More Comment – Page 674
-
Comment
How do you work this thing?
In theory, the Information and Consultation Regulations mean firms face fines of up to £75k if they fail to consult staff – but what will it mean in practice?
-
Comment
Take away the training levy
I write in response to your news article “M&E trade bodies propose mandatory training levy” (18 March, page 17).
-
Comment
Talking ‘bout my generation
I read with dismay your article on on-site renewable energy with its premise that the building profession shouldn’t have to start thinking about renewable energy while there is still more to be done to make buildings more energy efficient.
-
Comment
Let the market decide
In your article “Housebuilders reject ODPM’s latest revision of PPG3” (24 March, page 20), you report on plans to give councils a say in what types of housing are built in their areas.
-
Comment
Free advert
The mobile workforce is on the increase in many organisations – whether it is a construction company with site workers, sales reps on the road or firefighters on call – and the message is clear: workers on the front line put the business at risk if they are not armed ...
-
Comment
Roger Knowles: No discrimination
Having provided hundreds of jobs for women in my company over a period of 30 years, I was disappointed to read the comments from Sarah Bourne in last week’s Building.
-
Comment
We’re all in power now
If you thought the idea of making a building generate 10% of its own energy was mad, you’d be right. It should be closer to 100%. Here’s how it can be done
-
CommentRe-integrating the team
The National Audit Office has called for integrated construction teams. But why is it so hard to recreate what earlier generations took for granted?
-
-
CommentShow me the money
We kick off this Construction Act review special by asking why the DTI’s consultation document does not properly address subcontractors’ right to get hold of their cash
-
CommentAway with the fairies
The DTI thinks that, with a sprinkling of fairy dust, adjudicators can rewrite laws and be made impartial. Believe that, and you might as well believe in Tinkerbell
-
Comment
What the review missed
Concerns about the statutory payment and adjudication provisions in the Construction Act are well founded, but the review fails to deal with all of them head on
-
CommentWhen less isn’t more
When it comes to reforming the Construction Act, the instinct to resist meddling is correct in many cases, but has done nothing to address a major failing
-
CommentThere, there
The proposed European services directive has been dubbed Bolkestein’s Monster. But it’s not that terrifying, if you’ll all just calm down and read the small print
-
Comment
Blockbuster
Hats off to English Partnerships. I was delighted to read your confirmation that the agency is opening up the £60,000 house competition to all methods of construction, including brick and block (18 March, page 22).
-
Comment
Violence is the answer
The Safe Crackers debate (11 March, page 36) highlighted the difficulties of getting clients and designers to buy into and comply with their obligations under the CDM regulations.
-
Comment
Between JCT and reality
Malcolm Taylor (24 March, Letters, page 34) supports the JCT provisions on practical completion and partial possession and disagrees with my comments on these clauses (“A hard way to earn £2”, 11 March, page 60).
-
Comment
A policy of caution
A recent survey conducted by the Association of British Insurers will come as welcome news to those businesses that have been hit by the spiralling costs of obtaining professional indemnity cover.
-
Comment
Moments of truth
James Bessey’s comments on the Great Eastern Hotel vs Laing case (11 March, page 46) rightly remind us of the risk of an independent expert appearing to turn advocate.
-
Comment
An anglocentricismophobe writes
I recently took a little time out from tending my croft and drowning my sorrows after another Calcutta Cup defeat to read Building.