A confederacy of dunces

In my column on 15 August last year, I went into the recommendation of a select committee that the government should appoint a chief construction officer (CCO). The government’s response came in a discussion document issued by the Construction Sector Unit of the business and enterprise department on 16 February. It called for responses by 13 March. Although I have many links with that unit, which I much value, I was not impressed by their paper. In fairness, I do not think it was any way the fault of the unit; I think they were writing under instruction from on high.

First, there is a problem with timing. The select committee’s report came out last July, and the discussion paper, which is only eight or so pages long, has taken seven months to appear. It is basically a series of questions for the consultees, some of which they will find difficult to answer. The last question out of the 16 posed is for views on how the work of the CCO could be resourced within the government.

I cannot imagine how industry federations or private sector client organisations can possibly comment on that. They are essentially devoted to looking after the interests of their members. They will have little knowledge of the staff and financial resources of individual ministries. Most of the federations will not even know the size of the Construction Sector Unit. What I do know is when Tony Baldry was construction minister in 1993, the unit had more than 100 people; now, I believe it has fewer than 20, but the paper does not say so.

I was not impressed by the construction unit’s paper. In fairness, I do not think it was their fault; I think they were writing under instruction from on high

Next, authority. I have long believed that the only way which a CCO can really get changes made in the government’s relationship with the industry, both as client and regulator, is if four things happen. The first that should happen is that Gordon Brown should call in all the permanent secretaries and tell them that he wants the CCO to succeed. He should have the head of the home civil service sitting beside him and clearly in support. He should refer to reports by the National Audit Office (NAO) in 2001 and 2005 that showed that where the government departments or agencies had adopted best construction practice, major savings of public expenditure had been achieved. The prime minister should then tell his permanent secretaries that he wants that to be developed, and that he expects them to insist that their departments fully co-operate with the CCO.

The other three requirements are equally important. The CCO must not be a grade II or grade III official. They have to be a permanent secretary, and must be able to attend meetings of the permanent secretaries throughout Whitehall. And they should be able to report to the prime minister directly if they feel that their recommendations are being ignored or sidelined.

The CCO’s normal reporting route, however, should be to the chancellor of the exchequer, with copies to the prime minister. The CCO should be based in the Treasury, or (perhaps better) in the National Audit Office, which reports direct to the House of Commons’ Public Accounts Committee. This is the select committee that permanent secretaries really fear, because their contract conditions require them to appear before it personally. But wherever the CCO is based, the work should be fully available for the NAO to follow up.

I suspect that the powers that be have decided that they do not want a CCO. Sad to say, I think the select committee’s report has effectively been kicked into touch. I doubt if its members will appreciate that

The CCO does not need what the discussion paper calls “an overbearing bureaucracy”. What they really need is what I had when I wrote Constructing the Team in 1994: one good civil servant working alongside whose job it is to book contact discussions, take notes of the meetings and follow them up. If the CCO is in touch with the chancellor of the exchequer personally, and also with the comptroller and auditor general at the NAO, that is the only staff necessary. I know that, because that is all I had, but the government and the select committee still regularly refer to my report, which will be 15 years old this July.

Having said all that, I suspect that the powers that be have decided that they do not want a CCO, and they prefer to do the job they would have in their own way. But, as the NAO has shown, that often does not work, or produce best practice. Unfortunately, I think the select committee’s report has effectively been kicked into touch. I doubt if its members will appreciate that.