HC Deb 24 April 1967 vol 745 cc1129-31
14. Mr. More

asked the Minister of Public Building and Works whether he will make a statement on the increase of productivity in the construction industry which has taken place solely as a result of the combined effect of the Building Control Act, 1966, and the Selective Employment Tax.

Mr. Prentice

It is not possible to identify increases in productivity due solely to Selective Employment Tax. Building licensing is not primarily intended to increase productivity but to ensure that resources are used for purposes which are socially and economically desirable.

Mr. More

Is it not clear that these two measures have brought about no good in the building industry and that the sooner they are abolished the sooner we shall have a programme which can really measure up to the industry's capacity?

Mr. Prentice

The answer to both parts of that question is, "No, Sir".

Mr. Biggs-Davison

If the Minister really wants to get output up, should he not swallow his doctrinaire prejudice and see that there is fair competition for contracts between private and public enterprise?

Mr. Prentice

I am all in favour of fair competition for contracts between public and private enterprise. I was not aware that this view was shared on the other side of the House, where there has been a lot of sniping at the direct labour departments of local authorities.

Mr. Maxwell

What increases in productivity does my right hon. Friend expect from the implementation of the Industrial Training Act? Would he agree that the sole reason for the very low productivity of the industry is that members of the Conservative Administration did nothing to encourage the industry to invest in training facilities?

Mr. Prentice

I would agree with what my hon. Friend has said. Improvements in the quality and quantity of training are the most important contributions that can be made to productivity. This is why I and every member of the Government attach great importance to the operation of the training boards.

Mr. Chichester-Clark

Does not the judgment of the Minister's predecessor in office as to the operation of these two measures together, namely, that they were bereft of reason when operating together, seem very apt in retrospect? Why does not the Minister make more efforts to get the S.E.T. removed from the construction industry?

Mr. Prentice

The hon. Gentleman is taking my right hon. Friend's remarks out of context. They should be studied in the context of the speeches in which they were made.