BUILDING INDUSTRY AND HOUSING PROGRAMME (Hansard, 5 July 1973)

§ LORD GARNSWORTHY
My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.

THE EARL OF GOWRIE
My Lords, the upturn of building activity in 1972, including, a high proportion of traditional house-building, has led to a big increase in the demand for craftsmen. The principal responsibility for training craftsmen rests with the industry itself. However, the number of places available under the Government's Training Opportunities Scheme has been increased considerably to meet the demand. The Scheme now provides about one-quarter of the intake of all skilled men in the industry.

§ LORD GARNSWORTHY
My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for that reply. But I wonder whether he can state the size of the building force as it is to-day and as it was in 1972, and compare it with what it was in 1966? Could he at the same time, having regard to future needs, give us the figures for the same years in regard to apprentices?

THE EARL OF GOWRIE
My Lords, as my original Answer implied, there was a considerable decline in building activity in the late 1960s, a decline for which the Government of the noble Lord's Party I think must bear considerable responsibility. I am glad to say there has been a considerable upturn in the number of apprentices, given that the main source of supply in the building industry has been its own apprenticeship scheme in the last year. The intake figure for the year 1972 was 27,388.

§ BARONESS SEEAR
My Lords, could the noble Earl tell us what forecasts were made about the skilled requirements that would be likely when the upturn in trade took place? It was obvious that the upturn would take place. As has been stressed on many occasions, it is 384 during periods of unemployment that it is most useful to launch training programmes so that people will be ready for the jobs when the upturn in trade occurs. Did the Ministry for which the noble Earl is speaking make such forecasts? If so, what were they and what has been the result?

THE EARL OF GOWRIE
My Lords, I can say "Yes" to the noble Baroness; the Department of Employment did make forecasts. I have not got the figures at my finger tips at the moment. If she wishes, I will let her know. I think the answer that I made to the noble Lord's supplementary question indicated that there was a very significant upturn in intake.

§ LORD LEATHERLAND
My Lords, as the figures the noble Earl gave, of houses completed in 1972, compared with those of the Labour Government, might have confused us, can he assure me that the number of houses completed in 1972 was lower than in any of the years when the Labour Government were in office?

THE EARL OF GOWRIE
My Lords, I am afraid the noble Lord, Lord Leatherland, did not hear in substance my reply to the supplementary question of the noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy. The figures I gave were connected with the increase in the number of apprentices in the building industry; they were not connected with an increase in the number of housing completions or starts.

§ LORD LEATHERLAND
My Lords, the original Answer of the noble Earl dealt with the question of houses and not with the question of apprentices. May I again ask whether it is a fact that the number of houses of all types completed in 1972 was lower than the comparable number in any one of the years of the Labour Government?

THE EARL OF GOWRIE
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Leatherland, is an old hand at trying to draw Ministers. In this case I refuse to be drawn. The original Question was to do with the number of skilled workers and not of houses.

LORD HAWKE
My Lords, are Her Majesty's Government aware that one of the grievances of builders is that having trained these apprentices they tend to 385 drift away to the public works contractors, where they can earn very much higher pay at semi-skilled work than they can earn in the building industry, and that the only remedy for this would appear to be to cut down some of the public works contracting going on in this country?

THE EARL OF GOWRIE
My Lords, I can say to my noble friend that the Government are aware of the unsatisfactory aspects of labour only sub-contracting, such as the avoidance of income tax and national insurance payments, and its effects on training, and we are considering action to suppress them.

§ LORD GARNSWORTHY
My Lords, may I return to the substance of my original Question. Since the noble Earl gave no figures in regard to the first supplementary I put in regard to the size of the building force as a whole, will he confirm or correct that there has been a reduction of something like a quarter of a million, and will he confirm or correct that in the South-East of England practically the whole of the labour force is contained in what is referred to as the "lump"? Has not the time come for an overhaul of the building industry, which consists of some 80,000 firms? As I understand it, about 75,000 of them do little or nothing to provide apprentices or opportunities for them.

THE EARL of GOWRIE
My Lords, as I remember, the noble Lord mentioned the year 1966 in his original supplementary. I confess that I cannot off the cuff go back that far. The figure I have for total construction places under Government schemes in January 1968 is 3,036. The figure that I mentioned and made much of, for January 1973, was 3,456; that is a significant increase.

§ LORD GISBOROUGH
My Lords, would the noble Earl agree that one of the reasons for the pressure of demand and inflation in the building industry is the fact that all the work under this excellent 75 per cent. grant has to be finished by next May, and would not an extension of that date to some extent relieve the pressure on the building industry?

THE EARL OF GOWRIE
My Lords, I will certainly bear that in mind and have the suggestion relayed.

LORD DOUGLASS or CLEVELAND
My Lords, I think I heard the Minister say that the Government were taking action to suppress the labour only subcontractors. Will he enlarge on that and tell us what the Government are doing in that respect?

THE EARL OF GOWRIE
My Lords, I can only enlarge on it to the degree of my original Answer. I said the Government are considering action along these lines; and in considering action, of course, the Government are aware that it would be both difficult and wrong to try to abolish self-employmenet in the construction industry, such self-employment contributing a great deal to the supply of our badly needed houses.

§ LORD DOUGLASS OF CLEVELAND
My Lords, with regard to that answer, can the noble Earl tell me what the Government are doing to suppress this practice inside the industry?

THE EARL OF GOWRIE
My Lords, I have tried to accommodate the noble Lord. The Government have action under consideration, but more than that at this point I cannot say.

§ LORD GARNSWORTHY
My Lords, it seems to me that the noble Earl was more anxious to make political capital that he was to face up to the problem. Is it not a fact that there is a decline, there has been a decline, there is no indication of a recovery in regard to the number of people engaged in the building industry? Will the noble Earl please give us rather more indication than he has done that the Government are intending to do something about the "lump", since substantial areas of the country are in the hands of this "lump", with the result that the quality of work is suffering, and there is very great need to introduce new blood to the industry?

THE EARL OF GOWRIE
My Lords, as regards the second part of the noble Lord's supplementary question, I understand that there will be a report on the 11th of this month in connection with the "lump" question. As regards the first part of the question, I cannot help it if the figures I have given make the point for this side of the House rather than for the noble Lord's side.