§ 7. Mr. Peytonasked the Minister of Public Building and Works what progress he has made in providing an assistant for Professor Reddaway of Cambridge University to assist him in his inquiry into the impact of selective employment tax on the construction industry.
§ Mr. LoughlinWe hope that an announcement can be made shortly about this appointment.
§ Mr. PeytonPatience is all very well, but how long does one have to wait? How long has this inquiry got to continue digging and digging for truth, truth that is already very well known; namely that the selective employment tax is a damnable affair for everybody, particularly the construction industry?
§ Mr. LoughlinThe hon. Gentleman has a tendency to use exaggerated language and to get hysterical about things. The situation is simply that we have had to try to get the right kind of person to fill this appointment. Both the major organisations in the construction industry accept that Professor Reddaway is the right person under whom this particular problem should be investigated. We think we have the right type of person, but are not yet in a position to make an announcement.
§ Mr. Chichester-ClarkIs not this about 18 months too late, far too late, in view of the fact that the construction industry pays 25 per cent. of the yield from this tax?
§ Mr. LoughlinI appreciate that there has been a delay, but I can assure the House that there has been no dragging of feet so far as we are concerned. We have simply been trying to get the right person to do this particular job. We think we have now got that person, and we will make an announcement as soon as we can.
§ Mr. PeytonOn a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of that reply, I give notice that I wish to raise the matter again on the Adjournment.
§ 11. Mr. Chichester-Clarkasked the Minister of Public Building and Works whether he will now make a statement on the effects of selective employment tax on the civil engineering industry, and, in particular, on fixed price contracts without a fluctuation clause.
§ 26. Mr. Biggs-Davisonasked the Minister of Public Building and Works what representations he has now received from the civil engineering industry against selective employment tax; and what reply he has sent.
§ Mr. John SilkinI have nothing to add to the answer I gave on 10th June to a similar Question from the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor).—[Vol. 784, c. 1214.]
§ Mr. Chichester-ClarkWhat is the cause of the delay? It is only a question of basic justice. Can we get on with it and have a decision?
§ Mr. SilkinThe hon. Gentleman should not be more impatient than the Federation. Discussions are going on. As soon as I am in a position to give a definitive answer, I will.
§ Mr. Biggs-DavisonHas not selective employment tax been in existence now for three years? Should not the private sector be on the same basis as the public sector? Will the Minister assure the House that there will be no question of referring anything to the National Board for Prices and Incomes?
§ Mr. SilkinI can confirm that selective employment tax has been in existence for three years.
§ Mr. Biggs-DavisonWill the right hon. Gentleman answer the rest of my question?
§ Mr. SpeakerMr. Jopting. No. 14.
§ Mr. Joplingrose—
§ Mr. Biggs-DavisonOn a point of order, Mr. Speaker—
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. I have called the next Question.
§ 21. Mr. Speedasked the Minister of Public Building and Works in respect of how many building workers engaged on public contracts selective employment tax is payable; and what effect he estimates the tax has had on their output.
§ Mr. John SilkinThe tax is payable without refund in respect of about 65,000 operatives of public sector direct labour organisations and such of the 490,000 contractors' operatives engaged in public sector contracts. Between 1967 and 1968 output per operative rose sharply, but it is not possible to quantify the extent to which this is a conseqeunce of S.E.T.
§ Mr. SpeedCan the right hon. Gentleman say what benefit accrues to the public sector by having additional costs to the tune of approximately £80 million per year as a result of S.E.T.?
§ Mr. SilkinI should think that there were considerable benefits to the economy by the—I am not quite sure what the word is—aggregation of S.E.T.
§ Mr. Chichester-ClarkCan the Minister say how, for the purposes of refund, local authorities are expected to differentiate between their operatives engaged on new work and those engaged on maintenance, especially as the Government do not know what the benefit from the tax actually is?
§ Mr. SilkinThere is a considerable benefit from the tax. I should think that there was a very clear and general division between operatives employed on new work and operatives employed on maintenance—at any rate, clear enough for the local authorities concerned.