MPs and senior construction industry experts Monday night attended a dinner hosted by the Associate Parliamentary Design and Innovation Group and engineering consultancy Buro Happold. The purpose? To thrash out a tricky question: How to make good design a central concern to the construction industry.

The assembled worthies, seated around a very long table at the Institute for Civil Engineers in London and overlooked by portraits of engineering ancestors, were addressed by the Shadow Minister for Construction Mark Prisk(pictured above) and the Government's Chief Construction Advisor, before attacking the debate themselves over dessert and coffee.

The background: With some worthy and notable exceptions, the UK construction industry is accused of being resistant to change, motivated by cost, and adversarial in attitude. This is not only inconvenient, it is a major problem for a country with the massive challenge of meeting (legally binding) sustainability targets, in the midst of a recession, in the face of growing global competition. We are a small island, sinking in the wake of larger powers.

The APDIG assembled this group of concerned individuals with a view and leverage on the issue to try and identify a solution. Or, perhaps more realistically, a path towards a solution.The discussion was opened by Rod Macdonald, Chair of Buro Happold, who suggested that the construction industry has fallen behind others in its adaptation to the modern world and appropriation of technology. (Echoed later in group discussion with the rhetorical 'Imagine if Apple made schools?') Why, for example, has no-one designed a standard window that can provide decent ventilation, be secure when open, aesthetically pleasing and environmentally friendly? He continued to list industry standards (taps, doors, light fittings) that have not changed significantly since the Victorian era, admitting his personal obsession with these 'bits' of construction, that cumulatively cost so much and could be so materially improved.

Paul Morrell, Government's Chief Construction Advisor, began his address saying he was in danger of 'heated agreement'. Perhaps not ideal for a debate scenario, but promising for the future of the project. He cited the Carbon challenge as a real and terrifying motivator. Paul Finch of CABE picked up this point in a later comment about health concerns, historically, as drivers of change in building standards. Climate change is the biggest health threat of them all.

Bringing the political edge to proceedings, Mark Prisk MP, Tory Shadow Minister for Business and Enterprise, also former Quantity Surveyor, spoke about what he saw as the differing areas of public responsibility (procurement, regulation) and private responsibility (design leadership, interdisciplinary practice). He said that much current public sector practice and culture is not conducive to originality or efficiency on either side, but admitted a change of government might not bring instantaneous improvement.

Concepts bandied around in the ensuing discussion included questions of culture: how do we persuade the British public to demand more from, for example, their housebuilders? How do we lose the focus on cost? Can we move away from the notion that we are living in a post-industrial society? The current government has championed the UK creative industries, but, realistically, it is increasingly difficult to support a design industry with no manufacturing base. As well as the procurement challenge and the pros and limits of regulation, there were plenty of other --ations up for debate: commoditisation and standardisation (importantly not equivalent to 'sameness'), co-creation, integration, regeneration (or renaissance?), competition. And of course, innovation.

Associate Parliamentary Groups exist peripherally to Parliamentary activity, but they can play an important role in bringing together those from inside the Parliamentary bubble with those from outside, engendering open discussion and valuable learning in a non-political setting. This extra-curricular activity allows a real opportunity to inform and improve policymaking.

Such groups are not mandated to exist, in fact most keep going out of sheer stubbornness rather than any sound business plan. However it is a good thing that they do. With the caveat that for a discussion about design in construction there could have been a few more architects at the table, there was otherwise an incredible wealth of expertise in attendance. All seemingly in agreement that a nice dinner and a talking shop wouldn't cut it, there is now a plan on the drawing board, and an important project for the Parliamentary Group to get its teeth into.