Elsewhere in this issue you will read that the Privy Council has been unable to accept the changes to the Charter and Bye-Laws that were proposed by Council and approved by a majority of voting members. It appears that the main sticking point was that two organisations objected to the adoption of the Chartered Mediator qualification.

Two points spring from this latest announcement. The first is to wonder if discussions were entered into with other organisations in our field, including these objectors, before final proposals were formulated and put to the members. The second, and more tongue in cheek one, is to wonder why mediation between mediators about the qualifications for mediators did not work? Answers please on a postcard (or email).

I can remember adjudication before the HGCRA. Its main use in construction, and the one that Sir Michael Latham commended in his original report that lead to the HGCRA, was in the New Engineering Contract (NEC, now renamed the Engineering and Construction Contract, ECC), produced by the Institution of Civil Engineers. There are many within our industry that argue that the adjudication we have ended up with now under the Act and the Scheme has lost many of the advantages that the original NEC adjudication procedures had. They argue that it has become too cumbersome and legalistic and has been taken over by the lawyers.

Another strand of thought argues that it is not legalistic enough and that too often mistakes are made because of the speed at which it is undertaken. It does not provide true justice. Those of you of this persuasion will have your opinion strengthened by the puzzle for arbitrators elsewhere in this issue.

One thing is for sure; its use has become very popular, especially amongst what many would call the “forgotten heroes” of the construction industry, subcontractors. Some would argue that is because it has become what arbitration should have become. It provides a quick and cheap method of moving money down the supply chain and redressing the balance in bargaining power between those that have the money and those that should have it.

I have heard it said that arbitration in the construction industry for disputes below £100,000 (some would argue £200,000) is just not cost effective. If that is the case then it is a sad indictment of our profession. Even if it not the case the fact that so many of our potential clients have that impression is just as sad. It is therefore little wonder that adjudication is proving so popular.

The previous issue of News and Views was my first as Editor. It was greeted with thunderous silence. No letters, no answers to the puzzle, no disagreement with the editorial or articles. Nothing.