§ 10. Mr. Grantasked the Minister of Public Building and Works what is his latest estimate of the addition to construction costs caused by the selective employment tax.
§ Mr. John SilkinA little less than 4 per cent.
§ Mr. GrantIf, as is expected, S.E.T. is raised in the forthcoming Budget to compensate for tax cuts elsewhere, will the Minister be prepared to defend such a decision to the industry which he is supposed to represent, as it pays £155 million a year already?
§ Mr. SilkinHypothetical questions do not even deserve hypothetical answers. Like hon. Members throughout the House, I await with considerable interest the Reddaway Report on the construction industry, especially after the report on the distributive trades.
§ Mr. AshtonIs my right hon. Friend aware that after the Selsdon Park conference there was a proposal to introduce a value-added tax on the building industry, which would involve much more than the 3 or 4 per cent. S.E.T. costs the industry?
§ Mr. SilkinI had heard something of the sort, and I think that I commented on it in the Supply debate on 26th February.
§ Mr. Chichester-ClarkDoes the Minister agree that one very serious cost resulting from the imposition of S.E.T. on the industry is the grave falling off in the indenturing of apprentices? What will he do to stop the seed corn of the future being eaten in this way?
§ Mr. SilkinI agree that a falling off in the number of apprentices is very undesirable. The hon. Gentleman relates it to S.E.T., but I do not entirely agree. When we consider the question of costs, against the figure of a little less than 4 per cent. we must take into account that during the years since S.E.T. was introduced productivity in the industry has risen by an average of 5 per cent. a year.