Last December, "Trust and Money" sought to identify the main issues of the Review, and invited comments and proposals. Avery large number have been received. Public debate has been encouraging, wide ranging and serious.
This Final Report makes recommendations to tackle the problems revealed in the consultation process. The Review has been about helping clients to obtain the high quality projects to which they aspire. That requires better performance, but with fairness to all involved. Above all, it needs teamwork. Management jargon calls that ''seeking win-win solutions". I prefer the immortal words of the Dodo in 'Alice's Adventures in Wonderland", "Everybody has won and all must have prizes". The prize is enhanced performance in a healthier atmosphere. It will involve deeper satisfaction for clients. It will lead to a brighter image and better rewards for a great industry.
The issues of the Review provoke profound disagreement throughout the construction process. I could not deal with every problem raised with me, still less seek to solve them all. Some proposals which were made to me towards the end of the Review require further debate. I have tried to produce a balanced package which offers hope to all, reassurance to some, but despair to none.
This has not been a Government Review of the industry. It has been a Report commissioned jointly by the Government and the industry, with the invaluable participation of clients: It has been completed within a very tight pre-determined timetable to discharge extremely wide terms of reference. It is the personal Report of an independent, but friendly observer. No blame attaches to anyone except myself for its contents. I have been immensely helped by many people, and especially by Deborah Bronnert of the Department of the Environment, to whom I am particularly grateful. But shortcomings or mistakes in this Report are my fault alone.
Some recommendations are radical. The participants in the construction process can react in three ways to them.
• They can refuse to have anything to do with the Report. That would be a pity. The problems would remain, but the goodwill to tackle them, which has been growing dramatically over the last twelve months, would be lost.
• They can pick out the sections which suit them and reject the rest. If everyone does that, nothing will happen.
• Or, hopefully, they can try to make the package work, through the implementation structures which the Report recommends. They can set about Constructing the Team.
The time to choose has arrived. The construction process cannot wait 30 years for another Banwell or 50 years for another Simon.
Michael Latham
July, 1994