HC Deb 08 March 1978 vol 945 cc1407-11
6. Mr. Fry

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he intends to introduce proposals to nationalise building firms.

7. Mr. Arthur Jones

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he has had any discussions with private sector construction firms regarding their nationalisation.

10. Mr. Nicholas Winterton

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he intends to introduce proposals to nationalise building firms.

11. Mr. Lawrence

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what proposals he has to nationalise the construction industry.

14. Mr. Tim Smith

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he has had any discussions with private sector construction firms regarding their nationalisation.

16. Mr. Sainsbury

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what consultations he has had with building firms regarding social ownership.

Mr. Shore

I have no current proposals to nationalise building or construction firms; no consultations or discussions have therefore taken place.

Mr. Fry

Will the right hon. Gentleman come clean about his own views and intentions? Does he support the Labour Party's official policy? If so, has he costed that policy? Does he agree with the late Aneurin Bevan, who said that when we talk about nationalising the building industry we are really saying "Let's nationalise every industry in Great Britain"?

Mr. Shore

I advise the hon. Gentleman to read carefully the statement made by the national executive committee of the Labour Party that was presented to the last year's annual conference. If he does so, he will find the answer.

Mr. Speaker

I shall call first those Members whose Questions are being answered, and then I will give a run to the other side of the House.

Mr. Jones

I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman is very forthcoming on this question. Has he had correspondence with any of the major British contracting firms? I am thinking particularly of Laing, Wimpey, Wates and Taylor Woodrow. When considering nationalisation, what regard is being given to the overseas activities of such firms, which are extremely beneficial to the balance of payments?

Mr. Shore

I shall have to check whether, on this matter, I have had individual letters from the firms that the hon. Gentleman has mentioned. At present, I cannot recall. However, I understand his point about the great importance of the contribution that major construction firms play in the very large orders that are still to be won, and are being won, for British industry in the Middle East and in many other overseas markets.

Mr. Lawrence

Is the right hon. Gentleman telling the House that he has not carefully read the policy of the 1977 Labour Party conference on the nationalisation of the construction industry? Is it his intention to press for the implementation of that policy to be included either in the Queen's Speech or the next Labour Party manifesto, whichever is the first? If that is his intention, will he deny that the initial outlay will be £1,500 million and that the annual running costs will be £200 million in the implementation of that policy?

Mr. Shore

I think that I can safely say that I do not confirm the hon. Gentleman's tortured arithmetic. That apart, I say to him that I have read the document. It is a very good analysis of the problems of the industry. It identifies them in a serious way. As it states, it comes forward, as an interim report, with a number of proposed solutions. There will be further studies by the NEC—and no doubt with other bodies—before further decisions are made.

Mr. Sainsbury

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his reference to having no current proposals to nationalise will be severely damaging to confidence in the construction industry and, therefore, to investment and job opportunities? Will he now reassure the House that he has no proposals for nationalisation?

Mr. Shore

If the hon. Gentleman and and his party had said at a similar stage in the life of the Conservative Government that there was no current proposal to nationalise Rolls-Royce, the Conservative Government would have been safeguarding their position against all eventualities. Thinking does not stop when Members of Parliament become Secretaries of State, and the future of the industry is something with which I am much concerned.

Mr. Heffer

Is it not clear that the Opposition Members who raise these questions today have not read the statement made by the national executive committee of the Labour Party? Is it not also clear that the statement makes clear that the proposal is to establish a national construction corporation, based upon one or two of the major companies? The statement refers to the extension of direct labour organisations and the encouragement of co-operatives at the lowest level. This is not the full nationalisation of the industry. As the Estates Times has said about those who speak for the Opposition, they want to start doing something serious before they are to be taken into consideration on this issue. [HON. MEMBERS: "They have rumbled you."] They have really rumbled Conservative Members.

Mr. Shore

My hon. Friend knows better than most in the House what is in the document. As I understand it, he presided over the working party that produced it. However, I go slightly further than my hon. Friend. He wrote in Building Week only a short time ago that it may be possible to create a national construction corporation without taking over any contractor. I do not think that it is right for the House to judge any of these matters. They have yet to be concluded. They will be discussed and considered carefully.

Mr. Ron Thomas

Is my right hon. Friend aware that Opposition Members continually call for public expenditure when it will help the construction industry? Is he aware that many Labour Members believe that the industry depends almost completely on public sector orders and that the quicker it is brought into public ownership the better?

Mr. Shore

The matter that is of the greatest concern to the construction industry does not arise from the questions that the Opposition are throwing at us but lies in the overall demand that can be anticipated in future, in whether there can be great improvements in not only labour conditions, which are extremely important, but labour relations, and in whether there can be greater stability in the flow of orders from both the public and private sectors in future.

Mr. Heseltine

Does the right hon. Gentleman understand that his answer will confirm the worst suspicions of those who have watched the evolution of policy in the Labour Party? Does he also understand that his evasive answer has confirmed that in that policy there is not hostility to nationalisation and that it is simply a matter of timing, of when it can be introduced with the minimum electoral disadvantage to the Labour Party? Will the right hon. Gentleman understand that as long as that ambivalent attitude prevails on the Government Benches, investment will not flow and the present scandalous levels of unemployment in the construction industry will remain?

Mr. Shore

I believe that the hon Gentleman is in a state of almost permanent political neurosis on the subject of public ownership. I do not believe that any words that I can offer will help to relieve him of that unfortunate condition.

Mr. Skinner

Does my right hon. Friend appreciate that many Labour Members think that it is a pity that he said today that he had no further plans to nationalise the construction industry? Does he understand that one of the motives behind the Tories tabling so many Questions on this subject is that it assists them to obtain a number of directorships, bearing in mind the activities of the right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph) and his connections with Bovis? In view of the bankruptcies which have taken place in the industry and the dwindling number of directorships that are now on offer, obviously the Tories are running into serious problems and may even have to contemplate taking directorships of skateboard companies.

Mr. Shore

I appreciate that there is a close connection between a number of Conservative Members and particular construction firms. Whether that enables those Members to bring the necessary detachment to bear on the affairs of the industry or gives them added insight into these problems, I leave to the House to judge. In regard to future policy, I must point out that we have yet to have the kind of discussions that are normal within the Labour Party. If and when we make firm proposals on the construction industry or anything else, they will be made public and will be part of the agreed policy of the party.