Sir, – We welcome the New Year with the prospect of a new MP and a new government. This draws to my mind correspondence that I had last year with Chancellor George Osborne through WilliamHague, my MP.

This concerned the failure to pay incremental rises to health service workers on the grounds that the government could not afford to do so in addition to paying the one per cent rise.

In my letters I pointed out that because as one person retires at the top of the scale and another comes in at the bottom it costs nothing to pay the contracted amount, which has nothing to do with annual rises to counter inflation or give a real pay rise.

Three times Mr Osborne was asked to explain why he believed this analysis to be incorrect and three times he failed to address the question, claiming that seven per cent incremental rises were a powerful driver of inflation.

In fact, failure to pay the increments is a hidden saving at the expense of those least able to afford it, who are at the bottom of the scale gaining experience to justify paying them the full rate for the job. Irrespective of whether he agreed with me, being clearly very frustrated and dissatisfied with the correspondence which simply ignored my specific questions, I felt that Mr Hague was constrained by his collective responsibility from fully accepting my concerns about the standard of his fellow minister’s replies. Although Mr Hague said he did not feel constrained, he could not deny that contrary to government propaganda paying the increments would have cost the health service nothing extra.

I emphasise that this letter is not personal to Mr Hague, as the problem of constraint by collective responsibility applies to any frontbencher whether in government or opposition. It seems to me that there is a solution. It should be possible for the matter to be referred to a nearby backbench MP of the same party so a frank discussion can take place.

Nor should this be seen as an attack on this particular government, because in the past governments of left and right are both guilty of perpetuating the myth that incremental scales have budgetary implications as an excuse for reneging on their contractual obligations.

Is it too much to hope a new government will set a new trend in not being economical with the truth in justifying its policies?

We have the prospect of a very talented MP in Mr Sunak who doubtless will be rapidly promoted. In the meantime perhaps he might consider when the inevitable happens whether he will feel free to comment constructively on replies from his colleagues and, if not, how he would deal with the problem.

C K CONNOLLY

Aldborough St John, Richmond.