ºÚ¶´ÉçÇø

I am a great believer in leading by example, practising what we preach, and all that kind of thing. Translate that into my role as minister for construction and it means quite simply that government itself should be an awful lot better at doing what it says others should do.

The government, in one form or another, represents 40% of the construction client base in this country. That gives us an awful lot of ability to influence the standards that are set. But can it really be claimed that everything done in the name of government meets the standards that we ask others to aspire to?

I made this point recently in a speech to the Construction Products Association in the context of the huge investment in public infrastructure that the spending review has confirmed will take place over the next few years. More schools, more hospitals, more houses, more of just about everything. But how well placed is government, as client, to get the maximum number of bangs for the taxpayer's buck?

Every corner of government – national, local and quango – needs not only to have heard of the Rethinking Construction agenda, but to practise as much of it as possible. We need the maximum level of standardisation, compatible with good design and specific project needs, that each new building will allow.

I am particularly anxious to get across the message that government is looking for – nay, demanding – that contracts should be awarded on the basis of whole-life value. The days when local authorities and other public bodies were simply expected to take the cheapest on offer are now gone. I wonder how widely that message has been understood? The country is littered with public projects that went to the lowest tenderer, ended up far over contract price and then ran up continuing bills because they had been shoddily and inadequately executed in the first place. The lesson here is that lowest tender does not necessarily equate to best value.

Another area in which the public sector has to do consistently better is design. To put it mildly, not every public building is a triumph of either aesthetics or efficiency. Yet there is no reason why this should be the case. We should be producing flagship buildings in every community rather than the lazy products of a lowest-common-denominator bid. The Victorians understood that, and so should we.

The days when public bodies were simply expected to take the cheapest contracts on offer are gone

This requires a significantly enhanced vision of the public sector's role – and also a number of practical steps as set out in Rethinking Construction and Accelerating Change. Earlier this month, I announced the introduction of a design quality indicator as part of the Better Public ºÚ¶´ÉçÇøs initiative. The purpose of the DQI is to ensure that there is shared understanding of design issues from the very earliest stage of a project. Architects and clients should be working together to improve the quality of buildings through good design, enhancing their future use.

I now expect all public-sector projects to incorporate these principles. If they do, then government will be leading the way as a construction industry client. We will also be maximising the value of what we are asking the taxpayers to fund, and improving the environment in which current and future generations live and receive public services.

The point about initial costs not reflecting the ultimate cost to the taxpayer was well illustrated when I visited the Isle of Wight recently. Henry Boot is engaged in a heroic effort to virtually rebuild the island's St Mary's Hospital, including provision of a stainless steel roof, while keeping business as usual in the wards below.