Economic Growth (Hansard, 11 May 1967)

§ 13. Mr. Dickens
asked the First Secretary of State and Secretary of State for Economic Affairs if he will give the average annual rate of economic growth now expected over the period 1964 to 1970.

§ Mr. M. Stewart
Not until the planning studies now in hand have been completed.

§ Mr. Dickens
Would my right hon. Friend accept that, based on the Chancellor of the Exchequer's Budget speech, and projecting the figures forward for the three years to 1970, we shall achieve an average of 2.7 per cent. per annum compound over the six years; and that this rate of economic growth is lower than in any other period over the preceding decade?

§ Mr. Stewart
I expect that my hon. Friend's arithmetic is correct, but it overlooks what my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer made clear; first, that this was a provisional estimate and, secondly, that he trusted that we should do better than this.

§ Mr. Marten
On what basis was the estimate made?

§ Mr. Stewart
On the normal forecasting techniques—[Interruption.]—but I would emphasise that this was given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer to the House as a provisional estimate based on certain assumptions. In my own speech on the Budget Statement, I developed the things that it would be necessary to do to help to improve on this estimate.

§ 14. Mr. Dickens
asked the First Secretary of State and Secretary of State for Economic Affairs if he will state the estimated percentage increase in economic growth in the calendar year 1967, compared with the calendar year 1966.

§ Mr. M. Stewart
I would refer my hon. Friend to the speeches of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer on 11th and 17th April.

§ Mr. Dickens
But is my right hon. Friend aware that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was characteristically vague on this point. He said that for the period to December, 1967, compared with December, 1966, there would be an increase of 3 per cent. That is rather a different thing from comparing a calendar year with the preceding calendar year. Would my right hon. Friend accept that the real figure for 1967 over 1966 would be 1.5 per cent.? Is this not utterly unsatisfactory, and should we not therefore end the period of deflation at once?

§ Mr. Stewart
I do not accept a figure like that. I entirely agree that the rate of growth is not at present satisfactory, but in his first Question my hon. Friend asked for certain figures which can be deduced from the Chancellor of the Exchequer's speeches. The real point is what growth we can expect in the future, and what measures we must take to that end. That is part of the planning exercise now being conducted.