HC Deb 24 March 1983 vol 39 cc1007-8
10. Mr. James Hamilton

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received about the effect of his Budget statement on unemployment; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Brittan

There have, as always, been a wide variety of comments on all aspects of the Budget, most of which have been made publicly rather than in the form of specific representations to my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Excehequer.

Mr. Hamilton

Will the Chief Secretary and the Chancellor of the Exchequer recognise that, faced with the worst recession since the 1930s and with 3.2 million plus unemployed, many living below the poverty level, the measures taken are a sham and will not, under any circumstances, solve unemployment, which is devastating for many people?

Mr. Brittan

I do not accept that analysis of the Budget. The vast majority of people will accept that, within a responsible fiscal framework, my right hon. and learned Friend has been able to put forward measures to assist the construction industry and to encourage small businesses. The measures have already led to further investment in the North sea. At the same time, the Budget has reduced business costs. I regard that not as a sham but as a substantial contribution to recovery.

Mr. Waller

Will my right hon. and learned Friend acknowledge the good response to the encouragement given in the Budget by his right hon. and learned Friend to company employee share schemes? Is he aware that there is sound evidence, especially from the United States, that companies with such incentive schemes perform better than those that do not have them and that they can offer better employment opportunities for the future?

Mr. Brittan

That evidence is, I believe, real. It is certainly a direction in which we want to move. I am glad that we have been able to take steps in that direction this year.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett

Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman accept that last week there was great bitterness in Stockport about the unfairness of the Budget towards the unemployed, but that this week there is even greater bitterness because redundancies have continued to rise, with 300 announced at Bowater in Stockport? Why did the Government not include in the Budget some help for what remains of the paper industry, through a favourable fuelling price?

Mr. Brittan

I am not pretending that the Budget was able to prevent every unfavourable development in every part of the country. On unemployment, there is no doubt that the measures to assist industry directly in the case of the construction industry, through the tax system in the case of North sea oil, and the encouragement of investment through the business expansion scheme, the reduction of the national insurance surcharge and the reduction in corporation tax for smaller businesses, are all supremely relevant to job opportunities.

Mr. Proctor

Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware of the considerable support given to his proposals for free ports? As these will entail considerable nurnbers of new real jobs, can he say how soon a free port will he established in the United Kingdom?

Mr. Brittan

I am well aware of the considerable interest in that aspect of my right hon. and learned Friend's proposals. I am not able to give any further information about dates at this stage.

Mr. Shore

The substance of the question of my hon. Friend the Member for Bothwell (Mr. Hamilton) was about the impact of the Budget on unemployment. Will the Chief Secretary now confirm that, even if the growth targets in the Red Book are achieved, the number of people out of work in Britain after his Budget and by the end of this year will be an additional 300,000 over and above the present 3½ million unemployed?

Mr. Brittan

I do not accept those figures at all. I do not believe, faced with what on any view is serious unemployment, that a useful contribution is made tc the discussion by presenting, as Opposition Members have consistently done, grossly inflated figures of the reality.