§ 30. Mr. Whiteheadasked the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has now had upon the subject of firm price tendering; and if he will make a statement.
§ Mr. AmeryI would refer the hon. Member to the reply which my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State gave my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Mr. Tilney) on 18th October.—[Vol. 823, c. 77–8.]
§ Mr. WhiteheadIs the Minister at all concerned with the present rate of bankruptcies in the building trade, which in part at least stems from the difficulties which come when a firm has to make a low tender under the system and is then caught out by rising costs and prices?
§ Mr. AmeryI have asked the associations with which the main building firms are connected to let me have any evidence of bankruptcies or liquidations directly attributable to the system. No such evidence has yet been forthcoming on any serious scale.
§ Mr. AllasonNow that the C.B.I. has agreed to a limit of 5 per cent. price increases over 12 months, is not is unreasonable to require a limit on tendering for 24 months? Will my right hon. Friend consider reducing the period to 12?
§ Mr. AmeryI have given serious consideration to the matter already. My primary duty is to protect the interests of taxpayers and ratepayers as well as local authorities and the Central Government in their building programmes. I have not yet had any clear evidence that the industry is suffering any serious injury from the present policy. Indeed, it may have helped to increase its productivity and efficiency.
§ Mr. John SilkinWill the right hon. Gentleman abandon his untypically doctrinaire approach to the matter and realise that at a time when price rises are greater than they have been for a long time, and when those rises are unpredictable, to expect a firm price contract of two 'Wears is to risk excessively high tendering, liquidation or shoddy workmanship.
§ Mr. AmeryI have no clear evidence of either liquidations or inflationary tendering due to the present policy. If there were clear evidence of either phenomenon on a large scale we would review the policy. I am keeping the policy under constant review anyway.