Mr Brown's Budget statement included a reference to the creation of CIPER, a forum where top dogs from the construction industry and the government can talk turkey. But wasn't that why the strategic forum was created?
The government has finally woken up to the importance of talking to the construction industry about its programme of investment in public services. Last week, chancellor Gordon Brown signalled in the Budget that he wanted to set up a forum where the government and the industry could meet to work out how best to meet key strategic goals 鈥� such as helping Labour win the next election.

Brown's CIPER group 鈥� the name stands for Construction Industry Policy and European Regulation 鈥� will give the industry a chance to advise on the buildability, so to speak, of government policy. The likelihood of such a group being unveiled in the Budget was reported by 好色先生TV on 12 March in response to rumours flying around the Treasury, but it otherwise comes something of a shock to most of the industry.

Construction leaders have not had such access to the ear of government for more than 20 years, when the clandestine Dorchester Club was in operation. In those days, a small group of chief executives talked policy with ministers and top-grade civil servants in the Dorchester Hotel in Mayfair. At the time, the industry was in the government's confidence, and its power elite knew what was it was planning long before members of parliament. But once the Dorchester club ceased to exist, so did the industry's access.

Some construction leaders have given CIPER a chilly reception. Peter Rogers, the head of the strategic forum, was not consulted about the creation of the new body 鈥� despite holding a meeting last week with Nigel Griffiths, the minister for construction, and Elizabeth Whatmore, head of construction at the DTI. Rogers says: "It does worry me hugely that these bodies are being set up without any consultation with the existing bodies. To raise the profile of construction in government we've got to have focus, and this destroys that focus.

Government is a policy maker, a huge construction client and a regulator, so it鈥檚 crucial that we, the industry, have this voice across Whitehall

Rudi Klein, Specialist Contractors Group

"A lot of people give up a lot of time to work at the strategic forum. If this new body is supposed to be the focus of government policy, people will ask what the point is of the strategic forum.

I have to say it's very disappointing."

Yesterday, the leaders of construction's trade bodies were due to meet to discuss CIPER's remit. The meeting is seen as the industry's chance to get its story straight before the first official CIPER meeting with Whatmore (see Graham Watts, over).

Although both sides agree on CIPER's primary purpose 鈥� achieving the best balance between efficiency and regulation in a fast-changing economy 鈥� there are bound to be tensions between them. As CIPER is sponsored by the Regulatory Impact Unit of the Cabinet Office, the government is likely to want it to focus on regulations. But as the effects of regulation spill over into performance, efficiency and profitability, many in the industry see CIPER as a good platform for discussing those issues in the round.

It worries me hugely that these bodies are being set up without any consultation with the existing bodies. I have to say it鈥檚 very disappointing

Peter Rogers, strategic forum

Rudi Klein, chief executive of the Specialist Contractors Group, says the creation of CIPER is one of the most important boosts for the industry's lobbying efforts for many years. "At last the construction industry won't be surprised by the government's policy announcements," he says. "There can now be some joined-up thinking about how policy and regulations from competing government departments are going to affect the construction process."

It is this joined-up thinking that Graham Watts, chief executive of the Construction Industry Council, believes will be crucial. As CIPER is the product of a review by the Regulatory Impact Unit, he is hopeful that it will harmonise the impact of regulations imposed by departments with inconsistent priorities and European commission directives.

Watts says that CIPER will look at the significant issues of the day, from the review of the health and safety regulations to the effect of labour migration from the new members of the European Union. He points to the abundance of competing regulations that influence construction, emanating from lots of different government departments and Europe. Watts believes that CIPER will play a significant role in predicting problems and costing new regulations. "Gordon Brown believes he can save money building new schools and hospitals by having a group working across Whitehall 鈥� so be it."

Chris Morley, executive director of the Construction Clients Group, said CIPER would be an influential tool in relations between industry and government, and adds that the Regulatory Impact Unit at the Cabinet Office has a brief from Tony Blair and Gordon Brown to reduce the burden of regulations on construction. "The message to reduce red tape comes from the top."

Klein adds that the CIPER is crucial because the nature of government has changed so drastically in recent years. "Government is now a policy-maker, a huge construction client and a regulator, so it's crucial that we, the industry, have this voice across Whitehall."

Klein says that the group's first priority will be to talk to government about the sustainability targets that are due to hit the industry within the next few months. The government is likely to announce benchmarks for contractors on energy efficiency and construction waste on public sector projects, and it is important for the industry to influence the issue. "The government is finalising these plans now, so we need to be involved in the policy-making process," he says. "CIPER is the perfect vehicle to be able to influence the decision-making process before any new sustainability targets are imposed."

Rita Singh, head of environment and industry performance at the Construction Products Association, agrees that CIPER should provide a forum for the industry to stay on top of new initiatives such as sustainability and changes in PFI policy by meeting representatives from the big government departments.

However, many in the industry frown on the creation of yet another industry body and question what influence it will have. Apart from Rogers, Andrew Large, external affairs director of the Federation of Master Builders, is worried that the body will be old wine in new bottles. "It's too early to say at the moment, but I will have healthy scepticism about CIPER until it is clear what it will focus on." He fears there will not be enough experts around the table to make the debate productive. "Having focused dialogue with individual government departments, and with key people talking about issues, is often the best way forward." And he echoes Rogers' point that the industry already has a forum for dialogue between the public and private sectors.