Just what we wanted

Tucked away in the small print of the 2004 Budget Report (para 3.59 of section 3: "Meeting the Productivity Challenge") are the details of two decisions that could be of vital benefit to the construction industry.

One is the news that the government will review the operation of the adjudication and payment provisions in the Construction Act 1996 – which is, of course, something that the Construction Industry Council and other umbrella bodies have been seeking for some time.

The other is to establish a forum for industry and government to consult about policy and regulatory development, which will give the industry time to fully express its views on the impact of proposed changes.

The background to this is that exactly one year ago, CIC delivered a report to Christopher Leslie, then a minister at the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, calling for more joined-up thinking in relation to the regulatory burden, and presenting case studies that showed the difficulties of meeting the overlapping requirements of different regulations.

Our report to Leslie coincided with the chancellor's announcement of a sectoral review of the regulatory impact on construction, to be carried out by the Cabinet Office's Regulatory Impact Unit. This team, led by Shelley Grey and Eric Arnold, were made aware of the CIC's report to the ODPM, which triggered a series of meetings through 2003 and 2004 to discuss the potential for practical measures to reduce the regulatory burden on the industry. During these discussions we were alerted to the model of VIPER (Vehicle Industry Policy and European Regulation) and felt that a similar body bringing the construction industry and joined-up government together would be a step forward. This was how the CIPER was conceived.

Ciper will not work unless it brings to the table all of the many departments concerned with the regulations affecting the industry

I am due to chair a meeting of key industry representatives on 25 March to find a consensus amongst the leading industry bodies for the scope of the new body's work and its terms of reference and membership. In my view, it is essential that the scope is meaningful but not drawn so wide as to make CIPER unworkable. Whatever the industry decides, the body will not work unless it brings to the table all of the many departments concerned with the diverse regulations affecting the industry.

It is also important to make clear that I don't expect CIPER to be a means of opening up old issues and undoing regulatory regimes that are in place. I suspect that this would be the surest way to ensure an early exit by the civil servants we need to attend. However, I do see it as a body that might help prevent some of the mistakes of the past from happening again, by providing an early warning of impending legislative concepts, particularly those flowing out of Europe, and the opportunity for wide consultation and a degree of lateral thinking that has not been easily achievable in the past.

Why is this body any different from the strategic forum? As the forum's secretary, I can confirm that it has never had regulatory issues within its remit.

As a strategic body it rarely discusses issues at the level of detail that I anticipate for CIPER. There will certainly be a need for links between the two bodies so that any overarching strategic issues can flow through to the forum. And with a common link provided by the DTI, CIC and the other major construction umbrella bodies, this will be possible.