HC Deb 21 December 1976 vol 923 cc443-6
6. Mr. Wyn Roberts

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what steps he is taking to reduce unemployment in the construction industry.

Mr. John Grant

At 12th August, the latest date for which an industrial analysis is available, 193,818 people who last worked in the construction industry were registered as unemployed in Great Britain. This is estimated to be about 13.6 per cent. of all persons employed in the industry. Questions about the expansion of the construction industry should be addressed to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment.

Mr. Roberts

Does not the Minister agree that that is an appallingly high figure? In view of the evidence submitted yesterday to the Expenditure Committee, does he not agree that the Chancellor's latest measures will add considerably to unemployment in the construction industry? Why do not the Government come clean and estimate the increase in unemployment that will be caused by these measures?

Mr. Grant

The Government have come clean. I agree that it is a grave and serious situation, that there are bleak prospects and that we must face that fact. My right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury said that 20,000 people would lose their jobs by the end of 1977. I think that that is a correct estimate, although it is to be taken in the context of an overall economic package which my right hon. Friend the Chancellor believes will result in a net saving in unemployment next year. It ill becomes Conservative Members to make too much of these things, because we know that their policy would result in a much higher unemployment figure on a scale not envisaged by a Labour Government. We should bear that in mind when we observe their crocodile tears.

Mr. Heller

Will my hon. Friend accept from me that the statement he has made is an absolute disgrace? Is he aware that if he knew building workers personally, as I do, particularly on Merseyside—some of whom have been unemployed for nearly two years—he would realise that the statement he has made to this House, from a Labour Government, ought never to have been made? Is it not time that the whole policy for the construction industry was reversed so that the answer to the Question of how many workers from the industry were unemployed would be "None, Sir"?

Mr. Grant

I would have liked to be able to give that answer. I am sure that anyone on the Labour Benches would agree with my hon. Friend about that. It clearly is not possible in the present situation to give such a reply. As for my hon. Friend's remarks about meeting construction workers, my hon. Friend is not the only one to have met such workers, although I recognise his close connections with the industry.

Mr. Budgen

Would not the Minister agree that one of the best ways of remedying this disgraceful situation is rapidly to reduce the indiscriminate subsidies, now running at about £1½ billion a year, paid to council house tenants, so as to encourage those who can afford to buy their own houses to do so and thus provide work for unemployed construction industry workers?

Mr. Heifer

You want more cuts in public expenditure.

Mr. Grant

My answer seems to be coming from a sedentary position behind me. The hon. Gentleman knows very well that that is a question for the Secretary of State for the Environment and not for me.

Mr. Frank Allaun

Leaving aside the ridiculous underestimate which my hon. Friend has given, may I ask him whether he accepts the estimate given by the construction employers that one-third of the men in the industry will be out of work when these cuts go through? What is the sense in asking local authorities to create trivial, temporary jobs and at the same time making them dispense with the labour of thousands of men who are doing far more important work in house building? Will my hon. Friend, through his right hon. Friend, ask the Cabinet to have second thoughts on this issue?

Mr. Grant

The Cabinet took a great deal of time in considering this situation. I do not think that there is much to be gained by asking it to have second thoughts at this time. As for the estimated figures, the figure I gave was a rough estimate. On the other hand, I do not believe that it is ridiculous. It is based on quite sound calculations. I cannot comment on the estimate that my hon. Friend has given to the House.

Mr. Prior

Is the Minister aware that we on the Conservative side of the House need no lessons in the creation of unemployment from Labour Members, who know more about it than we do? Will he try to understand, and teach his colleagues to understand, that the way to destroy the construction industry is always to ensure that Government cuts fall on capital projects and not on revenue projects?

Mr. Grant

The right hon. Gentleman has to make a choice. Is he saying that Conservative Party policy would not involve cuts in capital expenditure, since that is certainly not the way we understand Tory policy? If Conservative policies were to be put into practice, there is no doubt that unemployment in this industry, and in industry generally, would be far higher than it is now.

Mr. Prior

The hon. Gentleman has asked me a question. I will answer it. Until the Government cut their revenue expenditure, there will be greater unemployment. The answer to the hon. Gentleman's question whether our policy would not involve cuts in capital expenditure is "Broadly, yes."