Time to tighten the Construction Act?

It's a very British trait to expect people to do the decent thing. So much so that we are loathe to rely on regulations to coerce people into good behaviour.

Unfortunately, as far as contractual relations in construction are concerned, evidence is emerging to suggest that may indeed be what is needed.

A survey of contractual documents written in the light of the Construction Act has allegedly thrown up 50 examples that contravene either the letter or the spirit of the law. The evidence has been collected by the Confederation of Construction Specialists, and points the finger at some of the largest main contractors, and one of the largest solicitors.

A central feature of the Construction Act was to ensure prompt and fair payment for those towards the lower reaches of the food chain. Since May, subcontractors were supposed to know what they were due and when they would get it.

The clauses cited seem to contain a variety of ruses to extend payment times and limit access to adjudication. Not what the Act envisaged - far from cleaning up contractual relationships, some of these introduce ambiguity that could be more deleterious than the infamous pay-when-paid clause.

As luck would have it, construction minister Nick Raynsford promised specialist contractors last week that he would tighten up the legislation if they provided evidence that it was not working.

The CCS has already vowed to take him up on the offer. The more mainstream Constructors Liaison Group is also compiling a dossier, to be submitted next year.

But the Government cavalry is not about to come charging over the hill. The legislation will not be reviewed until the year 2000 - rather late to help specialists already under pressure from an impending downturn.