Did the industry need Lowe Bell

Considerable sums of money were paid by contractor organisations to political lobbyist Lowe Bell for services rendered during the General Election campaign, that much is clear (see page 8). What is not so obvious is whether those services represented value for money. There was undoubtedly duplication of effort among industry organisations. Maybe this was unavoidable. The more interesting question is were Lowe Bell's services necessary at all?

The industry has in the past called upon hired guns in times of crisis, take for example the Cabin campaign to fight nationalisation. But in general it has relied on its own resources. These have been sufficient to achieve high level access, if not always the desired results.

The Group of Eight, even though it was at times shambolic, still managed to win audiences with Jim Callaghan and Margaret Thatcher.

More recently, the contractors' umbrella group, CIEC, managed to get a hearing with John Major to air the industry's concerns during the last recession.

The National Farmers Union - often held up as the exemplar of effective lobbying - does not need political lobbyists. Why should construction?

Industry sources asked the same question three weeks ago. This was dismissed as off-the-record innuendo. But now it is being raised afresh - and on the record - by specialist contractors.

The decision to use Lowe Bell was controversial. It may have been right for the time - that is a matter best judged by members of the Major Contractors Group, the Building Employers Confederation, the Civil Engineering Contractors Association and the Federation of Master Builders.

Their representatives should not be blamed for trying something new - or even for imperfect results. But they can be criticised for their failure to be open about the facts.