Future of HS2 project uncertain amidst Tory turmoil

Construction News often sends me well informed articles and I think this one, received yesterday, is of particular interest:

The government confirmed earlier this week that HS2 would continue, despite a damning House of Lords economic committee report. However, as I write this, rumours abound that the prime minister's position is uncertain once again, in the wake of another attempt to sell her EU withdrawal deal to MPs.

Unfavourable results for the Conservatives in tomorrow's European Union parliamentary elections, where the party is polling fourth according to some surveys, will just add to the pressure. And the implications on construction could be profound. A YouGov poll for The Times found that 57 per cent of Conservative Party members believed HS2 should be scrapped, with 32 per cent believing it should continue.

Given that these voters will likely choose the next prime minister, the future for the largest infrastructure scheme in Europe doesn’t look positive. At least £5.5bn has already been spent on the project and firms involved have lined up workers and equipment for the works. Bookies' favourite Boris Johnson, who announced last week he would put his name in the hat for a Tory leadership vote, is openly against HS2. Last year Mr Johnson told The Times: “There are transport projects we should have in the north of the country that ought to take precedence over HS2. “It’s crazy how long it takes to get east-west across the country.” Another potential Tory leader, Andrea Leadsom, told the cabinet last year that HS2 presented poor value for money and the funding would be better spent elsewhere. But not all leadership front-runners are opposed to the £56bn scheme. Secretary of state for health and social care Matt Hancock is understood to have given his backing to the delivery of HS2 on the condition that there is investment in east-west transport links in addition to high-speed line. Former Brexit minister Dominic Raab, whilst not clearly for or against HS2, is believed to want to assess if the project is value for money for the taxpayer. And with the rumours swirling against the prime minister, the prospect of another Tory leadership contest is rising. What's certain is that the next inhabitant of Number 10 will have immense power over HS2's future. Last week, Balfour Beatty said the workforce they had setup for its Old Oak Common station contract would be redeployed or made redundant if works didn't start soon. If the next leader re-establishes confidence in the project, support should be parallel with a clear start date to the main civil works.  If it were cancelled, it would be a huge blow for this industry but the money set aside for HS2 must be used on alternative infrastructure projects, which would allow the firms investing time into HS2 the ability to win work elsewhere.

Caroline Wadham, reporter, Construction News

Don't let the government off the hook for meaningless platitudes on housing

Tim Clark of Construction News writes some straight-talking updates for the sector and today's is no exception:

Is there any part of the industry that has seen more false dawns over the past decade than the housing sector?

I ask this following this morning’s unprecedented visit to the National Housing Federation’s annual conference by the prime minister, where she gave a speech making all the right noises. Theresa May got a standing ovation for a speech full of platitudes, faint praise, promises to understand social housing needs, and an announcement of £2bn in extra cash. Unfortunately, promises made on the stump are often too good to be true. While this announcement was billed as genuinely new cash rather than recycled spending, it still comes with a catch: the £2bn will only be available from 2022. Call me a cynic, but if a company chief executive stood up in front of their staff and said, “Great news: you’re all getting a raise… in four years’ time”, how many of those employees are going to whoop in delight? Following May’s announcement, how many development managers will call a meeting to plan how to use this new cash? None. Because there’s absolutely no guarantee this money will ever actually be available. You might as well place a bet on the 2022 Grand National. No parliament can bind its successor, and the PM’s promises today are empty because she cannot guarantee she’ll be heading up the government for the next decade. Right now you’d be brave to bet on May surviving beyond Christmas, let alone 2022. Even then, this £2bn has been pledged for a period of time for which departmental budgets have not even been set out yet. May knows that we can have no idea how this money will fit in with the overall social housing settlement for 2022-28, or how it will compare with the £9bn in total funding committed for 2015-21 – not to mention the pre-2010 level of £3bn-a-year. This all falls far short of the PM’s claims to be providing clarity for the social and affordable housing sector. Of course, the government has also broken promises before. At the NHF conference in 2015, the then communities minister Greg Clark struck a historic deal with the sector that opened up housing associations to right to buy. This meant HA stock was set to be sold off for the first time. The sector agreed to the plan because it feared what the then Cameron government would devise if it did not. The government promised that homes sold would be replaced on a one-for-one basis. New figures show this has not happened – in fact, fewer than a third of the 60,000 homes sold by councils since 2012 have been replaced, mainly due to lack of funds. It often feels that the housing sector suffers from a form of collective amnesia, happy simply to be given attention and lap up the warm words.  An announcement of real cash to build real homes right now would be welcome, but this is not it. We shouldn’t let the government off the hook for giving out meaningless platitudes.

Sneaky government statement reveals lack of action on Carillion

I receive regular updates from Construction News and felt this editorial was woth sharing:

The Carillion story so far… Liquidated with debts of more than £7bn. ‘Catastrophic losses’ passed on to 30,000 subcontractors. Stalled work on more than a £1bn-worth of major projects. And an estimated £200m cost to the taxpayer. MPs on the inquiry into the liquidation recommend an overhaul of the regulatory tools that let this happen, and suggest throwing the book at those responsible. The government’s response… A nine-page document published at 4:30pm on a sweltering Friday afternoon. This was the definition of sneaking something out. As if attempting to bury its response on the eve of the school holidays wasn’t shameful enough, the content was scant and was effective only in passing all responsibility to the regulators. For example, on the topic of director liability and punishment for failure, the government said the Financial Reporting Council, Insolvency Service and Financial Conduct Authority were working “to improve their current practices”. On the committee’s recommendation that it should beef up the FRC’s powers, the government’s response was that a memorandum of understanding had been agreed between the three regulators. But perhaps this should come as no surprise. Our leaders in Whitehall were all too happy to offer bold statements about Carillion and how its failure exposed poor corporate governance and inadequate accountancy checks. But when it comes to action? Well, apparently that’s for the financial watchdogs. It’s unlikely that the £16.8m in wages that Carillion directors pocketed will ever be recovered, although the government has the power to do so. But at the very least it could make an effort to stop another such fiasco happening again. What Carillion exposed was that there is barely anything to stop executives of failing construction firms paying themselves huge bonuses. Nor are there sufficient deterrents to the use of accountancy tricks to obscure huge debts – often affecting thousands of suppliers. The government seems happy to close its eyes and hope nothing like this happens again. It makes you think: what would it take for them to actually take action? Another Carillion? Another four Carillions? On the evidence of Friday’s response, you could have a hundred Carillions and the politicians would still refer you to the FRC.  Zak Garner-Purkis, news editor, Construction News

Construction & demolition dust should concern construction bosses

This piece by the acting news editor of Construction News LINK echoes concerns voiced by Wembley Central residents over dust from the demolition and construction  taking place in the High Road, Wembley.

A short walk from Construction News’ offices in Old Street, the refurbishment of the shop formerly titled Acme Electrical Co is well under way.

While the noise emanating from inside sounds like someone has captured a remnant of storm Brian, outside each passing breeze brings to life a dust cloud that wafts into the street. On the floor, plasterboard offcuts and old brick mortar are trodden into London’s pavements by commuters. It is a scene repeated across the capital. Almost everywhere you look London is busy building the latest version of the 2,000-year-old metropolis. Every new development, demolition or refurbishment comes with an issue that is increasingly on the minds of politicians and the public alike: air pollution. London’s mayor Sadiq Khan has woken up to the problem and is tackling it initially with the introduction of a new T-charge for polluting vehicles in the capital. But in calling for new government powers to tackle air pollution, the mayor also said that “non-transport sources contribute half of the deadly emissions in London” and urged a “hard-hitting plan of action”. There’s little doubt that controlling dust is a difficult problem for any construction firm. The fact that construction site dust has shot to the top of the political agenda – at least in London – should mean that construction firms now take note. However, it is not only the mayor of London’s air pollution plans that should cause concern for construction bosses. According to the Health and Safety Executive (HSE), respirable crystalline silica dust is the second-biggest killer of construction workers after asbestos. And, in an industry that records a death rate three times higher than that of other professions including medicine, dust is a serious cause of illness. Of course there are safety measures in place, but are they enough? Could they be about to be made tougher? And, if as a sector, construction is aware of the risk that particle pollution has for both staff and the general public, what is the culpability for failing to act? A number of years ago I was asked by a family to help trace the work history of their deceased father. The man had worked on hundreds of construction sites in London between the 1930s and 1960s - including prestigious schemes such as Wembley Stadium and Broadcasting House. Trawling through the London Metropolitan Archives as well as the back catalogues of titles such as Construction News and sister title Architect’s Journal, I was asked to look for one thing: evidence of asbestos. The fact that the original builders who had been the deceased man’s employer had long since gone out of business did not deter the legal claim that the family was looking to file decades after the event itself. The man had died of mesothelioma – a cancer that develops from asbestos fibres lodged in the lining of the lungs. The research request came as part of a call for evidence to prove culpability for the illness during the man’s career. The big question for the sector is: with the evidence of the health risks that particle pollution can cause, could there be similar legal issues in the decades to come?

Tim Clark, acting news editor, Construction News