The Labour Government had managed the economy well and the British people believed that it deserved another chance. The recent Tory leadership struggle was a media sideshow.
There will be no Tory Government before 2009 at the earliest, barring some political or economic cataclysm. Indeed if the Liberal Democrat march through Tory heartlands continues, there may never be another Tory Government.
The re-elected Labour prime minister swiftly shook up the structure of Whitehall. The move of the Construction Sponsorship Directorate of the former Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (DETR) to the Department of Trade and Industry (DTI) is not necessarily helpful to the specialist sector, in which m&e plays so crucial a part.
The disciplines of industry and politics are quite separate. No business leader running an m&e company will spend two seconds worrying about political undercurrents. However, some of us need to keep our fingers closely on the pulse of government.
The agenda of the Construction Sponsorship Directorate will obviously be influenced by the in-house assumptions of the DTI. That could be a problem.
The rationale of the Construction Act and its related issues, such as prompt payment and speedy adjudication, do not fit easily with the DTI's agenda. Under the Tory Government in 1995, the DTI fought against introducing a Construction Act at all. The DTI wanted to concentrate solely upon reform of arbitration procedures for all industries and businesses, rather than a special system of dispute resolution for construction.
The Department of the Environment, with its close links to the construction process, was involved in mediation between the Construction Industry Employers Council (CIEC, representing main contractors) and the Constructors Liaison Group (CLG).
At one stage, the CIEC withdrew its support from introducing any Construction Act because of the failure of the umbrella groups to agree upon the details of trust funds. Robert Jones, the Tory construction minister, firmly knocked heads together to achieve a compromise. Meanwhile, Tony Newton, the Leader of the House of Commons, used political muscle in a Cabinet sub-committee to override the objections of the DTI to the Construction Bill, which was then passed through Parliament in 1996.
The move of the Construction Sponsorship Directorate to the Department of Trade and Industry is not necessarily helpful to the specialist sector, in which m&e plays so crucial a part
If that had all been within the responsibility of the DTI there would have been no Construction Act. We would still have legal "pay when paid", unregulated set offs and no contractural payment procedures.
"Well," you may say, "we do still have these things". Maybe you do. The difference now is that you can do something about them through the process of adjudication. Many specialists have successfully defended themselves and their companies since May 1998 with their new legal rights.
If the DTI did not want the Act in the first place, will it update or change it? Just before the general election, Nick Raynsford, then the construction minister, wrote to the Construction Industry Board outlining his proposals for further reforms of the adjudication and payment procedures, following evidence to him by the CIB, the CLG and others. The changes were not as great as the CLG had recommended, but they were a step in the right direction. Will anything happen now? Will the DTI, with virtually every other industry and business also under its wing, give any priority to amending an Act which it did not want in the first place?
There are other straws in the wind. The CLG's parliamentary campaign before the general election to abolish retentions was not well received in senior governmental circles. I have heard influential grumbles that it is "trivial", "unhelpful" and "away from the real agenda".
A committee has recently been formed to bring together several organisations involved in design. Astonishingly, it excludes the CLG, whose members are intimately concerned with detailed design. Specific suggestions that the CLG should be invited to join have been refused.
Even the new Strategic Forum for the Construction Industry was disparaged before it was formed. Recent hints suggested that it might meet three or four times over one year and then be disbanded. If that happens, how will the client and supply sides talk to each other in a structured way under government auspices?
None of these issues are decisive in themselves. Taken together, they do not look promising for specialists. The CLG will need to reawaken its parliamentary lobby, bringing in MPs to support its right to be heard in the highest circles on a basis of equality with clients and other supply side organisations.
Source
Electrical and Mechanical Contractor