§ 14. Mr. Sharplesasked the Minister of Public Building and Works, what discussions he has had with representatives of the brick production industries regarding the revised national target of brick production in 1970.
§ 15. Mr. Channonasked the Minister of Public Building and Works what discussions he has had with representatives of the building and construction industries regarding the revised national output target of those industries in 1970.
§ 16. Mr. Costainasked the Minister of Public Building and Works what discussion 922 he has had with cement manufacturers regarding the revised output targets of Portland cement in 1970.
§ Mr. PrenticeNone, Sir.
Any revision of targets must be considered as part of the planning operation announced by my right hon. Friend the First Secretary of State in answer to a Question by the hon. Member for Bebington (Mr. Brooks) on 10th November, 1966.—[Vol. 735, c. 341–2.]
§ Mr. SharplesWould the right hon. Gentleman agree that the National Plan spoke of an increase in brick production running at a rate of 3.8 per cent. per annum? Does he say that this figure still holds? If not, what figure does he now give for brick manufacture?
§ Mr. PrenticeI have recently had discussions on the Plan with leaders of the National Federation of Clay Industries. I cannot give a revised figure for between now and 1970 because it is not possible to give figures for brick manufacture or for the construction industry independently of the National Plan as a whole.
§ Mr. ChannonWould the right hon. Gentleman agree that, even when the National Plan was published, it was said that unless there were an orderly growth of demand, the figures in the National Plan for the construction industries would not be reached? Is it not time that the industry was told what is expected of it by 1970? Surely this is vital for building construction in this country?
§ Mr. PrenticeI want to do everything I can to give people in the construction industry, including brick producers, as much information as possible as quickly as possible. The question really depends on the date on which and the pace at which we can resume a more expansionist economic policy. We cannot consider one industry in isolation. Much depends on overcoming our balance of payments problems.
§ Mr. CostainDoes the right hon. Gentleman not appreciate that the one thing the building industry wants is confidence in what the Government say? The National Plan shows a necessity for 25 million tons of cement to be produced in 1970 and we are now reaching only 16,800,000 tons. Will the hon. Gentleman 923 assure the cement industry that, if it increases production to meet the Plan, it will not be in the same difficulties as the brick manufacturers experienced when they increased their production and were left with enormous stocks?
§ Mr. PrenticeThe figures in the National Plan, which was approved by everybody in this House—it was not simply the present Government's plan—have had to be looked at again in view of the measures taken following the crisis in July. It is time that hon. Members opposite took a more constructive and responsible attitude instead of trying to score cheap party points. These do not give them any credit with the brick manufacturers or anyone else associated with the construction industries
§ Mr. Chichester-ClarkDoes the right hon. Gentleman recall that his predecessor gave a forecast which was independent of the National Plan about bricks and that we remember what it was? It was disastrous for the industry.
§ Mr. PrenticeThe present excess capacity in the brick industry is a result of extra capacity decided upon and to a great extent laid down before my predecessor came into office.
§ Mr. ChannonIn view of the unsatisfactory nature of the answers, I beg to give notice that I intend to raise the subject at the earliest opportunity.
§ 17. Mr. Chichester-Clarkasked the Minister of Public Building and Works whether he will make a statement as to the more effective use of labour in the building and construction industry which is taking place directly as a result of the Selective Employment Tax.
§ Mr. PrenticeIt is not possible to separate improvements which result specifically from the operation of this tax from other factors which affect efficiency.
§ Mr. Chichester-ClarkWill the right hon. Gentleman stop standing on his head and look again at the National Plan and at the Parliamentary Secretary's statement that we were desperately short of labour in the construction industry? Would he also look at the "Little Neddy" Report which said that investment would fall off 924 as a result of S.E.T.? Would he also look at his predecessor's speeches and his own?
§ Mr. PrenticeThat is a wide supplementary question. There has, in fact, been a reduction of some 25,000 people employed in the industry in recent months. I should have thought that the operation of the Selective Employment Tax in encouraging firms to make more use of labour-saving devices would be a factor of which the hon. Member would approve.