121 The Review has come to an end with the publication of the Final Report. It is for Ministers and the parties to the Review to decide what, if any, action they wish to take to implement its recommendations. However, as I indicated in Chapter 1 of this Report, the "chemistry" and mutual understanding achieved in the Assessors' meetings, and in the back-up which has supported them, has been remarkable. It would be a pity if it were now to be ended and the valuable understanding dispersed. The involvement of all participants around the table has been essential for this Review. The total commitment to it by the two client organisations has been particularly significant.
12.2 Encouragingly, the participating organisations wish to keep the momentum going in different ways, as do others. For example:-
1. The CIPS
The Chartered Institute attaches great importance to early implementation. Its report recommends a two-tier structure:-
a. A Standing Strategic Group for the Construction Industries, chaired by the Minister for Construction, to meet twice a year to review progress in implementing the Report.
b. The creation of a Government/client/industry organisation called Construction Sourcing Ltd for the purpose of implementing it.
Its proposals are reproduced as Appendix VI.
2. The CIC
The Council wishes to continue the high level forum of monthly meetings, without any break in continuity. It says that the successor forum must be supported by the CIC, CIEC and CLG at the highest level, and must continue to involve clients. It must have fundamental support (and funding) from the Government. While the CIC does not comment on the proposal of one of its member organisations (CIOB) for a Construction Industry Development Board, it stresses that any such organisation should be 70% funded by Government, be project based and with the lowest possible level of bureaucracy.
3. The CIEC
The Council does not want the momentum to be lost. It wishes the Assessors, or other individuals nominated by the bodies which they represent, to meet on a monthly basis until the end of 1994, and thereby identify and carry forward those proposals which require concerted industry action. It does not favour any large or bureaucratic regulatory structure. While it basically believes that any recommendations can be implemented within the existing industry representative bodies, it points out that if the Assessors felt that a new body was necessary by the end of 1994, it could be set up at that stage.
4. The NSCC
The Council's final report does not suggest any implementation mechanisms, but makes 11 recommendations, some of which would require legislation.
5. The SECG
The SECG favours the establishment of a new regulatory authority for the construction industry called OFCON (Office for Regulation of Construction). It would operate under a Construction Industry Charter, and have three arms. The first would be a National Registration Authority, which would accredit industry bodies concerned with national registration schemes. The Contracts Division would oversee procurement systems and conditions of contract, but the JCT would continue to produce standard documentation which conformed with the Charter. The third arm would be a Practice and Standards Division, which would monitor the work of the NJCC and ensure that it followed the procedures of the Charter. There would also be an Ombudsman, whose staff would be independent of OFCON, and who would have statutory powers to regulate the three divisions and deal with any deviations from good practice, including fines or deregistration of an "habitual offender". The SECG does not believe that voluntary arrangements will prove effective.
6. The BPF
The BPF's final report does not specify any actual implementation mechanisms, but it makes 21 recommendations for action, many of which are also contained in this Report. The BPF has always stressed the crucial role of the client at the core of the construction process.
7. The CIOB
The Chartered Institute of Building is a member of the CIC. It favours the Assessors carrying on as an implementation group until a Construction Industry Development Board can be formed. The Board would be set up by the Government but run and funded by the industry. It should have minimum staffing and be a facilitating body designed to improve competitiveness and standards, develop market opportunities and improve market intelligence.
8. The Building Structures Group
The BSG is part of the Constructors Liaison Group. It favours the creation of a Construction Regulator as an Executive Agency of the DOE. The proposed Agency would have four main subsidiaries - a National Disputes Resolution Service, a Standard Contracts Service to take over the role of the JCT, a Good Practice Service to replace the NJCC and a Construction Registration Authority. The body would be statutory.
9. The Ground Forum
The Forum, which is a member of the CIC, favours the establishment of an Ombudsman for the industry to monitor compliance with a Code of Good Practice, with the ultimate power to suspend the right of firms to prequalify for public works until their record of observing the Code improves.
10. The Association of Project Managers
The APM recommends that a "single body" be set up to represent promoters and all participants in the construction industry, to issue a Code of Practice, monitor progress, and report to Government and industry.
11. Mr Robin Wilson
Mr Wilson, who is the new chairman of the CIC, favours a Construction Industry Board, to be client led and chaired by a client or other eminent person. Its membership should be clients 4, DOE and DTI as regulators 2, CIC 2, CIEC 1, CLG 1. It should be concerned with promoting best practice, co-ordinating co-operative efforts such as contracts, research and private finance and be a forum for resolving current issues through consensus or convergence of views.