好色先生TV

Last week the coalition government basked for a second or two in the glow of a piece of good news: a quarterly growth figure that was twice as strong as the City was expecting. The cause, it seemed, was a booming construction sector. Hang on, did you say 鈥渂ooming construction sector鈥�? Well it is booming according to the Office for National Statistics. The ONS says construction output has risen 13.5% in six months - an annualised growth of 27%, which is twice as rapid as any year since the end of the war. It now sits just shy of the peak of output recorded in early 2008.

The trouble is, few people believe this. Construction economists have signalled their concerns to the ONS, which is looking into the issue, and will publish its conclusions next Friday. Greg Fitzgerald, the chief executive of Galliford Try, sums up the mood: 鈥淚t doesn鈥檛 chime with what we鈥檙e seeing on the ground out there.鈥�

Most economists accept that the industry has experienced a bounce back since 2009, when output fell an unprecedented 10.6%. This was owing to last year鈥檚 rebound in housebuilding, growing demand for high-spec London offices and the injection of billions of pounds of government money into construction. So, despite the early coalition decisions to put billions of pounds worth of schemes on hold, as well as scrapping most 好色先生TV Schools for the Future projects, this money is still in the system.

James Hastings, construction economist at Experian, says: 鈥淭here are reasons why the second quarter could have been a good one: Crossrail getting going, the fiscal stimulus and the rebound of work after things were delayed by the particularly harsh winter.鈥�

But is that a full explanation? Despite the sense of some bounce back, eyebrows were raised when the ONS said in July that its preliminary construction growth figure was 6.5%. Concerns mounted as it twice revised this upwards. It now says growth was 9.5% in the second quarter and 4% in the third.

So, in just six months, the fall experienced in 2009 was wiped out. Even if you compare this with previous boom periods, it is still abnormal - during the whole of the past decade, annual growth was never more than 5%. In the 1987 boom, it only reached 11.6%.

Noble Francis, economics director of the Construction Products Association (CPA), says: 鈥淭he problem is, it鈥檚 just not reflecting any of the trade surveys that we or any of
the other trade bodies do. It鈥檚 not reflecting what鈥檚 happening in the industry.鈥�

Surveys by the CPA, the Federation of Master Builders, the Civil Engineering Contractors Association, the RIBA and the RICS show a mixed picture, but nothing like the boom indicated by the ONS.

The controversy follows changes in the way statistics are compiled by the ONS; this affects those surveyed, as well as parts of the survey itself. Tony Crook, who is responsible for the figures at the ONS, says he is looking into the issue and is 鈥渃lose to making a decision鈥� on whether further changes will be made. He says he is investigating whether there have been errors in the way outlying responses are modelled.

Any downward revision could wreck the government鈥檚 GDP figures: construction accounted for half of GDP growth in the second quarter and more than a quarter in the third. But it could help construction to lobby the powers that be. As Francis says:

鈥淚f the government thinks the sector is booming, it makes it difficult to make important points about what the industry needs. Most importantly, it affects the government鈥檚 whole view of whether we鈥檙e experiencing economic recovery and what response is needed.鈥�

Indeed, there has already been talk of last week鈥檚 figures making a further quantitative easing less likely. Getting the wrong data could make it difficult for the industry to advance arguments for more investment to keep it healthy. If there are problems with the data, we need to know sooner rather than later.

The sceptic

James Hastings, head of construction futures, Experian

At the moment, even if you factor in a significant fall in the fourth quarter, the Office for National Statistics figure doesn鈥檛 seem to gel with what we鈥檙e hearing. At a recent suppliers conference, I asked people who believed the data to put their hands up. Just 25% thought it fitted their experience.

It鈥檚 difficult to pinpoint, but we have concerns that the changing methodology may have affected things.

My best guess is that the original growth estimate for the second quarter could have been right, at 6.6%, and that the third quarter could have been flat.

The optimist

Simon Rawlinson, head of strategic research, EC Harris

Yes, the figures do look surprising, but you have to remember we had a substantial rise in new orders last year, what with the upturn in housing and the BSF gearing up. And although much BSF has been cancelled, the amount of work still going on is huge and, because the industry鈥檚 been gearing up for it, it probably doesn鈥檛 recognise it.

Also, remember it鈥檚 growing from quite a low base. The fall last year was so big that there鈥檚 spare capacity, so a lot of growth can be absorbed without spotting it. There is conflicting data, but I don鈥檛 have any basis to dispute the ONS figures as of today.