7.36 The CIC's Discussion Document concludes, as does the EC/WS Atkins report, that about another 0.1% of UK construction output is required, or about an additional £40 million, in respect of construction research of general benefit and subsequent technology transfer. It examines various methods of financing such sums. There are precedents for levies for construction research around the world, including New Zealand, Belgium, Sweden and Florida (USA). In considering different options, the Discussion Document chose a charge based upon pay-roll, possibly collected by the CITB. This proposal for a mandatory levy to finance research is far from new. Similar proposals were put forward in the Woodbine Parish67, Muir-Wood68, Sallabank69, ICE70 and Derbyshire" reports between 1964 and 1992. The case is also persuasively argued by Dr Bransby in his Unwin Memorial lecture in April 1994 (see footnote 66) where he says that "it is an idea whose time has come". But not everyone agrees. The CIEC final report mentions "only limited support within CIEC for a research levy".
7.37 It is clear that voluntary contributions are not meeting the R&D need. But I doubt whether the CITB is the right vehicle for collecting a levy. The purpose of that organisation is training for the construction industry, not research and development. The CITBs role has always provoked some controversy, especially amongst smaller firms or those from specialist trades who feel they pay out in levy more than they can expect to receive back in grant. Significant sectors of the construction industry are outside the CITB scope. The CIC Document also suggests that consultants should be brought within the levy system, but accepts that their contribution needs further thought. Consultants are not within CITB scope either.
7.38 To raise the £40 million proposed by the CIC and EC/WS Atkins report for research and development would be a large task. It requires further study and debate. The Implementation Forum may wish to discuss whether that target is in practice necessary or realistic. The problem is not so much identifying the possible routes for a levy. That has been done in many of the reports and surveys already undertaken. The difficulty is to choose which of them will be:-
1. even handed between the different sections of the process, and fairly spread between them so that they can actually afford the levy; and
2. sufficiently robust to produce a large sum of money on a consistent basis, and with a widespread level of acceptance.
__________________________________________________________
67 "Building Research and Information Services", 1964 MPBW.
68 "Civil Engineering Task Force", 1981, SERC, DOE and DOT.
69 "Strategy for Construction R&D", 1985, NEDO.
70 "Construction Research and Development Reports", 1986-1992, ICE.
71 "Research and Development in the UK Construction Industry", 1990, Sir Andrew Derbyshire for NEDO.