Slip slidin’ away

So we have a “slimmed down” Construction Leadership Council, and no chief construction adviser. How is that going to work, then? This is the first of many questions that occur on reading recent announcements from the Department for Business, Innovation & Skills. 

Anybody who has worked deep within an organisation knows how much easier it is to come up with a solution to all of its problems when you’re on the outside looking in, in possession of only half the story; and that is no less true of government. That doesn’t make legitimate questions any less worth asking, though.  

The next question relates to the make-up of the Construction Leadership Council (CLC), where we clearly have an incomplete story – with, for example, only three-quarters of the membership of the CLC named. One can’t help but notice that, save for the happenstance of the current chair of the UKTI Construction Advisory Board being one, there are no professional consultants among those named. I suspect that some of this reflects a frustration with the confusion of representation put forward by various parts of the industry, and the impossibility of making progress with people who sit as delegates; but British construction consultancies are a real success story internationally, and for that reason alone Department for Business, Innovation & Skills should want to keep them close and involved. And if there is a genuine desire to see reform in the industry, we do at least need all relevant constituencies involved in the conversation somewhere.

Where is the leadership required to produce a plan that brings the industry forward collectively, rather than seeking to serve and protect the competitive advantage of a few of its members?

Many more questions relate to whether the CLC is to be an only child.  For example, what is its relationship to the menagerie of institutions and trade associations that seek to represent the industry?  Or to the Strategic Forum for Construction? Or to the Government Construction Board, and the pursuit of the Government Construction Strategy? Although that strategy has been said to have been absorbed into Construction 2025, it hasn’t really, and nor should it be – as it is concerned with something connected but quite different: the government using its own buying power to incentivise reform, improve industry performance and obtain long-term value for money for the taxpayer.

The biggest question, though, is where can we see the shared vision of what a competitive industry that serves its clients, delivers whole life value and has the potential to earn money overseas looks like? And where is the leadership required to produce a plan that brings the industry forward collectively, rather than seeking to serve and protect the competitive advantage of a few of its members? And whence will come the resources to implement a plan that market forces alone will fail to deliver?

Without that long view, the risk is that the CLC will continue to address the issues that are seen as urgent, and react to symptoms, rather than those that are important and call for treatment of the underlying malaise. For example, it would be easy to reach a consensus that just about the most urgent issue facing the industry today is the skills shortage. Real leadership, however, should recognise that this is a structural problem, and the consequence of an industry which thinks the maintenance of long-term capacity and capability is somebody else’s problem. 

Speaking of special pleading, it would be difficult for me to have worked hard over three years striving to make the role of the chief construction adviser both valued and valuable, and then deny that it was either – and nor do I. Nor, given the reaction since the announcement, can I see what kind of consultation has taken place (or, more particularly, with whom) that supported a recommendation for abolishing the post. 

At one time, the government and industry working together had some pretty ambitious shared plans: for the transition to a low carbon economy (remember that?); for more affordable and more sustainable construction in the public sector programme; and for a more competitive and innovative industry. It is possible that the abolition of the chief construction adviser role signals an end of all of that ambition. But if it doesn’t, then that ambition needs the energy and attention of somebody who has reach both across the industry and within government, and a person who can speak for the industry to government, and for government to the industry. It also must be someone who can support the many good people working across government in the delivery of major construction programmes, who frequently don’t get the recognition that they deserve. That is not going to be achieved either by a civil servant without a deep understanding of how the industry works – however diligent and well-intentioned he or she may be – or by a volunteer army of individuals drawn from the industry, who are ultimately bound by the commercial demands of their own businesses. 

So, many questions to be answered – and in the meantime a real sense of fear that an opportunity may be slipping through our fingers.

Paul Morrell was the first chief construction adviser and is chair of the Green Construction Board routemap working group