BEC-FCEC crunch vote looms

Council members of the Building Employers Confederation and the Federation of Civil Engineering Contractors will be asked to vote within the next two to three weeks on whether a radical overhaul of their organisations - eventually sharing one national headquarters, combining regional offices and shedding staff - is the price worth paying for a new, supercharged industry lobbying body.

In preparation for the most crucial vote in trade association affairs since FCEC members rejected a less far-reaching proposal in December 1992, both councils will be studying the keenly awaited PA Consulting Group's report on industry structure and representation, which was unveiled this week.

Its central proposal is the creation of a new construction employers organisation - known for the moment as 'Newco' - that aims to influence Government and clients far more effectively than existing bodies.

The new body - small but high quality - would represent the strategic views of its five to six affiliate member groups on macro-economic policy and other high-level industry matters.

Operating under a chairman or chief executive of high standing from one of the major contractors, its members would be drawn from the the Export Group for the Construction Industry, the Federation of Civil Engineering Contractors, the Building Employers Confederation, the House Builders Federation, the major contractors, and specialist contractors.

Each affiliate would supply two members to the Newco executive board, which would meet monthly and provide a 'high quality focus on issues of common interest.'

All policy decisions would be taken unanimously, suggests the report, 'thereby eliminating the need for voting.' To demonstrate 'that its judgement and decisions are in the best interests of all affiliates to Newco,' it would answer to a general council comprising 30-40 members that would meet two or three times a year.

PA's report is the culmination of years of effort by the major contractors to bring FCEC and BEC closer together - both to save costs and achieve political clout on the scale of the farmers. Unconfirmed rumours have circulated for months that if the report is rejected by either FCEC or BEC councils, the majors will set up their own independent representative body - and some may withdraw from either one or other of the existing bodies.

Costings for the new body are conspicuously absent from the PA report. Instead, much is made of the potential savings achieved by bringing BEC and FCEC together. Noting current running costs of BEC, FCEC and the Export Group as œ9.09 million, PA says 'savings of an order of 15-20%... might be set as an initial target.'

How these proposals affect the services currently enjoyed by BEC and FCEC members is the critical issue set to dominate the imminent council meetings (FCEC, 27 Sept; BEC, 3 Oct).

Peter Galliford, FCEC chairman, has pledged his full support to the report, saying he is hopeful that the wider picture it paints will take precedence over domestic affairs. 'Of course there are discrete sectors within the industry that need centres of excellence, but this report looks at another agenda - namely, principles that will help the industry over the next five, ten, twenty years.

'This is the agenda that has not been well handled in the past. If we're to take forward crucial issues such as those set out in the Atkins report, we need a well resourced body to take that report by the scruff of the neck to Government and Brussels and argue effectively for more construction expenditure - and at the right price. 'We have lacked the central body to take on this other agenda. And we're kidding ourselves if we think there's anything more important.'

Galliford acknowledges there may be resistance to the closer working arrangements, and that this is firmly rooted in the different cultures of the BEC and FCEC members (PA also notes this clearly). 'There are a lot of sensitivities out there in the sticks, so we must demonstrate to members that this other, broader agenda has to be tackled. I would be very disappointed if local issues got in the way of resolving these wider issues - and I'm sure we can ride out the local difficulties on the domestic agend
a. In a changing industry such as ours, all of us are going to have to make compromises. But at the same time, we must not undermine the traditions and loyalties that have grown up over the years.'