Who will be the champion?

Although it appeared just before the end of the summer parliamentary session, the report of the Business and Enterprise Committee of the House of Commons got good publicity in Building but little in the national media. That was a pity, because it was an excellent report. During my 18 years in the Commons, I was always on select committees, the last nine years of which were on the historic and important Committee of Public Accounts, which was founded by Gladstone in the 19th century. The Business and Enterprise Committee would have approved the report, but it would have been drafted by its clerk and/or a specialist adviser. They all did a very good job.

Their most important recommendation was to urge government to appoint a chief construction officer (CCO). They rejected the idea of a minister for construction, because ministers regularly get moved, and they also have much constituency work to do. The most important task of the CCO would be to ensure best construction practice by the whole public sector, and also help to plan public sector construction programmes. The office holder would be a senior official who would act as the industry’s champion.

What the committee does not say is to whom the CCO would report. In my view, they should be chosen from the industry itself, and thereby have a working knowledge of the whole make-up of construction, including design and procurement.

The CCO could be from a client base – indeed that might be best – provided that the holder had also worked for many years with top architects, engineers, main and specialist contractors, and really knew what best practice was from experience. I believe that it would be best if the CCO reported direct to the chancellor, and held the equivalent civil service rank of permanent secretary.

I believe that it would be best if the CCO reported direct to the chancellor, and held the equivalent civil service rank of permanent secretary

As the committee rightly says, construction is a vast industry that provided 8.7% of the UK economy’s gross value added in 2006 and its public sector output was 31% of the total. The industry’s links with government should not be restricted to the business and enterprise department (BERR), and the CCO, by reporting directly to the second most important minister in the government, would also be able to save the Treasury and local taxpayers huge sums of money by insisting on best practice procurement.

The CCO, by being publicly identifiable, should also report to parliament, either direct to the Treasury Select Committee or to the Public Accounts Committee, thereby ensuring that the MPs could question them directly.

The committee kindly quoted my own report Constructing the Team on several occasions, and also my statement in oral evidence that the client drives best practice. The committee rightly drew a distinction between informed and uninformed clients, although some regular clients are still not observing best practice. It also reported that “surprisingly, client skills do not currently form part of the strategy of ConstructionSkills”. They certainly should, and I will ensure ConstructionSkills takes this recommendation to heart.

The committee also referred to the Public Sector Construction Clients Forum (PSCCF), hosted by the Office of Government Commerce (OGC). I have long advocated that at least one of the meetings of the PSCCF every year should be chaired by the chief secretary to the Treasury, thereby sending a strong message across Whitehall that Treasury ministers insist upon best practice from public sector clients, because they know this will produce a good outturn of price, quality and time. That remains my view, but I think that the other meetings of the forum should be chaired by the CCO, who will know which departments, health trusts, or other public sector bodies are not following best practice.

I do not believe that the OGC has had sufficient authority or strength inside Whitehall, and its staff was halved in 2005/06

I hope that the CCO will also ensure that the National Audit Office regularly checks government and its agencies to establish that they are insisting upon proper procurement and efficiency.

The committee expresses concern about the staffing levels of the OGC. I do not believe that it has had sufficient authority or strength inside Whitehall, and its staff was halved in 2005/06. Perhaps there is a case for its construction team, although several of its well qualified people have left or retired in the past two years, to be asked to work directly with, or perhaps even for, the new CCO, so that their influence can really be felt across government.

The committee also had excellent recommendations about an integrated construction team, and I shall look at those next time.