§ 10. Mr. Bellinghamasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is satisfied with the present level of growth in the economy.
Mr. Law sonGross domestic product rose by about 1½ per cent. in the year to the third quarter of 1984.
§ Mr. BellinghamIs my right hon. Friend aware that, because of this year's excellent growth rate, there has been a record net increase in the number of new firms? Does he agree that, if it were not for the highly damaging and totally unjustified miners' strike, there would be even better growth and less unemployment?
§ Mr. LawsonMy hon. Friend is correct. The coal strike temporarily dragged down our rate of growth during 1984. Had it not been for the strike, the growth rate in the year to the third quarter of 1984 would have been not 1½ per cent., but about 3 per cent.—equal to the highest increase in Europe. The coal strike is damaging jobs, investment and the economy. Fortunately, it looks as though it will not be too long before this damaging strike is over.
§ Mr. FatchettWill the Chancellor explain to the country why, if he has such faith in his own economic policies, his public expenditure White paper does not predict a decrease in the unemployment level, but predicts that during the next few years unemployment will remain over the 3 million figure?
§ Mr. LawsonThe unemployment figures in the White Paper are not a prediction. The figures cited in White papers produced by previous Governments were also not predictions. The figures are a conventional assumption for the purpose of calculating benefits and other elements.
§ Mr. HoltDoes my right hon. Friend accept that, although he may be satisfied with the present level of growth in the economy as a whole, that faith is not sustained on a national basis? What is my right hon. Friend doing for the north of England, compared with the south of England, to ensure that there is a greater stimulation of growth in the area?
§ Mr. LawsonI would, of course, be happy to see a higher rate of growth. I hope that that will be possible. I believe that it certainly will be possible as soon as the coal strike is over. It is especially important that we sustain the rate of growth, as we have done for more than four years. I shall continue to do that. I am conscious of the feeling in some parts of the north that people there have been left out, but I am convinced that the policies that are right for the United Kingdom as a whole are right for the north of England.
§ Mr. LofthouseWhen the Chancellor was in America explaining the growth of the economy, was he able to explain to the Americans that the miners' strike costs him between £90 million and £100 million a week, and did he say why he thought that was a worthwhile economic exercise?
§ Mr. LawsonThe Americans to whom I have spoken, and many other people overseas, are astonished that any 1122 trade union anywhere in the free world would maintain the proposition that uneconomic pits should be kept open, however large their losses.
§ Mr. SoamesDoes my right hon. Friend agree that no economic indicator is a replacement for a pro-business culture? Does he agree that we really need a much more vigorous and enterprising economy?
§ Mr. LawsonThat is correct. That is the secret of success. It is what the Americans have found, and that is the direction in which we in this country are going.
Mr. Ron BrownThe Chancellor has said much about uneconomic pits. How can he justify an uneconomic Government? Is it simply a matter of class rule, is it simply the bankers' ethic, or is it something special that he can explain to us? We listen to the right hon. Gentleman's diatribes week in and week out.
§ Mr. LawsonI suspect that the hon. Gentleman is referring to Johnson Matthey Bankers. My hon. Friend the Economic Secretary has already answered a question on that matter. It is certainly not the policy of the Bank of England to bail out any bank irrespective of the circumstances.