§ 11.10 a.m.
§ Lord Graham of EdmontonMy Lords, I beg leave to ask the second Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
§ The Question was as follows:
§ To ask Her Majesty's Government whether the evidence given by Mr. J. Surr, Director of Special Employment Measures, Manpower Service Commission, to the House of Commons Select Committee on Employment on 26th February 1986 that he has been involved in discussion with building trade employers for the past six months means that such discussion has been confined to the Building Employers Confederation.
1387§ The Secretary of State for Employment (Lord Young of Graffham)My Lords, the Manpower Services Commission has had discussions about the operation of the community programme with representatives of the Building Employers Confederation and the Scottish Building Employers Federation. Discussions have also been held periodically with other organisations, such as the British Decorators Association, the National Federation of Painting and Decorating Contractors, and the Stone Federation. I understand that a meeting will take place shortly between officials of the Manpower Services Commission and the Federation of Master Builders.
§ Lord Graham of EdmontonMy Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that reply and also for his helpful letter on the subject, which I received recently. However, does the Minister not accept that, by the very nature of the community programme projects, the programme will rely heavily on the involvement of small to medium building companies? To that extent, does the Minister not accept also that it is crucial that the Federation of Master Builders be deeply involved in making the programme a success? Bearing in mind that the commission has already had discussions with the range of bodies that the Minister has outlined, will he assure the House that no firm action will be taken until there have been the discussions that he mentioned with the Federation of Master Builders?
§ Lord Young of GraffhamYes, my Lords, I am more than happy to give the noble Lord an assurance that nothing will happen before that meeting takes place, which I believe will be later this month. I should also say that I am not aware of any previous approaches by the Federation of Master Builders. I know of the federation's concern, and I am sure that we shall see to it that they are happy.
§ Lord Dean of BeswickMy Lords, I was glad to hear the extended list that the Secretary of State read out. However, does he not acknowledge that there is a glaring omission from that list, which is the Institute of Maintenance and Building Management? It represents the group of people who manage local authorities' own building departments and who probably, per capita of skilled men, train a larger ratio of apprentices for the building industry than anyone else. Will the Minister seriously consider asking for that institute's observations on the subject?
§ Lord Young of GraffhamMy Lords, I am sure that the list of those who might wish to give advice is almost inexhaustible. I can only respond to those organisations which approach me and ask for consultations. By that I have no wish to extend a general invitation to all, but I understand that those who have concerns will express them to me.
§ Lord MellishMy Lords, the Minister will be aware that the construction industry has a very proud record over the years of apprenticeship schemes for carpentry, bricklaying and so on. Can the Minister assure me that whatever happens in the future—and I recognise the efforts that are are now being made—will enhance those schemes and not destroy them?
§ Lord Young of GraffhamMy Lords, these are, of course, different types of schemes and have nothing to do with apprenticeships, which these days are funded to a large extent through the YTS. They are to do with helping those who have been out of work for a long time. Concern has been expressed by employers and unions that the growth of the community programme has been to an extent that it begins to jeopardise the volume of work available to small and medium-size builders. I am sure that all in your Lordships' House will appreciate the great desire and need that we have to find work for those who have been out of work for a long time. On the other hand, we must couple that with a desire not to create more unemployed by promoting such Government schemes.
§ Lord MolloyMy Lords, does the Minister not agree that what the building industry really requires is to be building something somewhere? The whole object of its existence is to build. Does the Minister not further agree that we need schools, houses and hospitals? Does he not therefore feel that the principles enunciated by Kenneth Galbraith and Keynes of spend and prosper, which now appear to have been accepted by the Tory party, might solve a great many of the problems which now afflict Britain's building industry? Let the industry be freed and encouraged to build.
§ Lord Young of GraffhamMy Lords, I suspect that there are some people in our society who think that the principles advocated by Keynes and Galbraith are responsible in part for the number of unemployed we now have in our society. I do not see that we necessarily need a larger number of schools when we see school rolls shrinking by 30 per cent. I do know that we need houses, and the private sector is building houses vigorously. Land is needed on which to build houses, and that is a principal constraint; but that is a long way from the Question.