Diana Montgomery are unanimous in believing that the forum doesn鈥檛 deliver on unifying the industry鈥檚 voice.

The general consensus is that the Strategic Forum is good at addressing non-contentious issues such as waste management and disposal in construction and apprenticeships but that it fails to galvanise or lead on policy. 鈥淭he Strategic Forum needs to be more agenda focused,鈥� says the CPA鈥檚 Montgomery. 鈥淏ig issues like collaboration, skills and fair payment need to be addressed.鈥� But Nichol adds that the industry may need to take the lead on this before an effective unified voice can be presented to government: 鈥淔or an effective strategic forum or alliance to work, the industry has to want it to work,鈥� she says. 鈥淚 think there needs to be some pretty gloves off conversations about our differences as a sector behind closed doors. Payment issues are at the top of that list because we are never going to have a collective voice when one part of the sector has a commercial advantage.鈥�

The CPA鈥檚 Bolsover is particularly cutting in his evaluation of the situation: 鈥淚 have been to a few Strategic Forum meetings and I listen to what鈥檚 said. And I wait. And nothing happens. And nothing will continue to happen. These meetings are attended by Mark Prisk and Paul Morrell - we have the audience we need - but the messages aren鈥檛 getting through. It鈥檚 just a nonsense.鈥�

The pretender

There is a mooted pretender to the Strategic Forum throne, the CBI Construction Council, set up in July 2008, and now with a new chairman, Midas chair Steve Hindley. He is desperate to be clear the council is not attempting any kind of power-grab over trade associations, but plainly he believes the council has what it takes to be the single voice the industry so desperately needs, as long as all parts of the sector decide to come together: 鈥淚鈥檓 old enough to have been in this situation in the eighties with various organisations in the construction industry. Talking to Michael Heseltine and John Gummer, who was environment secretary at the time, both of them got very frustrated because there wasn鈥檛 a single voice for the construction industry, and we re-organised several organisations of contractors, and various things, and tried to put things together.

鈥淸But] eventually government said - they didn鈥檛 say it to our faces but we knew what was going on - they got bored. 鈥楾here鈥檚 no point talking to these people because they haven鈥檛 got a single voice鈥� - politicians won鈥檛 tell you that. I think the [CBI Construction] council has the potential to be that single voice. As long as people [in other parts of the industry] understand that it can be used by them, and their views will be taken in to consideration [鈥 I鈥檓 not about to create an organisation that says this is the voice for the industry, because I can鈥檛 do that. That can only be built up through trust.鈥�

I think there needs to be some pretty gloves-off conversations about our differences as a sector behind closed doors

Suzannah Nichol, NSCC

A source close to the UKCG adds: 鈥淭he CBI Construction Council was set up as no one in construction was getting to government in the way the CBI does. Most major contractors are members of CBI and we would argue that over the last three years the council has been key in upping industry鈥檚 attention in communicating with government. Some would argue that CBI isn鈥檛 a collective voice as members tend to be main contractors. But there is nothing stopping companies from other sectors joining. We think the CBI Council is a good place to start in terms of building up a collective and consistent voice for construction.鈥�

Although some have high hopes for the CBI Construction Council, others believe the emergence of the council while the Strategic Forum is still in operation is adding to the confusion,says the FMB鈥檚 Berry. 鈥淚t doesn鈥檛 help when we have them both presenting themselves as bodies representing industry, but with conflicting pictures.鈥�

The answer, according to Bolsover, is to merge the best elements of both into a new body - a Construction Industry Alliance, ominously abbreviated to CIA. This would play on the Strategic Forum鈥檚 ability to hook key players and command an audience with government ministers, while benefitting from being run by an industry chairman, rather than a chief executive, as the CBI is now.

The idea is that this will address the most fundamental problem that any proposal for a 鈥渟ingle industry voice鈥� faces: the awkward truth that the industry agrees on very little. As Berry says: 鈥淭he construction industry is just so big, so varied, it鈥檚 impossible for everyone to agree on so many issues. PFI is big for main contractors, but not such an issue for SMEs, for example.鈥�

League of chairmen

Bolsover believes chairmen running the show would help the sector to move past its differences. Chairmen, he says, are 鈥減eople with experience but who are now slightly removed from the sector鈥�, while chief execs 鈥渉ave a lot to gain or lose from the way industry issues are presented to government鈥�.

In fact Bolsover envisages something like a network of chairmen. The new group would have a number of sub-divisions feeding in ideas and issues and working groups reporting back on key issues. 鈥淲e need something like the Strategic Forum,鈥� says Bolsover. 鈥淏ut I do feel it needs to be more of a CIA set-up so that it sits over all other associations, run by a chairman with other bodies feeding in, also run by chairmen.

鈥淭hen the overarching body would choose four or five main issues we want to get across to government based on what is being fed in from the other associations. And suddenly we have clarity.鈥�

Bolsover himself says he has no intention of putting himself up for the chairman鈥檚 role. 鈥淚 don鈥檛 want the job. I think that鈥檚 a good thing as it allows me to lead this plan and help without people thinking I am doing it for the job. The reason I am pushing it forward is that if I drop it, it will be dropped. And we can鈥檛 afford for that to happen.鈥�