§ 20. Mr. Donald Williamsasked the Minister of Public Building and Works 1066 what is the present annual cost to the construction industry of the selective employment tax.
§ Mr. John SilkinAbout £155 million is paid by the construction industry.
§ Mr. WilliamsWould the Minister not agree that with these charges, taxes, levies and duties, it is costing about £6 per man per week to get him on to the site and that as a result there has been a reduction in output in the industry and an increase in the number of self-employed?
§ Mr. SilkinThe hon. Gentleman may be aware that before S.E.T. came into existence in 1966 the number of self-employed people was increasing at the rate of 10,000 a year. The figure in 1966, which I quote from memory, was 175,000. Therefore, we cannot blame S.E.T. totally for the situation. It is certainly not true that S.E.T. accounts for £6 a week.
§ Mr. AshtonWill the Minister examine the cost of S.E.T. in terms of the percentage that goes on to building?
§ Mr. SilkinYes, I would say that in a full year it adds a little less than 4 per cent. to construction costs.
§ 22. Miss Harvie Andersonasked the Minister of Public Building and Works how many members of his Department he has seconded to give full-time assistance to Professor Reddaway in his inquiry regarding the effect on the construction industry of selective employment tax; and whether they are primarily resident in Cambridge during their secondment, or in London.
§ Mr. John SilkinNone, Sir.
§ Miss AndersonBut is the Minister not aware of the urgency of this inquiry? Was it not said in July of last year that additional help was required to give Professor Reddaway a chance to publish his important findings?
§ Mr. SilkinProfessor Reddaway has a number of staff, and their recruitment and deployment is a matter for him. I am satisfied that he is pursuing his inquiries energetically. He has secured the assistance of a former member of the staff of the Building Research Station, but when he may report is a 1067 matter for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
§ Mr. HefferIn view of the fact that one quarter of the income from S.E.T. comes from the building industry and that that industry bears one-fifth of the unemployed, is it not time that the whole question of S.E.T. as it affects the building industry was looked at speedily, and, indeed, abolished for that industry?
§ Mr. SilkinThe question of looking at S.E.T. in the building industry is being pursued, as has been said, by Professor Reddaway. It will be very important and interesting to see the result of that inquiry.