In 1993, The UK Government commissioned the Latham Report…

No, it didn’t. It is interesting and somewhat irritating to read this phrase over and over again in the construction management and construction law literature. It is a huge over-simplification, somewhat inaccurate, and completely misses the context of the events that lead to the Latham review of certain issues in the construction industry. 

First, as pointed out by Cahill and Puybaraud (2003, p146), this was a personal and independent report by Latham, representing his own views. Therefore, it would be more accurate to represent this as an independent review, rather than a government review of the industry. I need to chase down the magazines from the period leading up to the Latham Review, because my recollection is that Building magazine was campaigning for some years to get a new review of the construction industry carried out. Eventually, a group of industry organizations agreed that this was something that would be useful, and once they were on board, the Department of the Environment then agreed to contribute funding and support. In the Foreword of this report, Latham declares clearly, “This has not been a Government Review of the industry. It has been a Report commissioned jointly by the Government and the industry, with the invaluable participation of clients”. He goes on to say that this “is the personal Report of an independent, but friendly observer”. 

The full title of the report is rarely cited: “CONSTRUCTING THE TEAM by Sir Michael Latham. Final report of the government/industry review of procurement and contractual arrangements in the UK construction industry”. It is also of interest to review what was recorded in parliament about this review, on 5th July 1993, as reported in Hansard, Volume 228, Col 4: 

Mr. Baldry: I have today chaired a meeting of representatives of the construction industry at which it was unanimously agreed to appoint Sir Machael Latham to undertake a review of procurement and contracting arrangements in the construction industry. We want less litigation and conflict and more productivity in the construction industry. Sir Michael will begin work later this month and complete the review within 12 months. An interim report will be produced by the end of the year. Sir Michael will be assisted by a number of specialist assessors who will channel the views of their respective organisations. Where appropriate, groups of client and contracting organisations will stand behind the assessors and provide representative opinion on key issues. The review will be jointly funded by the Department of the Environment, the Construction Industry Council, the Construction Industry Employers Council, the National Specialist Contractors Council and the Specialist Engineering Contractors Group. It will be closely supported by a number of other bodies, in particular the British Property Federation and the Chartered Institute of Purchasing and Supply. The terms of reference of the review, which have been placed in the Library, require Sir Michael to consider the current procurement and contractual arrangements, and the roles and responsibilities of all participants in a contract. Sir Michael's objective will be to present recommendations to Government and other bodies about practical reforms to reduce conflict and litigation and to encourage productivity and competitiveness. 

So, after years of pressure from the industry, an independent review finally got the support needed to go ahead. Obviously, the participation and support of government was essential. But this does not make it a Government Report, in my view! 

References 

Cahill, D and Puybaraud, M-C (2003) Constructing the Team: The Latham Report 1994. In: Murray, M and Langford, D (eds), Construction reports 1944-98, Blackwell Science, Oxford, pp145-160. Hansard 

HC Deb. vol.228 col.4, 5 July 1993. [Online]. [Accessed 19 Aug 2020]. Available from: https://www.parliament.uk/