Examination of Witnesses (Questions 380-399)
NSCC, SECG
10 DECEMBER 2007
Q380 Mr Hoyle: Okay, it is consensus;
so another 10 years on, are you still going to say "consensus"
or are you going to actually say, "Well, to be honest with
you, we believe it is ... "?
Mr Hursthouse: The answer to that—no,
no, another couple of weeks we will have it cracked, and then
on the statute book!
Q381 Mr Hoyle: But if you do not?
Mr Hursthouse: If we do not, we
will—
Q382 Mr Hoyle: Do you blame the lawyers?
Mr Hursthouse: No, no. We often
do blame the lawyers, and we will! Look, as far as this thing
is concerned, as I say, it is absolutely crucial. There are people
who do say: "Let us have something that is nearly right and
move on." There is no value in that; it does have to be something
that is going to work. I take the view that however many years
it is we have been in this review, if you assume the review had
a purpose—and I believe it did—then surely it has
to be seen through to a proper conclusion? That conclusion has
to be something that delivers what we are trying to achieve or
what BERR is trying to achieve. I believe it can do; I believe
there is a willingness there. In fact we have a meeting with BERR
on Thursday for that very purpose.
Mr Wren: Can I add to it? I probably
will get drawn into blame now! The central issue is that clearly
contractors have a strong lobby, and it relates to cash flow.
Those that do not want the cash to flow or to muddy the waters
in terms of when that cash will flow clearly have an interest
in not making it flow. If we are honest with ourselves, then it
is the specialist group, lobbying for fair payment against the
contractors' group, that wants to keep the thing muddy—which
is what it is now.
Mr Hursthouse: Five Ministers
in four years does not help either.
Q383 Mr Hoyle: So the strong lobby
group continues. You are still using those old peers, are you,
to lobby for you?
Mr Hursthouse: Yes, very good
they are too! I am not so sure about the old!
Mr Hoyle: He has just woken up—we
are all right!
Chairman: We are not allowed to—
Mr Hoyle: Can I just move you on to—
Chairman: I think "old" is
a bit unfair.
Mr Hoyle: That is why I said it, Chairman!
Q384 Chairman: Can I be clear? You
are blaming the industry not the Government largely for the failure
to make progress in this area. That is the important—
Mr Wren: No.
Q385 Chairman: Corporately.
Mr Wren: Corporately, yes. The
industry has got lots to answer for in terms of the way that we
are structured and the way that cash does not flow. There is an
opportunity for Government to clarify through this process. In
trying to get consensus I think we are going to lose it. That
is, in my view, the problem.
Q386 Mr Hoyle: In the case of NSCC,
they note that clients in the public and private sectors have
committed to only using contractors that hold CSCS (Construction
Skills Certification Scheme) carded workforces, but that is not
actually happening. Why is it that many of the clients and contractors
are still not delivering the commitment on both sides to use the
CSCS carded workers?
Mr Wren: I would probably disagree
with you. Our experience is that most of the specialists operate
a 100% carded workforce, and I think it is the same for SEC Group.
There has been a lot of time and investment in making sure that
we do go there. I think the main contractors group has a very
strong commitment of only using 100% carded workforce on their
sites, and clearly in terms of card number uptake it is very good
this year and increasing. I think the issue is not the commitment
the industry has in getting the carded workforce; in my opinion
it is enforcement. When you turn up on site with a card and have
spent time and money in getting that card, you want to make sure
that that card is checked for your work on that site. Sometimes
I think that is not happening.
Mr Hoyle: What worries me is that in
some of the evidence that has been provided—and it goes
on to say in specialist skills; it says that clients have committed
to using contractors with CSCS carded workforces, but this is
not yet happening in practice; and this is a concern for those
companies that have invested in qualifying their workforces. So
they are saying that SMEs have not been able to invest because
they are not quite sure where the next job is and where the next
contract is coming from, and it is a lot of money to make sure
everybody is carded.
Chairman: For a point of clarity, Mr
Hoyle has just summarised your own evidence to us, quoting your
words to you.
Q387 Mr Hoyle: So if you do not like
your words, you should not put them down.
Mr Wren: Well, I understand that.
I can only tell you from my own experience and that within the
NSCC. The complaints that come back to NSCC are: "I have
invested in getting my CSCS card, but I am working on a site where
other trades have not got CSCS cards: why should I invest in this
card?"
Q388 Mr Hoyle: You just said to me
that that is not the case; now you are saying that is the case,
but it depends which part of the contracts and which side they
are on.
Mr Wren: Well, you have got to
view this as to whether—
Q389 Mr Hoyle: It either is or it
is not the case.
Mr Wren: Look, it is a big issue
in trying to get the whole of this industry moving towards—and
it will take time. All I can tell you at the moment is that in
terms of uptake and in terms of commitment from major contractors
and from clients, they are saying: "We want to see a fully
carded, 100% CSCS workforce."
Q390 Mr Hoyle: I understand that,
and I am not trying to corner you a little bit. They are delivering
on their commitment but they are not delivering on the number
of people who are holding the card—is that fair to say?
Mr Wren: From my own experience
there is a delivery on the commitment, and from nowhere it has—
Q391 Mr Hoyle: We wish to see it.
That is the objective.
Mr Wren: Absolutely, yes.
Q392 Mr Hoyle: The problem is they
cannot put the ball in the net because they have not got the ball!
Mr Wren: Yes, and I think also
there is a question of it being mandatory on sites, and it is
a question of the client again. It is not all the client; the
client is assuming that if he has employed a good contractor and
a good set of contractors and specialists, they will all be CSCS.
It is not perhaps the right analogy, but if you are not a Corgi
registered engineer you cannot go working on gas—it is illegal.
Q393 Mr Hoyle: It does not stop them.
Mr Wren: I know, but can you ever?
So they get prosecuted and—
Chairman: We are running a bit short
of time. I do not want to flog this to death but there is one
point. Can you reflect on what your evidence said to us, and the
particular thing at the NSCC here, but can you just clarify—
Mr Hoyle: I would say, please, if you
would clarify; but also, is there any help and support that is
needed to make sure that everybody carries the card?
Chairman: A supplementary note would
be very helpful on those points.
Q394 Miss Kirkbride: The SEC Group
has suggested some core criteria for assessing the competency
of construction firms. Can you outline what they would be?
Mr Hursthouse: Certainly in terms
of health and safety they have been incorporated into the CDM
Regulations. I am not going to trawl through all of that or try
to list them. The principle, where they are coming from, is that
what currently happens is that there is a plethora of qualification
schemes which qualify businesses to carry out work on various
projects, whether they are Government schemes where you go through
a pre-qualification process for a health sector project or a school
sector project—just anywhere—just qualifying schemes
all over the place. Some of them are sub-contracted to the private
sector to gather this information together. Very often there are
costs, often not insubstantial, in qualifying and getting accreditation—"unless
you have this accreditation you cannot work on the project"—and
if you go into another section you need that accreditation. The
view is: "Just a minute, competence evidence on construction
projects—there is an element of it which is just universal;
if you cannot behave properly when it comes to health and safety,
you should not be allowed on the site." That applies to everybody.
The thinking is that there should be some arrangement where there
are core competences and there are schemes where you can qualify
and those schemes relate to each other. If I were to get into
this scheme it has some sort of accreditation to it; then I would
get into that scheme and that scheme and that scheme, and I would
not have to qualify for half a dozen schemes. There are very good
schemes being run by trade associations, which are undoubtedly
very thorough and very effective, but again I can qualify for
one here and one here and qualify for one there—so core
competence for assessment would save an awful lot of trouble and
be a level playing field in terms of what competence really means.
Q395 Miss Kirkbride: Do you see at
present any difference between the public sector and the private
sector with regard to this plethora of competences?
Mr Hursthouse: To be blunt, no.
I have got one contractor telling me I have got to qualify for
him; I have another one telling me I have to qualify for him.
The answer is "no". As I said earlier, there are within
the CDM Regulations some core competence criteria, which is a
good place to start, and it is something that should be developed
if there is work to be done.
Q396 Miss Kirkbride: Because they
are effective. So what is your view on the effectiveness of Constructionline,
BERR's own database for construction firms?
Mr Hursthouse: It is a self-certifying
paper exercise, and it has not delivered.
Mr Wren: If it does not have third-party
accreditation, it is not worth it.
Q397 Miss Kirkbride: It is a waste
of time?
Mr Hursthouse: You might be able
to recover it, but as far as what it delivers now—probably,
yes. That is perhaps overstating it, but it is not what we are
looking for in the industry.
Q398 Miss Kirkbride: If there is
a particular issue that you would like us to raise with regard
to the Olympic Delivery Authority when we see them in the New
Year, your chance is now!
Mr Wren: I would say all the things
that we said before. Choose your supply chain, choose it early
and choose it wisely. It is the specialist sector that is going
to build the Olympics, let us be clear. We have much to offer.
Get in early and there is value engineering and innovation to
be done. If the ODA adopts a hands-off approach and stops at its
tier 1, which is the major contractors, and relies on them to
do what they are going to do, nothing will change. Projects will
be let on price rather than best value. Risks will be sub-contracted
down the line. It does not matter where you sub-contract a risk—if
it happens it will be to the detriment of the Olympics, and the
best thing to do is understand the risk and manage it. Make sure
cash flows through the supply chain. If you do not do that, you
will end up with the experience of a fairly major national stadium
not too many miles from here, rather than the experience of the
Emirates Stadium, which we shared, which we both worked on. That
was good practice in terms of supply chain integration. The 2012
construction commitments which were developed for the Olympics—it
is important that they do not just stop at the contractor; but
that the contractor operates those construction commitments through
the supply chain. We need to see evidence that that is happening
currently.
Q399 Miss Kirkbride: You drew the
analogy with the Dome: is the Olympics going to be ready on time?
Mr Wren: It will.
Mr Hursthouse: It certainly cannot
be late. This is absolutely true: before we were here, as you
might imagine, we consulted and we were aware this might come
up, and so Graham just told you what he told you, and I can tell
you categorically that I have very little to add to that—in
fact nothing to add to that: I would agree with him entirely.
As he said, we both did work on the Emirates, and the question
is: do you want an Emirates or do you want a Wembley? I know which
one I prefer!
Chairman: The question answered itself.
| 
