House of Commons Hansard Debates for 6 Jul 1992

Column 21

Dentists (Ballot)

3.31 pm

Mr. Robin Cook (Livingston) (by private notice) : To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make a statement on the decision by dentists, in a ballot, to withdraw in whole or in part from NHS service.

The Secretary of State for Health (Mrs. Virginia Bottomley) : We have already made it clear that, whatever the result of the ballot, we will take the necessary steps to safeguard NHS dental services. I regret the results of the ballot. In recent years, there have been considerable improvements in dental care. There has been a 43 per cent. real terms increase in spending on general dental services since 1979. I hope that dentists will not jeopardise this progress. I hope that no patient is deterred from seeking dental care by this action. Patients currently have, rightly, high expectations and respect for their dentists. I hope that they will have no cause to change that over the coming weeks.

Dentists are independent contractors. They will now have to consider carefully their next steps.

Dentists' pay is decided on the basies of recommendations by the independent review body. This year, we agreed to the recommendation that they should receive an 8.5 per cent. pay increase in full. To achieve the £35,800 recommended by the review body would have required a fee reduction of 23 per cent. We decided that a 7 per cent. fee reduction, with the introduction of prior approval for costly treatments, was a fair and reasonable way forward. This will give dentists an average income of about £41,000 this year. At the same time, we increased their allowance for expenses by 11.6 per cent. to more than £47,000, so that they will, on average, receive about £88,000, including expenses.

Patients will find it surprising that a profession which was prepared to accept £35,800 is now threatening to take action when we intend to pay them well over £40,000--substantially more than the review body intended.

All are agreed that the present system of remuneration needs a fundamental review ; I have asked the Minister for Health to take this forward. Detailed arrangements will be announced shortly. We must find a system that is fair to dentists, fair to patients, and fair to the NHS. We are monitoring the situation through the family health service authorities to ensure that NHS dental services remain available. We have reminded them of their powers to seek to employ salaried dentists if necessary.

Meanwhile, I hope that the House will agree that the fundamental review offers a far more constructive way forward than action to withdraw NHS services from NHS patients.

Mr. Cook : The Secretary of State expressed the hope that the current dispute would not affect patients. Are we to understand from her reply that, apart from that hope, Ministers intend to do nothing in the face of a decision by 80 per cent. of dentists to accept no more NHS patients?

Do not Ministers recognise that the current crisis is a direct result of their policy of increasing charges to patients while cutting fees to dentists? As the Secretary of State appears to think that dentists are better paid than ever before, will she explain to the House why they are leaving the NHS in larger numbers than ever before?

Column 22

I agree with the Secretary of State on one point. After the chaos created by the current contract, we urgently need a new system of dental remuneration, but how does she hope to get dentists to agree to a new contract if, on Wednesday, she proceeds with a cut in fees that breaks the existing contract? If she will not help dentists, will she at least help their patients? What is she going to do to guarantee the right of new NHS patients to dentistry on the NHS? The Secretary of State mentioned salaried dentists. Is she aware that last week we were told that there are precisely nine salaried dentists in the whole of England outside London? How far does she think it is reasonable for a new patient to travel in search of a salaried dentist?

May I remind the Secretary of State that before polling day we were assured that the NHS would not be privatised-- [Interruption.] What other word would Conservative Members prefer us to use now that more and more dental patients are being told that they must go private? Will the Secretary of State now admit the truth--that all those promises about the privatisation of the NHS were as hollow as all the claims about economic recovery?

Mrs. Bottomley : I can assure the House that we are monitoring the situation carefully and that there are no known cases where it has not been possible to secure an NHS dentist. FHSs are empowered to seek to employ a salaried dentist, and so far we have no reports of it not being possibile to find an NHS dentist.

The BDA said that it may take some months before the picture becomes exactly clear. I very much hope that it will co-operate with the fundamental review and will think long and hard before taking steps that will jeopardise the system of dentistry in this country which has, after all, delivered unprecedented results in the quality of dental care.

We have never had so many people participating in dental care in this country--30 million patients are signed up ; there has been a 29 per cent. increase in the number of dentists ; and 12 per cent. of family health service authorities now employ salaried dentists. We have made it clear that, although we wish to be fair and reasonable to dentists, we must also safeguard the interests of patients and of the NHS. I do not think that it bodes well that the Labour party seeks to support a professional group which is seeking to secure not only £5,000 over and above the 8.5 per cent. increase recommended by the review body. If I were one of the lower paid workers in the NHS, I would not have great confidence in the Labour party.

Mr. Roger Sims (Chislehurst) : Will my right hon. Friend tell the House a little more about the timing and nature of the fundamental review to which she referred? Does not she think that it is highly irresponsible of professionals to take the action that they have at this particular stage when there is a real prospect of the problems of dental remuneration being solved by the review to which she referred?

Mrs. Bottomley : I thank my hon. Friend. I hope that dentists will think long and hard before taking steps in relation to the future reduction at a moment when we all agree that we must find a better way of remunerating dentists. It may be a system that has stood the test of time for many years, but the time has now come when we need

Column 23

a system that inspires more confidence in dentists and in the NHS and is better for patients. There are a number of obvious difficulties. The BDA said that it was

"looking for a positive sign from ministers that there is a future in NHS dentistry."

There is a future in NHS dentistry. I believe that the fundamental review, the arrangements of which we hope to announce shortly, will make that future very clear.

Ms. Liz Lynne (Rochdale) : Does the Secretary of State agree that NHS dentistry is in crisis because dentists are being penalised for making a success of a contract that they did not want in the first place? Now that dentists are baring their teeth, is not it about time that the Secretary of State swallowed her pride and ensured that dentists get their just deserts, that the nation's health does not suffer and that the nation's dental health does not go into terminal decay?

Mrs. Bottomley : NHS dentistry has never been more effective, with 30 million patients signed up for continuing care. The hon. Lady is correct in saying that the dental contract was a success. More work has been undertaken as a result. That is precisely why the dentists were given 8.5 per cent. by the review body when the nurses and the doctors were given 5.8 per cent. and 5.3 per cent. We are proposing that, in addition to the 8.5 per cent., the dentists should keep £5, 000. I think that that is a fair and reasonable way forward for dentists.

Sir Paul Beresford (Croydon, Central) : May I, as a Member of Parliament as well as a dentist, ask the Secretary of State whether she agrees that we should be asking the British Dental Association to respond to this House? The BDA should be using its professional standing to look for changes within the global sum, as the argument with dentists as a profession concerns not so much the global sum as the way in which it is distributed.

Mrs. Bottomley : I very much hope that we shall be able to work closely with the BDA in taking forward the fundamental review. As my hon. Friend knows only too well, the system of dental remuneration is based on an average income, which applies across the country, and the average expenses required to deliver that average income. A number of practical and sensible proposals are coming forward, from the BDA and others, about how we might more appropriately develop a system of remuneration which is more fair to dentists, fair to the taxpayer, and fair to the NHS. I very much hope that the BDA will settle for this year's fair and reasonable arrangements and work constructively for the future.

Mrs. Margaret Ewing (Moray) : Does not the Secretary of State realise that her idea that there should be a fundamental review rings very hollow against what seems to be a fundamental dictatorship, given that she has indicated that she will go ahead with her plans irrespective of the democratically expressed views of the BDA? Does not she realise that, in seeking to have the national health service supported by salaried dentists, she is creating in many rural communities, particularly in the highlands, the north-east of Scotland and the islands, a situation in which people will have to travel many miles to find a dentist? She has alienated people who wish to continue within the

Column 24

health service. Will she agree to postpone her decision on Wednesday to allow a review and a discussion to take place?

Mrs. Bottomley : In order to deliver the income of £35,800 recommended by the review body--a reasonable income by any standard--we should have introduced a fee reduction of 23 per cent. A 7 per cent. reduction, together with the introduction of prior approval, seems fair and reasonable. The employment of salaried dentists should not be a first option. I very much hope that dentists will think long and hard before taking steps that would jeopardise NHS patients. But if they do take such steps, we shall have a duty to safeguard the interests of NHS patients, and we shall not hesitate to seek the employment of salaried dentists.

Mr. Jerry Hayes (Harlow) : Will my right hon. Friend warn the dentists robustly and clearly that two groups will be hit by today's ballot? The first group is those dentists withdrawing from the national health service who will suffer particularly in terms of their professional integrity. The second is the large group of poor people who are not poor enough to be on income support and, thereby, qualify for free treatment. These people regard it as quite outrageous that a group of professionals-- who are supported by the Labour party--who have just had an increase of 8 per cent. granted by their pay review body and had their fees increased by 11 per cent., should leave the poor in the lurch.

Mrs. Bottomley : As ever, my hon. Friend makes his points very well indeed. This year, with the 11.6 per cent. increase in expenses, dentists will take home an average of £88,000 gross. That is a very sizeable amount of money, and every dentist should think long and hard, from his own point of view as well as in the interests of his NHS patients, before taking such a step.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours (Workington) : Are there any circumstances in which the Secretary of State would preside over the creeping privatisation of dentistry?

Mrs. Bottomley : I have made it clear that I am committed to NHS dental services. That is why I shall not hesitate to encourage the employment of salaried dentists when the need arises. I think, however, that there are great strengths, and that there has been great progress, in NHS dental services. Since the Labour party was last in power, there has been a 43 per cent. increase in spending on dental services. There are more dentists, and more patients are treated now.

Mr. Den Dover (Chorley) : Does the Secretary of State accept that at a meeting with 12 dentists last Saturday two points came across--first, they all wanted the continuance of a first-class national health service dental system ; secondly, whereas they were perfectly happy with the gross income, they had misgivings about the sampling in the first quarter of the year only, which led to their net income not being truly representative of their own experience?

Mrs. Bottomley : Some aspects of my hon. Friend's remarks should be discussed in the fundamental review. As for the average income and average expenses of the average dentist, the right place for the dentists to discuss them was at the dental rates study group. It was a great error on the part of the dentists to refuse to attend the

Column 25

meeting of that group ; it is, after all, precisely the setting at which there is a rigorous deployment of the figures. They did not arise.

Mr. Nick Raynsford (Greenwich) : Will the right hon. Lady reconsider her over-optimistic comments about the health of national health service dentistry in this country ? Will she recognise the extent to which dentists are withdrawing from offering a service to people under the health service and are continuing to threaten to do so ? Will she think about the number of poor communities--for instance, the Ferrier estate in my constituency, where the only dentist operating has made it clear that he cannot afford to continue to operate--I have given the Secretary of State evidence of that-- if she proceeds with her proposals ? Will she think again, and think about the interests of the health of this country and its poor people instead of pursuing her dogmatic adherence to the Government's position ?

Mrs. Bottomley : Dentists have always been independent contractors who could be selective about the patients whom they took on. Concerns about that should perhaps rightly be the subject of the fundamental review. Substantial resources go into NHS dental services. Last year, 30 per cent. of dentists earned more than £100,000, and the hon. Gentleman may be interested to know that 40 dentists earned more than £200,000-- [Interruption.] --as someone rightly says, with their expenses as well. If the hon. Gentleman suggests that there should be greater variation in the deployment of remuneration in the various regions, I accept that point ; it should rightly be taken forward in the fundamental review.

Mrs. Judith Chaplin (Newbury) : Does my right hon. Friend agree that dentists' costs vary enormously and that that should be a key element in the fundamental review about which she speaks?

Mrs. Bottomley : My hon. Friend makes precisely the point that the hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Raynsford) addressed from a different angle. There has never been a time, however, when dentists' remuneration incorporated those variations. My hon. Friend the Minister for Health and I take the view that this should be part of the fundamental review. When discussing the dental contract, we agreed to remunerate business rates for dentists more directly. That was a step forward.

As for expenses, it is fair to say that an 11.6 per cent. increase in expenses, up to £47,000--that is what we are introducing--is generous on any count. We hope that we can discuss these matters further. On the last three occasions when dentists thought that their expenses had been under-recorded it turned out on examination that we had overestimated them for each year in question.

Several hon. Members rose --

Madam Speaker : Order. We must now make progress.

Column 26

Points of Order

3.48 pm

Mr. David Shaw (Dover) : On a point of order, Madam Speaker. As we are now members of the European Community, would it be in order for the House to summon the French Prime Minister and Transport Minister to the Bar of the House to answer for the devastation that has been caused to my constituents and those of other Members by the French lorry drivers' strike?

Madam Speaker : The hon. Gentleman knows that that is not a point of order for me. That is a question that he must put to his Government and not to the Chair.

Mr. Jack Straw (Blackburn) : On a point of order about which I have given you, Madam Speaker, and the Secretary of State for Education notice. I want to refer to the date of publication of the proposed White Paper on education.

In the debate on the Queen's Speech, the Secretary of State said that the White Paper would

"be brought before the House in due course."-- [Official Report 12 May 1992 ; Vol. 207, c. 587.]

However, in the closing minutes of the debate on special needs education on Friday, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Schools refused, in reply to an intervention from my hon. Friend the Member for Durham, North- West (Ms. Armstrong), to promise that the White Paper would be brought before the House before the House went into recess. We have since learnt from the newspapers that the Government plan to publish it in late July, after we have gone into recess.

I have had the Journal Office check the precedents. No Government in the past 18 years have issued a policy White Paper in late July after the House has risen for the recess. On only one occasion--in 1983--has a White Paper been published in August. It has not happened since.

In your ruling on the complaint of my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mrs. Jackson) on 9 June, Madam Speaker, you made it clear that you were alive to the need to protect the rules of the House and its conventions and courtesies. In view of that, may I invite you to rule that, if the White Paper is published after the House has risen for the recess in late July or August, it would show gross contempt for hon. Members and that it would be a breach of long-established practice and of the clear undertaking given to the House by the Secretary of State only eight weeks ago to publish the White Paper "in due course"?

Madam Speaker : The hon. Gentleman did me the courtesy of giving me some idea of the point of order that he wished to raise. I know, as he has said, that he has carried out a great deal of research into the matter. As he is aware from his researches, it is not a matter for me. As he is also aware, under Standing Order No. 137, Ministers can present Command Papers to the House during recesses. As the hon. Gentleman said--

Mr. Straw rose --

Madam Speaker : Order. The hon. Gentleman should not get ready for another point of order.

Column 27

The hon. Gentleman is aware that Ministers present Command Papers from time to time. As he knows full well, as Speaker, I have no authority or powers to prevent them from doing that during recesses.

Mr. Straw : I am aware of what you say, Madam Speaker. However, in your ruling on 9 June in respect of the complaint of my hon. Friend the Member for Hillsborough about whether hon. Members can intervene in constituency cases arising in other constituencies, you made it clear that, although it was not a matter for the rules of the House--something you regretted--you deprecated the practice and, with respect, you were right to do so. As no Government over the past 18 years have published a White Paper just after the House has gone into recess, thus showing such gross contempt for the House, I invite you to deprecate the practice and to ensure, so far as you have influence, that Ministers do not act with such contempt for the House.

Madam Speaker : I saw the material relating to the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mrs. Jackson) to which the hon. Gentleman has referred. As he is aware, I have not yet seen the White Paper which the Government propose to publish. As he knows, I have no discretionary powers in the matter. It is not a question of common courtesy to me. Standing Order No. 137 allows Ministers to publish White Papers during parliamentary recesses. I have no authority to stop them doing that.

Mr. Clive Soley (Hammersmith) : On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I had a conversation a couple of hours ago with the Lord Chancellor's Office about a matter which affects the established rights and practices of hon. Members. It has been the practice of the Lord Chancellor's Office to release the figures about mortgage repossessions from all courts in the country, initially by telephone contact by a Member of the House. That practice was changed a couple of years ago so that a letter is now required, and I accepted that. However, I understand from a report in The Sunday Telegraph yesterday that it is the intention not to release the information in that way, but to release it, at best, quarterly in accordance with the Lord Chancellor's decision.

The practice is particularly important because hon. Members have raised the issue through the Lord Chancellor's Office and, if necessary, directly with the courts in their areas. One could phone the court in the area in which one was interested to get the figures. If that practice is to be stopped as well, hon. Members will either have to phone all the courts in the country or give up the practice altogether. If we phoned all the courts in the country, it would be good news for British Telecom but bad news for British democracy. When a major attempt is made to change the

Column 28

established practices of the House in a way which restricts hon. Members' ability to obtain information, it is vital that Ministers make a statement to the House and not just slip the matter through in that way. I know that the way in which others and I have used the procedure is a matter of political embarrassment to the Government--I make no apology for that--but the matter concerns all hon. Members' right to obtain information in the way that we always have done, and I ask for that to be continued or, if it is not to be continued, for a Minister from the relevant law office to make a statement to the House before the Government make the proposed change.

Madam Speaker : I have had no request from any Minister to make a statement, but the hon. Gentleman will know that that is not a matter for me and that, over the next few days, he may exercise his imagination and ingenuity and find several occasions on which he may raise the matter with the Government, who have responsibility for it.

Ms. Angela Eagle (Wallasey) : On a point of order, Madam Speaker. As I made my way to Wallasey at the weekend, I perused The Spectator , and discovered that the hon. and learned Member for Perth and Kinross (Sir N. Fairbairn) had commented on almost 10 per cent. of hon. Members--that is, the female Members. He said that we are "not desert island material"

and that we look as though we are

"from the fifth Kiev Stalinist machine gun parade."

He also referred to you, Madam Speaker, and perhaps you would like to look up the reference for your own interest. Is it in order for someone who seems to reside in a permanent state of sartorial inelegance and who is not my idea of a desert island dream boy to make such comments about 10 per cent. of the membership of the House?

Madam Speaker : I take it that the hon. Lady has informed the hon. and learned Member for Perth and Kinross (Sir N. Fairbairn) that she would raise the matter. [Interruption.] Order. There are some periodicals that I do not read, and that is one of them, although the article has been related to me. If the hon. Lady wishes to take the matter further, perhaps she will write to me about it. There are procedures that I must look at, but the hon. Lady must put her request in writing, as she probably knows.

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(3) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments &c.), That the draft Housing (Northern Ireland) Order 1992 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.-- [Mr. Nicholas Baker.]

Question agreed to.

Column 29

Opposition Day

[3 rd Allotted Day]

Industry

Madam Speaker : There is great interest in this debate, so will hon. Members please voluntarily restrict their comments so that I may call as many hon. Members as possible?

Also, I inform the House that I have selected the amendment standing in the name of the Prime Minister.

3.57 pm

Mr. Gordon Brown (Dunfermline, East) : I beg to move,

That this House deplores the continuing impact of the recession which has caused the longest period of continuously falling output since 1945 and affected every region in the economy ; condemns the record level of business failures and house repossessions, the serious decline in manufacturing investment, and the unacceptably high level of unemployment, which has risen for 24 months ; regrets that repeated Government promises of swift recovery have not yielded the promised results ; and calls upon the Government to adopt modern industrial policies which reduce unemployment, promote investment, tackle Britain's major training and skills crisis and enable the regions to play their full part in the economy.

First, the motion calls for special investment measures and a new industrial policy for Britain ; secondly, it makes the case for action to assist hard-pressed regions with a new regional policy for the country ; and, thirdly, it calls for urgent action on training and jobs so that we can bring to an end rising unemployment, and the fear of rising unemployment, which is the single biggest barrier to confidence and recovery.

Since the election, business failures have risen by about 15,000, the worst recorded figure in our history ; house sales are 20 per cent. down on last year ; and repossessions are still at record level. Even the Government's own Insolvency Service, the only part of the Department of Trade and Industry's budget that seems to be expanding, is predicting that insolvencies will increase from 21,000 two years ago to 35,000 this year, a 60 per cent. increase ; and unemployment has tragically and disgracefully continued its rise for 24 consecutive months--up over two years by 30 per cent. in the north, by 40 per cent. in the north-west, by 90 per cent. in the midlands, by 120 per cent. in the south, and by 150 per cent. in the south-east.

It is clear not only that the recession is still with us but that the promised recovery has not arrived. Despite all claims to the contrary, business bankruptcies and redundancies are rising as fast as ever. The continuing inaction and complacency of the Government in the circumstances is not only unjustifiable but inexcusable. It is a gross betrayal of the urgent needs of Britain.

We have suffered two full years of recession in which total output has fallen by 4 per cent. ; employment by 5 per cent. ; manufacturing by 8 per cent. ; construction by 13 per cent. ; business investment by 14 per cent. ; and manufacturing investment by an astonishing 28 per cent. That is unparalleled in the rest of western Europe or the G7 countries.

The tragedy for Britain is that there is not only no end to the recession but no Government strategy to bring it to an end. There is not one new special initiative to boost

Column 30

investment or training, to cut closures or to bring about recovery--no recovery and no plan for recovery ; nothing in the manifesto, nothing in the Queen's Speech, nothing in the weeks since and, of course, nothing in the reshuffling of desks at the Department of Trade and Industry, which was an apology for a British industrial strategy when the Secretary of State announced it on Friday.

Mr. Richard Tracey (Surbiton) : The long list that the hon. Gentleman gives us is all very well, but before he goes any further perhaps he could pinpoint for the House what policies in the Labour manifesto at the general election would have done anything for British industry. Will he bear in mind that, of 200 top industrialists who were interviewed just before the general election, 86 per cent. said that the return of a Labour Government would be a disaster for British industry? If I may give the hon. Gentleman a bit of advice, he should concentrate on what Labour would do.

Mr. Brown : I am grateful that the hon. Gentleman feels the need to ask the Opposition what policies should be pursued to bring us out of recession. Is it not the case that in the hon. Gentleman's constituency unemployment has risen by 73 per cent. in the past two years? Would he not do better to argue with his colleagues in the Government about action that must be taken on unemployment? The Prime Minister is at the G7 conference in Germany today. Is it not a disgrace, after all that he has said about Britain leading Europe and Britain being the economic miracle country in Europe, that Britain is bottom of the league of the major countries for growth not only for 1991 but, according to all forecasts, for 1992? We have been bottom of the league for demand for two years running. We are bottom of the league for business investment and employment growth. We have been seventh out of seven in the G7 for two years running, and we are now 12th out of 12 in the European Community.

We have the lowest growth forecast for this year, the worst fall in employment, and the poorest business investment record. We are the only country to face the harsher conditions of the internal market with less investment this year than last year and less investment last year than the year before. That is a remarkable achievement with which to commemorate our European presidency.

When they should call for co-ordinated interest rate cuts across Europe, the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer strut the world stage with solutions for everyone else's problems but their own and a policy for every economy but ours. No wonder they do not want to talk about unemployment in the EC or the G7 countries. In Europe, the Prime Minister sits profoundly at the top of every table while, as a result of his policies, Britain sits sadly at the bottom of every league.

If anything sums up the Government's failure to take action to deal with the recession that they created, it is their callous attitude to those whom they have made unemployed. There is rising unemployment in every region. We have the fastest rising unemployment over two years of any country in Europe. There is an ever-growing number of casualties and victims of the Government's policies. Not only men and women in their 50s but those in their 40s fear that they will never work again. Young couples are jobless and homeless.

Column 31

Not only are thousands of young people denied their first job, but this summer they are likely to be denied their first training place. The Government have not only cut training and training places but betrayed even their promises of temporary placements for the unemployed. Employment Action was launched in a blaze of publicity last spring. The Government promised 30,000 places as early as the end of March. Now there is a mere 19,000 places. So in some constituencies, such as those represented by my hon. Friends, approaching 10,000, and in some more than 10,000, men and women are unemployed, and the best that the Government can do is offer an average of 30 temporary placements for those whom they have made unemployed. This is not employment action but unemployment inaction, and it is a callous disregard of those whom the Government have made unemployed.

As we know from newspaper reports yesterday, the Government's response seems to be not to reduce unemployment but to consider reducing unemployment benefit. Just as the length of unemployment increases, the Government are considering reducing the time that benefit is available. It is not the unemployed who are to blame for letting down the Government but the Government who are to blame for letting down the unemployed. I want an assurance from the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry that the Government will use the power of Government and the public spending round to attack the recession rather than to attack the unemployed.

This is the Government and the Prime Minister who told us that they would create opportunities for all, yet, as unemployment, the biggest single destroyer of opportunity, has risen by 1 million, as 50,000 businesses have closed, and as homes have been repossessed, they have done virtually nothing. This is the Prime Minister who promised during the general election campaign that he would create a classless society, a nation at ease with itself.

While thousands of people feel under threat of losing part of their £43 unemployment benefit, privatised utility executive directors, such as those in Thames Water, are allowed to award themselves huge salary rises followed by huge boardroom perks and to push up water prices by 14 per cent. at the expense of consumers and are given licence to make excess profits. Does the Prime Minister criticise them, or legislate against them? No, his response is confined to accepting gratefully from Thames Water, on behalf of the Conservative party, a cheque for £50,000 for the election campaign. When the Government do nothing about recession profiteering while the Conservative party benefits from it, the electorate will not forget and the Conservative party will pay a heavy price one day.

Mr. Bernard Jenkin (Colchester, North) : How much would the hon. Gentleman be happy to add to the costs of British industry by accepting the social chapter of the Maastricht treaty?

Mr. Brown : I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for introducing the question of the social chapter because that will allow the Secretary of State to put on record his support for the social charter. I meet around the country thousands of people who are worried about the Government's failure to take seriously their responsibilities for social policy within the Community. I hope that the

Column 32

Secretary of State will continue to remind the Cabinet that the principle of the social chapter is acceptable not only to him but, according to every opinion poll, to the vast majority of the British people.

In the face of all this, the recession and unemployment, let us recall the promises that the Government have given so freely. They have promised not just that the recession would never happen, that it would be short-lived and shallow, that it would be over by last summer, last autumn, or last Christmas--the Prime Minister gave an interview on 1 January in which he said that the recovery had started as he spoke--but, just before the election and in search of power, that recovery would follow the election victory just as day followed night. During the campaign, the Prime Minister said :

"Britain is ready to move forward when others are sliding backwards. All that Britain is waiting for to achieve recovery is the confidence a Conservative Government will bring".

He also said :

"Vote Conservative on Thursday and the recovery will continue on Friday."

Three months have now passed. What is industry saying about these promises? According to McAlpine Ewart Hill, one of the Tories' election backers, these are

"The most difficult trading conditions this company can recall." Sir Anthony Pilkington said :

"I've not met a single industrialist who sees any sign of upturn." The Burton Group said :

"The only pick up is not in consumer demand but in conversation about consumer demand."

The Prime Minister who promised recovery last spring, last autumn, last Christmas and at the beginning of the year and was so explicit in his promises during the election campaign is responsible for a manifesto built on a fiction and has been guilty of misleading the country.

What of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, whose comments were few and far between during the election campaign? Budget purdah, when the Budget was kept under wraps before Budget day, was followed by the election purdah when the Chancellor was kept under wraps. In one of his rare public utterances, he said :

"The vital key to unlock recovery is the confidence that only a Conservative Government can bring."

The Trade Minister, not to be outdone, his comments in the campaign, as ever, never knowingly understated, made a speech entitled, "Prosperity through the 90s". One of his remarks, not lost on nearly 1,000 British Aerospace workers who have lost their jobs and 40,000 whose jobs are under threat, was :

"I say to all those people in our aerospace industries You can trust the Tories' the only kick-start that will work will be the confidence created by the election of a Conservative Government on 9th April."

What has that kick-start been? Sixty thousand more job losses? Fifteen thousand businesses gone under? More repossessions? Indeed, yesterday, when The Sunday Times abandoned what it calls its green shoots of spring economic optimism index, it was because just about the only signs of recovery that it could find and report on in its columns over the past few weeks were Moss Brothers saying that dinner suit hire was rising at its Regent street and Covent Garden branches, and the Tea Council saying that Britons were drinking an average of five more cups of tea a year. No doubt the economy will boom when we see more people sitting around in hired dinner suits drinking more tea.

Even The Sun tells the Chancellor of the Exchequer :

Next Section

Home Page