I set up my own company three years ago and - as I have always believed to be the case - found that it is the responsibility of the company itself to encourage good working practice.
For the NASC to imply that if you do not use its members you may compromise standards is unfair and misleading.
At a time when clients call the shots, every project that we are involved in has been re-bid and the lowest bid wins.
To suggest that being an NASC member excludes you from the price war is unfounded.
The reality of the criteria of becoming an NASC member is that 75% of your workforce have to be directly employed. At present, my own workforce is 40% direct, reduced in the past year from 90% due to fluctuating workloads and uncertain times.
I'm in favour of tighter regulations and a governing body for scaffolding to increase standards and better education of our industry, but in terms of safety non-members are no more dangerous than members.
I would become an NASC member to raise industry awareness and increase our tender opportunities - but not for greater safety regulation or to encourage higher pricing and increased staff salaries.
Mark Gainham,
Managing director
SBBS Building & Scaffolding
So the decisions to fine a pair of grandparents £45,000, a Yorkshire couple £29,000, and an Essex man £103,000 may suggest the authorities are finally cracking down on the criminal element.
But far from having committed some heinous crime, they all have one thing in common; they are in the construction industry. Their only offence was to offer regular work to CIS4 card-holding subbies.
To my mind, it is a scandal that such massive fines are being levied against a hard working community. Rather than being encouraged, their very existence is increasingly threatened by a taxation directive that has been designed to raise revenue - in much the same way that speed cameras operate.
To make sure you don't unwittingly place yourself in line for a nasty surprise, be aware of one of HMRC's more cynical ploys.
When the Revenue is considering a status investigation, subbies are frequently invited to attend an 'informal' meeting to discuss their working arrangements.
The operatives are reassured they are not under investigation, but make no mistake, HMRC is looking for anything that helps them build a case against contractors, who could then find themselves involved in a lengthy investigation, which often ends in a huge fine.
I suggest you alert your subbies to the fact these 'informal' meetings are nothing of the sort.
Richard Crisp
Sales director
Hudson Contract Services
While we can lobby these big companies to restrain from late payment, it is the smaller suppliers that actually hold the power to stop it happening.
The question is: what type of business do you want to be? One that holds on to its values and sticks to the principle of fair payment in order to weather the current storm? Or one that goes bust as a result of trying to manage an impossible cashflow situation?
The Fair Payment Campaign launched by NSCC last year gives SMEs within the supply chain the ability to achieve certainty of payment, 30-day payment terms, and the end of cash retentions.
And we can't let the progress made so far slip away at a time when fair payment is more important than ever. We need to test the resolve of the government's commitment to fair payment throughout the supply chain. If all businesses that want to realise fair payment practices stand firm, they will be much better placed when the market recovers.
The SMEs that make up the supply chain are the construction industry. Without their skills, knowledge and workforce, there is no industry and we should not forget that when it comes to payment.
For guidance, practical tools and tips for getting paid on time, visit the NSCC's dedicated website.
Suzannah Nichol MBE
Chief executive
NSCC
But the 'specialist' construction industry must come together and resist such aspirations.
It is a generally held view that our industry is driven by the majority-contracting side of the construction industry, and that major contractors fail to understand the needs of the specialist sector.
The Construction Confederation would have us believe therefore that it is there to set the agenda and the rest of the industry, which does somewhere in the region of 80% of the work, should recognise its position in the supply chain and dutifully follow its lead.
The Strategic Forum's safety group must not be allowed to move in on CONIAC. Otherwise it risks becoming another closed shop for mainstream contractors, hell-bent on telling the specialists how to do their job.
The National Association of Shopfitters is by no means the sole arbiter of standards within the overall sphere of construction. But what is certain is that CONIAC must be saved. It successfully joins up the dots of the whole industry and demonstrates that intelligent thinking exists outside the square mile of Westminster.
Robert Hudson
Director
National Association of Shopfitters
Shopfitting Independent Training Forum
A PAYE umbrella scheme pays much of a worker's payment as travel expenses or for meals and tools, but workers become employees of the umbrella company and so normal benefits and expenses rules apply.
When a place of work is not a temporary workplace, a worker's travel and other costs become normal costs payable out of taxed income.
What is not understood is that when payments are treated as expense payments, these do not count towards gross pay for calculating the national minimum wage. Neither is holiday pay.
Clients and principle contractors are responsible for checking compliance in the supply chain, but it is still unclear to what extent they could become liable if workers are found to be improperly employed.
HMRC is actively seeking law breakers and is able to impose fines of up to £5,000 for each offence. When the net closes, the taxman will recoup millions, without having to issue demands and challenging appeals on what constitutes a temporary workplace. But at what cost to an already beleaguered construction industry?
Carolyn Walsh,
Director
CW Construction
But with so many schemes available, the challenge lies in accreditation bodies reaching an understanding to persuade more firms to adopt this approach. Some pre-qualification service providers are currently working with the Health & Safety Executive to this end.
If it isn't achieved, frustration over unnecessary duplication could lead to a loss of credibility for pre-qualification providers, which would be bad news for the industry.
In addition to mutual recognition, it is important that an independent awarding body is established to certify the quality of accreditation service providers. This would enable the HSE to endorse those schemes which meet the required level of competence, quality management and service delivery.
While large numbers of contractors and users of their services benefit from third party accreditation, many in industry still doubt the value of such schemes.
Leading accreditation providers must do more to demonstrate the real benefits of these schemes to the client and contractor market. Apart from the role accreditation plays in preventing accidents, it can save clients and contractors a lot of time that would otherwise be spent in multiple vetting processes. Mutually recognised standards would save both time and money for industry.
Darran Hughes
Operations director
SAFEContractor
Why are they doing it? It's simple - it's because, in this climate, they can. By taking advantage of the current fears, born of the credit crunch, larger companies can withhold payment for the maximum amount of time, safe in the knowledge that their suppliers will 'put up and shut up'.
While the FSB are busy naming and shaming the worst culprits, how can those lower down the food chain ensure they don't fall victim and become their clients' latest credit solution?
The answer rests with the issue of value. Those whose services are valued by their clients are less likely to fall prey to extended payment periods. The supplier, therefore, needs to better communicate his or her value and shout louder in their demands for payment. If still necessary, they should then exercise their legal rights and charge interest on any late payments.
The larger firms are playing an arrogant and potentially damaging game. Withholding payment is a sure way to build resentment which could colour the suppliers' performance and service delivery.
Chances are that if they do value the suppliers then so do the suppliers' other customers. If payment is delayed, these same suppliers may feel that they're better off taking their goods and services elsewhere next time around.
Andrew Russell
Joint managing director
Russells Construction
Yet last week, CJ reported that the government will act "to ensure nobody is falsely classified as self-employed", and in parallel, HMRC is consulting on tax relief for travel expenses for temporary workers, which could eradicate Umbrella companies.
]]> This appears to be an all-out attack on 'free agents' - the temporary, contract and self-employed workers who provide vital flexibility for UK businesses.This is no time for the government to victimise more than 5% of the workforce. The vast majority work legitimately and pay taxes, and there is enough red tape already to deter 'bogus' self-employment.
Furthermore, if any umbrella providers abuse the system, then HMRC must crack down on these - not on tax-relief for workers obliged to travel to many sites.
If becoming an employee is the only option, who will take workers on in today's climate? The dole or black market beckon.
Also, if 60% of the 120-plus Umbrella providers fold as a result, each with maybe 20 staff, that's 1,500 out of work and not paying corporation tax - a bigger burden for the Treasury than it could recoup by targeting temporary employment.
Instead, the government should encourage legitimate self-employment and prosecute 'cowboy' umbrella providers. This would reward the initiative of 'free agents', and deliver the flexible labour force companies need as belts tighten.
Steve Girdler
Director
Gabem Management
As of today, every building in the UK built, sold or leased needs an EPC and recommendations report, with penalties for non-compliance - yet the industry is unprepared.
The problem is that there is a shortage of people accredited to complete EPC reports for commercial buildings. There is already a backlog that needs signing off and this will only get worse.
Is this a new skills shortage? No. There are thousands of fully qualified engineers perfectly capable of producing the certificates. The problem is that to become accredited through a relevant scheme in England or Wales, each of these engineers, no matter how well qualified, needs to undergo two days' training - at a cost of £500-plus each. Yet in Scotland, professionally qualified engineers will be able to sign-off EPCs without any additional training.
South of the Border, it seems, we don't have the same faith in our engineers' abilities and instead must face unnecessary costs and complexity.
Backlogs for certificates will grow, putting yet more pressure on the property market. The government should step in to support those who already have the skills and experience to produce EPCs. Surely in the 21st century, it still means something to be a chartered engineer?
Jim Costello, Director, Hulley & Kirkwood
]]>This blame culture misses the point. The fact remains that increased rainfall patterns are set to continue and our antiquated drainage systems cannot cope. What really matters is that central government and the construction industry learn quickly from mistakes and fully grasp the need to embrace Sustainable Drainage Systems (SUDS) on new developments.
Both government and the construction industry have been talking about this for too long now with no action.
Government has failed to set out legislation that would change the way we manage and alleviate the pressures that unpredictable rainfall patterns place on our traditional drainage systems. Equally, our industry has been too conservative in its approach to using SuDS, often not understanding what systems can offer or how to install them.
The irony is that proven technologies like porous asphalt are widely available. Used as part of a wider SuDS programme they can manage excess surface water and reduce flood risk.
Defra's Draft Floods and Water Bill could hold local authorities responsible for surface water in their areas. This Bill could also eventually pave the way for more specific SuDs legislation.
Yet consultation on this Draft Bill is set for 2009. Our industry should not wait for this legislative 'kick-start' before it embraces current and effective technology.
James Freeman
National special products manager
Tarmac
This is a worrying increase and highlights the need to enhance traditional site security measures that are proving to be less and less effective in combating this serious criminal activity.
At a time when the industry is suffering a downturn in fortunes, these financial losses are hitting contractors hard. It is not only a financial burden that they create as well, as the theft of construction equipment can stall a project, add to clients' costs and lead to late completion.
Contractors need to create and develop a culture and attitude towards site security that is modern, relevant and forward-thinking. It is increasingly vital that a proactive approach to site security is taken, as this will improve the all round performance of the industry.
Taking advantage of high-tech security solutions such as smart cards and biometric recognition entry points is one solution to reduce the amount of theft of construction equipment.
Investing in high quality security solutions will in the long term save contractors money and make it harder for the criminals who are currently profiteering at the industry's expense.
Clive Williamson
Managing Director
Ocon Construction
However, this is already taking place and the success rate is excellent. Through the National Construction College (NCC) - the training arm of ConstructionSkills - we have been sitting down with employers to find out their skills requirements for particular projects.
For instance, our plant training centre at Eton Manor, which forms part of the Olympic site, is a temporary training hub, set up to provide bespoke training to meet the needs of the Olympic build. Run by the NCC, it has National Skills Academy for Construction status and is funded in partnership with the ODA, the LDA and the LSC.
More than 280 trainees have now passed their assessments since the site was launched in February, with a pass rate of 83%. The contractor gets what it needs, and the NCC is flexible enough to provide it quickly and locally. It's all about dialogue, and we urge more employers to get on board with us. In fact, some employers will come down to the site to meet informally to discuss training needs and it is this relationship building that is really making this process work.
Following the achievements of Eton Manor, the NCC will be opening another site in Newham soon, again to meet the specific demands of contractors.
Andy Walder
Director
National Construction College
Certainly the complexity of the current system doesn't help, with different consents being required from different authorities (the local planning authority, the Secretary of State or the Crown Estate) depending on the generating capacity of a project and whether it is on- or off-shore.
The Planning Bill currently before Parliament proposes a streamlined Infrastructure Planning Commission (IPC) to deal with generating station projects. This reform of the system is to be welcomed, isn't it? Well, up to a point. The thresholds adopted are such that there will be a three-tier system for on-shore projects with the IPC dealing with the largest cases (100MW+), the Secretary of State dealing with cases between 50MW and 100MW, and local authorities dealing with projects under 50MW. In addition, there will be a different regime for off-shore projects (involving the Marine Management Organisation proposed under the draft Marine Bill and dealing with larger off-shore projects).
The reforms may speed-up larger projects but, for many in the industry, confusion will still reign.
Nigel Hewitson,
Head of planning,
Norton Rose LLP
Can someone explain just how the main excavations and clean-up of a heavily contaminated inner city brownfield site were completed, the techniques and the criteria for plant selection?
Piling, foundation, pre-cast elements - all underway we are told - but surely professionals within the industry deserve much more in-depth information - or is it too technical for the organisers to comprehend, in which case remove the gags from the contractors and let them talk.
]]> There are many within the construction industry around the world with an interest in details of the construction techniques and methods used on the many London Olympic 2012 sites.Am I alone in noticing a trend over recent years in which clients for major projects impose a virtual news black out preventing reporting of site progress and techniques being used? Is the London Olympic organising committee following this pattern?
If so, they are doing the UK construction industry a big disservice, especially at a time when the industry needs to promote its engineering excellence. Most major construction works impose serious challenges for the contractors and engineers involved. So why aren't we reading about them?
The great engineers of the past - Isambard Kingdom Brunel, Thomas Telford, George Stephenson, Joseph Baseljet and many more - will be turning over in their graves at such news deprivation.
Roger Lindley
CML & Associates
Part E needs to be reviewed now, if only to resolve the issues with the testing conditions. Part E also sets out to protect residents from the transmission of sound from "normal domestic activities".
So why are products and sites tested in unloaded conditions that in reality represent an unfurnished and unoccupied space?
]]> It's not only testing that is failing. With the prevalence of cheap products on the rise, sites are meeting Part E initially, yet failing within a short space of time. The existing regulations reference the lifespan of products but are too vague. Part E should be tightened with regards to the lifespan of acoustic products, but more importantly for performance levels, too.The Scots, however, might just be on to something. Plans indicate that Scotland is almost certain to have more robust Building Regulations than England and Wales, with the revision of the Technical Handbook, Section 5. Stringent performance levels of 56dB for both airborne and impact sound are likely for new-build projects, setting the benchmark for sound standards.
So for England and Wales, now is the time to make the adjustment. Not 2016, when we'll be looking at a radical overhaul, rather than a natural progression.
Paul Absolon
CMS Acoustics