Last week, at the very moment that the Home Secretary was announcing small changes to what many of us have described as the inhumane practice of shackling pregnant women prisoners while they are in labour, a woman prisoner suffering from breast cancer was lying in the Middlesex hospital manacled to two prison officers—one of whom was male—right up to the point when her radiotherapy treatment was due to commence.

One does not need much imagination to think of the scene—the woman in her white hospital gown waiting with other NHS patients for a sensitive and personal treatment while being shackled to a man. That is the reality, I suggest, of the policy that the Government now support.

Frances Crook, director of the Howard League, said when giving me information for the debate—information that I have checked out with the Prison Service and the hospital:

"The Home Secretary had given the clear impression that the shackling of women attending hospital would be discouraged."

She added that all hon. Members should question the Minister closely as to exactly who should and who should not be shackled.

The Home Secretary has given way a little in relation to women who are in hospital to give birth, but does my hon. Friend agree that this half loaf—or one slice of bread—is totally inadequate? The Home Secretary has not addressed the issue of women who are breast-feeding, and has not addressed the issue of antenatal care. During pregnancy, all women are particularly vulnerable to stress and anxiety, and there is proof that that has an effect both on the foetus and on the baby for many years after birth. Does my hon. Friend agree that shackling should be discontinued during pregnancy?

I agree absolutely with my hon. Friend, who puts her case very well. I have some questions in a similar vein from the Maternity Alliance that I shall put to the Minister later in the debate. As joint chairman of the all-party breast cancer group, I have taken a considerable interest in women and how they feel. I have talked to many women who suffer from breast cancer, and I have listened as they described their terror at being told that they were suffering from the disease. I believe that shackling a woman who is awaiting radiotherapy is tantamount to the worst kind of cruelty, and there is no place for such treatment in a civilised society.

If such treatment is cruel, other cases of shackling that have been drawn to my attention border on the farcical or the downright dangerous. A report in the Daily Mirror gave details of patients who were chained to officers when attending hospital for treatment for pneumonia, cancer and other serious illnesses. But would you believe, Madam Speaker, that one case which was reported—and which I have pursued—was of a woman suffering from dysentery being shackled? As everybody knows, it is an infectious, notifiable disease. Some poor unsuspecting prison officer had to be shackled to someone suffering from it, so possible cross-infection is obviously considered a price worth paying to support the Government's "prison works" policy.

If the officer went down with dysentery, surely that would not be a price worth paying. The practice is mediaeval. When the woman was not chained to the prison officer, she was chained to the bed. We all know that people suffering from dysentery need to use the toilet frequently, so that woman would have been most uncomfortable hopping in and out of bed with chains on.

Except in the most exceptionally high-risk cases, the practice of manacling smacks more of the Home Secretary's Soviet style and gulag mentality towards the penal system rather than the policy of a Home Secretary in a modern democracy as it approaches the millennium. It is high time to end a shameful and degrading practice. High-risk women prisoners and other women who have simply been imprisoned because of a minor misdemeanour should not be treated in the same way.

The number of women imprisoned is not high. According to the latest figures that I received on 18 January, the current prison population stands at 51,584, of whom 2,024 are women. That figure peaked in December, when the highest female prison population, 2,150, was recorded. The latest published Home Office statistics about prison populations relate to 1993, so when we speak about the reasons for women's imprisonment and the percentage of women in gaol, we are working on old statistics.

In 1993, 37 per cent. of those imprisoned were fine defaulters, and 22 per cent. were in for theft and handling stolen goods. Those statistics also reveal that women are sent to prison mainly for minor offences. In June 1993, 39 per cent. of women in prison had no previous convictions. That seems to be the trend.

Women seem to get sentenced more often for first offences than men. During that year, just 26 per cent. of women who were held in prison on remand subsequently received prison sentences. The 74 per cent. released back into the community were either found not guilty or given a non-custodial sentence. I wonder whether any of those women were manacled or treated in an inhumane way.

Those statistics give the lie to the recent statement by the hon. Member for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold)—I am sorry he is not present—in a recent intervention on the Home Secretary:

"every one of those women is either a convicted criminal or has been remanded in custody by a court which considers them to be dangerous or likely to abscond".—[Official Report, 18 January 1996; Vol. 269, c. 898.]

The figures show that that is nonsense. I do not believe that the 37 per cent. of women prisoners who are fine defaulters are dangerous, liable to abscond, or a threat to anyone. Anyone with an ounce of common sense would recognise that, and not make such a fatuous statement.

Fourteen prison establishments hold women, of which eight are closed prisons. It is current policy for girls as young as 15 to be held in prisons with adult women. The average cost of keeping a woman in prison is £541 a week—again according to the 1993 statistics. That figure does not include the cost of prison headquarters, so the total cost is higher.

On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Is it in order for a Conservative Back Bencher to seek advice from civil servants in the course of a debate? Will that facility be available to all hon. Members?

It is most unusual for a Back-Bench Member to seek information from civil servants unless, of course, that Member has been asked by a Minister to do so. That is not the case now, and therefore that Back Bencher should not be seeking information from Government civil servants. I had not noticed, and I thank the hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng) for bringing it to my attention.

I am much obliged, Madam Speaker.

On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I apologise for my action. I was checking the detail of an address with the civil servants, but I accept your reprimand.

A high percentage of women are in prison because they are fine defaulters or have not paid for a television licence. In 1993, 7.5 per cent., or 278 women, were imprisoned for the non-payment of television licence fees or fines related to that. I pay tribute to the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile), who has tabled early-day motion 287 on the imprisonment of television licence fine defaulters. He should be commended on his campaign to argue that it is an absolute waste of time and shocking to imprison such people.

That early-day motion states:

"people prosecuted for TV licence evasion tend to be disproportionately poor, female, unemployed"

and single parents. It is impossible to quantify the harm and distress caused to a family when the mother, often the only parent, is taken away and incarcerated, perhaps for weeks, while the children are taken into care.

The Home Secretary has slickly informed the Tory party conference that prison works, but it does not work for the children of women imprisoned for fine defaulting, and whose only crime is to be poor. It does not work for the taxpayers, either; they might lose £86.50 on the television licence that goes to the Exchequer, but will fork out £541 a week for prison lodgings. That cost does not take into account the thousands of pounds extra that is spent on keeping children in local authority care.

The Home Secretary would be wise to start watching programmes such as "Coronation Street". West Yorkshire probation service has issued a news release noting:

"As Coronation Street's Trish is sent to prison after being caught without a television licence…many real life women are in prison for the same reason."

Elly Phillips, the debts and benefits adviser for West Yorkshire probation service, has drawn attention to the absolute outrage revealed in that programme:

"A woman who cannot afford to pay her television licence is no more likely to be able to pay a Court fine. If she is then sent to prison the licence fee and the fine are still unpaid"—

on top of that, it costs the taxpayer money—

"When we are talking about a mother the result is even worse: her children are often taken into care, like Trish's son Jamie, so they become the innocent victims of the system."

The West Yorkshire probation service also notes:

"The Prison Reform Trust has reported that no fewer than 38 per cent. of all women prosecuted for all offences in 1993 were charged with using a television set without a licence."

That is slightly higher than the figure quoted in the Home Office statistics. According to the Home Secretary, that practice shows that prison works.

The population of Holloway prison has doubled in the past five years, but its budget for last year was cut. The Secretary of State is obsessed with the idea that the only thing that matters is to keep people locked up and that security is the issue of prime importance.

Does my hon. Friend agree that, in those circumstances, it is inevitable that the regime for women incarcerated in places like Holloway is bound to be dreadful? That will not make prison work, because we do not just want to lock people up while they are serving their sentence: we want to ensure that, when those people are released, we are secure in the community because they will be active, rehabilitated citizens.

My hon. Friend puts it eloquently. I was coming to that. I want to challenge the notion that prison works, especially for those whose only crime is poverty and civil debt. I want a criminal justice system that is linked with anti-poverty social programmes based on good rehabilitation practice. I want prison really to work.

If someone does end up in prison, the hallmark of success is whether they reoffend. In fact, 40 per cent. of women prisoners are re-convicted within two years of release. If their problem is poverty, that poverty will not go away while they are in prison. The taxpayer's bill goes up, but poverty does not go away. Prison has not worked for the 40 per cent. of women who are re-convicted.

Before there are any hysterical outbursts to the effect that I worry only about the prisoner and not about the victim, I should say that I am not in favour of early release for people who have been violent, such as muggers. I would never again trust a child murderer. I would never plead for someone who had murdered children. I am in favour of a civilised system, because I recognise that people who go to prison remain human beings, whatever crime they may have committed.

On the question of rehabilitation, which is so important, does my hon. Friend agree that the time during which a woman is pregnant and gives birth, and immediately after, is a time of renewal? There is the possibility of a fresh start—indeed, it is inevitable—in a new life. If women are degraded and humiliated at that time, it can only harden them and make them less likely to use that opportunity—and impossible for the Prison Service to use it—for rehabilitation, which could be effective at such an important time in a woman's life.

Absolutely. I hope that the Minister took note of that.

I am told by prison reformers, the Prison Officers Association, the probation service and others who take an interest in prisons that conditions in women's prisons are not radically different from or better than those in most men's prisons. Women have little privacy, food is not good, and they have few chances to make decisions about their lives. Many people say that rehabilitation programmes are almost non-existent. The POA in particular is frustrated about prison officers being expected to act only as gaolers rather than doing useful rehabilitation work.

The present and previous chief inspectors of prisons have both made many relevant observations. When he visited Drake Hall in 1994, the previous chief inspector stated:

"The residential units were in a state of dilapidation."

Especially unsatisfactory were the small, dingy recreation areas, which were expected to accommodate about 80 inmates but could seat less than half that number. He went on to describe conditions in the communal wash areas, where there were no plugs in the sinks and most of the rooms were in a bad decorative state. People at the bottom of the pile, who have been subjected to poverty, especially first offenders and women in prison for civil offences, must have their feelings of rejection and hopelessness confirmed when incarcerated in such conditions.

In December 1995, the new chief inspector, Sir David Ramsbotham, took the unprecedented step of withdrawing his inspection team from Holloway. Other hon. Members will deal with that, and I mention it only briefly. According to The Times of 19 December, his team walked out of the prison because of

"over-zealous security, prisoners being locked in their cells 23 hours a day"—

the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Ms Hodge)—

"poor health care, bullying, low staff morale, inadequate education and activities, and dirty conditions".

Nearer to home, two women from my constituency were sent to New Hall prison near Wakefield last year for non-payment of television licence fees. I got these statistics from the Library yesterday. Four years ago, that prison was condemned by prison inspectors, who made a total of 102 recommendations. I congratulate the prison on the many improvements that have been made since. I must put that on record, because, in the latest unannounced inspection, the Home Office report found

"notable improvements in facilities and an improved regime".

However, there were still 20 further serious recommendations for New Hall. Although the health care system had improved, the full-time medical officer was male, which is especially distressing for women from ethnic minorities, but seems to be the norm in women's prisons. Health facilities were not good. Prisoners did not get the same facilities that the rest of us get on the NHS. The Minister should address that.

The New Hall report also pointed out that bullying was a serious problem. Girls as young as 15 are held in women's prisons. The report stressed that an increase in bullying coincided with the increased use of class A drugs by prisoners, but there was no recognised anti-bullying strategy. That is desperately needed, and is recommended by the report. There was a high level of self-mutilation among prisoners. While improvements have been made, many more still need to be made.

What I found especially shocking about the report was that 86 of the prisoners in New Hall had been victims of sexual abuse. The probation service's figures are even higher. The majority of women prisoners have constantly been found to be victims of sexual abuse. In spite of that, they still had male medical officers. That is something that could be addressed. There should be counselling for women in that situation. Perhaps there should also be an in-depth study into why they end up in prison.

Women are strip-searched by female officers before going to court, and there are searches for drug testing. Random drug testing procedures involve strict searching, which is done in front of female officers. That has led to something even more disturbing, which I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, North (Mr. Howarth) will mention. The probation service says that the system of searching and testing for drugs is making heroin more unpopular than cannabis. Drug taking is out of control in most of our prisons.

I think that my hon. Friend means more popular.

It is because heroin does not remain in the system for as long as cannabis, and is unlikely to be picked up by urine samples. This degrading process does not seem to have solved the problem that it was meant to address. We should examine that.

The Minister must seriously address the health care problems in prisons. Do we want prisons to stop people reoffending when they get out? That would mean that something must be done about the penal and criminal justice systems. The Home Office should be working on both. We must think of the poor old taxpayer, who has to pay out all that money because someone has not paid for a TV licence. It is, first, an obscenity that someone should be sent to prison for that offence, but the Minister must also consider the fact that our money is being wasted to satisfy some Tory prejudices.

I shall give the last word to Beatrix Campbell, who wrote a good article in The Guardian in December. She wrote of the typical offences for which women go to prison. The article is so good that it is worth repeating what she said. She stated that typical offences committed by women involved sex and shopping. The practice of women selling sex is as old as women's desperation. We all know that women end up in prison not for selling sex, but for where they do so and whether they are caught in the system.

Beatrix Campbell states:

"The organised shoplifter is no threat to public tranquillity, unlike the boy burglar whose business is as much about power as it is about poverty. Breaking and entering his neighbours' homes is a personal kind of piracy and the reward is both material and emotional—the pleasure of conquest. The 'shoppie' targets not her neighbours or private property but big business".

Beatrix Campbell suggests that, when women find themselves in such circumstances and are first offenders, the criminal justice system should not be tougher on women, but should try to find alternatives to custody, and should consider the poverty connection—linking crime and the penal system, and the woman's social conditions.

We should try to do something to stop women getting into such circumstances, and we should stop locking up women simply because they do not have enough money on which to live.

rose—

Order. There about 35 minutes left for Back-Bench speeches before the Front-Bench teams wind up the debate. Five hon. Members are hoping to catch my eye, and, if everyone co-operates, I think that all those hon. Members may be successful.

Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker—I shall attempt to be brief.

I am sure that, when the hon. Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon) applied for the debate, she had in mind principally the repugnant case of shackling women while they give birth. All of us would agree that not only women, but men, had a very emotional reaction to that repugnant spectacle, and none of us could cope with the concept. I therefore welcome the Home Secretary's commitment to bring that practice to an end.

The hon. Lady detailed at length the number of women who go to prison, and many of the offences for which they do so. She said that there are only just over 2,000 women in prison; it is also worth while saying that 59 per cent. of women are cautioned for indictable offences, compared with 36 per cent. of males. Clearly, attempts are made to keep women out of prison where possible.

In addition, the average sentence for women is about half that of men, so the courts clearly recognise that, for most offences, women should be sentenced to prison for only a brief period. It has become fairly clear over many years that, by and large, courts do not like to send women to prison, and do so only when that is the only recourse left to them due to the nature of the offence or because the women themselves—

Does not the hon. Lady realise that, on the Home Office's own figures, women are more likely than men to be sent to prison—and for longer—for minor offences? Does that not have implications, not only for her argument, but for sentencing policy generally? Should we not be doing something about it?

Having sat in magistrates courts when women have come before them, and having talked to many magistrates about the lengths to which they go to try to avoid sending women to prison, I know that that is the key to the argument. When a court concludes that the only solution is to send a woman to prison, it is for very good and clear reasons, and I support the court's right to do so.

The hon. Lady spoke of the attempts made in prison to rehabilitate women. On the rare occasions on which I have visited women's prisons, I have been impressed by the way in which prison officers work with the prisoners to give them the life skills that so many of them lack. Those skills include how to manage budgets and how to look after children. Many of the women who unfortunately find themselves in prison are not as competent at managing their affairs as many of us would wish.

It is also reasonable to consider the history of escapes from hospitals, which is what prompted the debate. The figures are interesting: in 1991–92, there were 14 escapes by women prisoners; in 1992–93, there were 13 escapes; in 1993–94, there were nine escapes; in 1994–95, there were six escapes; and in 1995–96, there were just two. Escapes from hospitals over those same years are four, eight and five. In 1994–95, there were no escapes, and in 1995–96 there were none.

One of the principal policies of the prison service, whether the Home Office prison service or the agency, should be to prevent escapes—the prison service has clearly succeeded in doing so.

Does the hon. Lady think that the brutality—which has been described and at which she expressed horror at the beginning of her speech—of chaining women prisoners is worth the saving in terms of escape figures, which are relatively minor, anyway? Does she think that the brutality and anger are worth that result?

The hon. Lady will realise that the Home Secretary has said that women in labour will no longer be chained. Seven prisoners who were either pregnant or who had just given birth have escaped from hospital. It was not our decision or a Home Office decision to chain women: it was an operational decision, and the Home Secretary has now instructed that it should not happen again. Let us sincerely hope that we do not witness the spectacle of women who are pregnant or just about to give birth escaping from hospital. The Prison Service should look for the best way to meet that target.

I have mentioned the difference between operational decisions and Home Office decisions. On the subject of women in hospital, we all know that, while those in the Prison Service are hard-working and have tremendous commitment, they are not known for their imagination. It was probably the lack of imagination that led to the policy of chaining women. Now that that policy has been abandoned, I hope that more sensible and imaginative ways will be found to ensure that women do not escape.

Does my hon. Friend accept that it has never been Home Office policy to shackle women in labour?

It has never been Home Office policy, but an operational decision was made by the next steps agency to restrain prisoners outside prison from April 1995—I think that that is why many people have accused the Prison Service of lacking imagination, and I suggest that the problem arose there.

That problem has been remedied by an instruction from the Home Secretary, and, I hope, some imagination will now be applied to the issue of restraining prisoners effectively when they are outside prison, so that, while there are no more escapes, we are not faced with the repugnant spectacle of women in labour being chained to their beds. That is the key to ensuring that the Prison Service can make progress and achieve its aims and the targets that it has been set.

The more often there are crises, the more often Ministers intervene in the agency's work. As a result, the agency finds it more difficult to follow the policy that we all wish it to follow—that of working effectively and efficiently, allowing it to deliver an effective service to prisoners, ensuring that the public are not affected by prison escapes, and providing an element of rehabilitation and training during a prison sentence.

The debate must be placed in the context of the Government's recent problems concerning the care of pregnant women in prisons, which we all have in mind. What an embarrassment that matter has been for the Government. How costly it has proved. It was obviously a contributory factor in the decision of the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Howarth) and my hon. Friend the Member for Torridge and West Devon (Miss Nicholson) to cross the Floor of the House, giving the very strong impression of a Conservative party that was split and falling apart. That latter impression has not been corrected by the performance of Ministers at the Dispatch Box in recent weeks.

Having for months brazenly bluffed their way through with categoric denials of the allegations made by Opposition Members, Ministers have been exposed and humbled. I do not blame them for not knowing from personal experience what was going on. They were fed inaccurate information by the people on whom they relied. I assume that someone in the Prison Service continues to smart from the fury of the Minister of State, Home Office, the hon. Member for Maidstone (Miss Widdecombe), when she was forced to carry the can for their mistakes.

The question now is whether we can be sure that the official information that will no doubt be the basis for the Minister's response today is as good, as accurate and as reliable as it should be.

When the issue of pregnant women and new mothers was at its height, I was struck by the number of newspaper commentators who wrote, "What do those women expect? They did not go to prison for a rest cure." Those callous words from poisonous pens were revealed more starkly because, at that very time, the Government were conceding their errors. I should add, however, that those poisonous pens were not all directed at those who were in prison. Some of them were, and have been, directed at the Minister.

On Monday night, my wife telephoned me. She said, "May I read you a letter? I am incensed by an article that I read in the Manchester Evening News, attacking the Minister, and I hope that it will not cause you any political problems if I write in, defending her."

Good.

I said, "All right. Read me the letter." The attack that was made on the Minister was indeed couched in the most personal terms, ignoring the political arguments entirely—an argument that would not have been presented against a male Minster. I said, "Fine; send it in."

When I spoke to my wife yesterday, she said, "I feel much better. I have sent it off. Sometimes I write these letters and never send them." I said, "That's fine. Are you going to start defending me against some of the attacks made on me in the papers?" She said, "No; you are attacked too often—day in, day out. I can't afford the pen and the paper to defend you."

We can be sure that some of those self-righteous authors will not retract their views, despite the evidence presented today by the hon. Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon).

There are more women in prison than ever before—about 1,800—yet, when one considers the reasons that they are there, and especially the enormous proportion, about 47 per cent., who are in prison for defaulting on fines, it is impossible not to question whether there are not more effective ways of ensuring that justice is done and the community served.

Neither I nor the Liberal Democratic party take a soft view toward real criminals. I share the concerns of the hon. Member for Halifax. Hon. Members will understand that, as the representative of Saddleworth, I have no problem with the idea that a woman sentenced to a life sentence for a crime that at other times would have deserved a capital punishment should indeed serve a sentence for life.

However, the obscenity must be ended of many women—many of whom are inadequate or impoverished, driven to extremes, but who have struggled to keep families together, making do on limited resources with no help from a partner, if any worthwhile partner exists—ending up in prison for fine default or for being unable to pay for a television licence.

A sentence in such cases may be only seven days, and to a judge that may seem nothing more than a slap on the wrist, but seven days to the person involved—especially if they have never been in prison—means humiliation and despair beyond belief. It means kids taken into local authority care, and costs to all members of the local community.

The Government may try to wash their hands of that by saying, "It is up to the courts to decide on the sentence," but it is up to the Government to ensure that the courts have a proper range of alternative, non-custodial, options on which they can call. The fact that Britain now has the fastest increasing—and, I believe, the largest—prison population in Europe, clearly demonstrates that it is failing in providing those non-custodial options.

For once, surely money cannot be used as a reason—not when it costs about £25,000 a year, for heaven's sake, to keep a woman in prison. For that money, each individual person sentenced instead to a non-custodial alternative might have a personal supervisor, probably with a chauffeur-driven car, to take them to their job each morning.

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the vast majority of people who are ordered by the courts to pay fines pay those fines, that people who default and end up going to prison are volunteers, and that, were the possibility of sending such people to prison to be withdrawn, it would send entirely the wrong signal to people who are fined, and encourage them not to pay their fines?

I believe that the courts should sentence people when they are obviously in breach of the law, but we are debating what type of sentence it should be. I am suggesting to the House that non-custodial sentences offer sensible, practical options—and practical options for the courts—which should be explored more often than they are. The very fact that the number of women in prison is increasing so sharply shows that non-custodial options are not being explored properly.

Imprisonment is the right option if society needs protection from an individual. It is the right answer if the crime committed against another human being deserves the most serious punishment. It satisfies society's justifiable desire for retribution in some cases, but no one should pretend for a minute that it helps society.

Prison is a breeding ground for crime. It is an admission of society's failure. It solves nothing. People who have committed crime through poverty, and are imprisoned, return to poverty. Those who have committed crime because of alcohol or drug dependence return to that dependence. If crime in this country is to be reduced effectively, it is time we explored more realistic, practical, sensible ways of ensuring that our means of imposing that justifiable punishment, meeting the court's requirements and reprimanding the people involved does not result in the problem and its consequences for society becoming worse than they are already.

In the past few months, much more heat than light has been expended on the subject of the treatment of women in prisons. Not least, it has caused the hysterical actions on the part of two of my colleagues, who have changed heart over that issue, yet have not even bothered to turn up for this morning's debate. The hysteria appears to have died down almost as quickly as it flared up.

We all have 20:20 vision with the benefit of hindsight. The debate—to which my hon. Friend the Minister of State has responded in a sensible and a responsible manner—has focused entirely on the treatment of women who are allowed out of prison in order to use the public health service. I am sure that most hon. Members would have campaigned at some time to give women prisoners the right to receive the best medical treatment available. However, we must remember that such women are serving custodial sentences, and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye (Mrs. Lait) pointed out, many are persistent offenders.

Perhaps the hon. Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon) is being a little sentimental when she suggests that there should be different rules for women. Women should not be judged by lower standards than men. It should not be assumed that, because they are women, we expect less of them in terms of obedience to the law. If women offend persistently—it has been pointed out that women are sent to prison not for non-payment of licence fees, but for refusing to obey a court order—they must be answerable to the law like everyone else in the community. Otherwise, what is to stop any woman saying, "I don't want to pay for my television licence, and I know that I can't be imprisoned for it, because I am a mother"?

I have experience in helping female constituents and their families with their problems. They receive an enormous amount of assistance from social services, which often includes financial help to settle immediate monetary problems.

I do not think that women should be treated differently from men—although perhaps women have different problems. Does the hon. Lady believe that it is a good use of taxpayers' money to incarcerate a woman in prison for a week or a fortnight and to take her children into care for default of payment of a television licence fine?

Like the hon. Lady, I deplore the fact that that occurs. However, my annoyance is rooted in the fact that women—who generally have more common sense than men—persist in committing the crimes that put them in that situation. I taught girls in London secondary schools for 10 years, and I know that it is silly to pretend that women cannot behave as badly as men. If they persistently refuse to obey the laws of the land, they must be dealt with accordingly. I stress that point to Labour Members who have sought to make enormous political capital from the issue.

As a Member of Parliament, I have been very interested in the plight of women who are charged with murder and who are unable to plead provocation as a defence—we do not need to go into the details of how provocation occurs. A few years ago, I visited Bullwood Hall prison at my request—unfortunately, my experience is not up to date—where I was permitted to interview 13 women who had been imprisoned for first degree murder. They included Sarah Thornton and Kiranjit Ahluwalia—whose name I can never pronounce, but I am sure that the hon. Member for Bristol, East (Ms Corston) will assist me.

I made an extensive tour of the prison, and what I saw does not match the descriptions of the treatment of female prisoners. I saw a family room equipped with toys which is used by children—who are separated from their mothers in those circumstances—when visiting the prison. I saw a gymnasium in a very large hall, and I was assured that tutors visited the prison to assist women with exercises. I saw the kitchens and the food that the women were served for lunch.

I also talked freely with the prisoners. At one point, I was alone with 13 prisoners, who expressed their grievances to me. I visited Miss Thornton, who was at that time in the prison hospital, in a very clean and neat room to herself. She sat curled up in the middle of a bed that was made up with clean linen. There was no attempt to restrain her, or to prevent me from speaking to her.

One can speak only about what one has seen. Of course, I was intimidated by the banging doors, the chains and the locks and keys, but the conditions in that prison were not offensive.

I worked in the Home Office formulating prison policy in relation to women and young offenders. I assure the hon. Lady that most women prisoners are held in Holloway, not in Bullwood Hall. Is she aware that, when the new chief inspector of prisons visited Holloway, he walked out halfway through the day because he was so disgusted by the conditions there?

I am, of course, aware of those reports, and, like everyone else, I am concerned about them, and await more details. I find it surprising that an institution in which many women are incarcerated is allowed to get into a dilapidated state. In similar circumstances, I would want to clean up the conditions in which I was living.

The cells that I saw—admittedly it was a small prison, but the women had been convicted of very serious crimes—were nothing like what the hon. Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) describes. Perhaps female prisoners should be given the opportunity to contribute to the general maintenance of the prison, including the cooking and cleaning. I think that that would be excellent therapy.

That brings me to the amount of time, energy and taxpayers' money that the Government spend on rehabilitating prisoners. The Government have spent a phenomenal amount of money in an attempt to improve conditions for prisoners—who, I repeat, are incarcerated because they have committed offences against society, and society has demanded that they receive a custodial sentence. Government spending on prisons has doubled since 1979; more recently, it has increased from £1.35 billion in 1995–96 to £1.4 billion in 1996–97. The Government are doing their best to improve conditions within the Prison Service, not just for those who are incarcerated but for those who work in our prisons.

Even more important is the amount of time that is being devoted to ensuring that male and female prisoners learn skills that will prove useful upon their release from prison. I hope that that will include courses in simple accounting, which may help some women to balance their budgets.

But they are locked up many hours a day.

The hon. Gentleman remarks that female prisoners are locked in their cells for long periods. However, 38 per cent. of all prisoners have their cells unlocked for more than 12 hours a day during the week. That compares with much longer periods spent in their cells 10 years ago. The prison regime is becoming much more humane, and is providing rehabilitation opportunities for male and female prisoners. Prisoners are able to exercise on outdoor pitches, and the prison library provides education opportunities.

While we agree that prisoners should have education opportunities, there is a serious problem in that regard in Holloway prison. Due to a shortage of prison officers, many women spend much time—sometimes up to 23 hours—in their cells every day. That is very wrong. There have also been enormous cuts in the budget of the education department at Holloway prison. Female prisoners' opportunities for education and self-improvement in prison have been wiped out by staff and spending cuts. In her response, perhaps the Minister will tell us how the Government intend to improve the education facilities at Holloway prison.

I am sure that my hon. Friend will do that.

Some 58 prisons run re-employment focusing courses and job clubs which prepare prisoners for a return to the work force, and 113 prisons provide advice on housing and employment issues. I am sure that such advice will prove especially helpful to women, whose problems are rooted in their inability to manage their budgets and pay the rent. It is very upsetting if women are constantly forced out of their homes and must seek new accommodation.

Sentence planning is in place for all prisoners serving 12 months or more, so, while they are in prison, a prison officer can counsel prisoners to plan for the time that they are discharged. The Government's record of improving conditions in prisons, making them more humane and enhancing the chances of prisoners ending their sentences with a better attitude and of being more organised undoubtedly represents an advance on the conditions that once prevailed—and long may they go on improving.

There will inevitably be times when we can find cause for criticism. If we lived in a perfect world, we would not need to be here in the first place.

I apologise to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and to hon. Members on both sides of the House, for the fact that, due to a previous commitment, regretfully I will not be present for the wind-up.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon) on securing this Adjournment debate on an issue of paramount importance.

Conservative Members have argued that women who fall foul of the law should not be treated any less leniently. No Opposition Members would argue against that—if women offend, they must be punished. However, I strongly argue that, as most women prisoners, who number more than 1,000 according to Home Office figures, are imprisoned for minor offences that do not involve harming an individual—such as defaulting on fines—they should not be incarcerated. It is entirely possible for an alternative form of punishment to be applied to women who are in the main mothers, and preponderantly single mothers. We are punishing not only them but their innocent children.

If the Government listen only to the argument that society is protecting the taxpayer by imprisoning such women, I remind Conservative Members that it costs more than £451 a week to keep a woman in prison, and that a child taken into care costs the taxpayer £45,000 a year.

When I visited Holloway prison nearly two years ago, women were faced with a terrible and stark choice once their babies reached the age of nine months. If a woman wanted to stay in Holloway, because, for example, she had other children in London, the baby was taken into care. If she wanted to keep the baby with her, she had to go to a prison in the north of England, thereby facing separation from her other children. Does my hon. Friend agree that that is an appalling way to treat mothers?

I agree absolutely. That is an appalling way to treat mothers and a ghastly lesson for their children to learn—that society has no care or feeling for them. The Howard League, for whose information I am most grateful, states that estimates lead it to believe that more than 8,587 children are left without a parent because their mothers are serving prison sentences for, in the main, minor offences. The league deems the true figure to be infinitely higher, as many women sent to prison for minor offences do not reveal that they have children, because they are afraid that they will be taken into care.

The issue of how society punishes mothers who have offended against the law must be reviewed. Currently, society is punishing not only mothers but their essentially innocent children.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon) on initiating this debate, with the typical generosity of spirit that we associate with her, and in such a thoughtful way.

We should try to put the issue in the wider context of what has been happening and is happening in the Prison Service. The service has a contracting budget. Governors are expected to lower the unit cost per prisoner over the next two or three years, but there is a rising prison population. It currently numbers 52,000, but that figure varies one way or the other by 500 prisoners each month. Most experts agree that the figure will probably rise to between 56,000 and 57,000 by the end of this year.

That situation must be underwritten by the co-operation of the Prison Service, yet the morale of the people who work in it has never been lower in living memory. They have been confronted with privatisation and market testing, and they feel that the contribution they could make is constantly undermined by the Government, and by Home Office Ministers in particular. Even governors who occasionally get into difficulty, in some cases through no fault of their own, are scapegoated by Ministers.

indicated dissent.

Well, in that context, the co-operation that the Government need to implement any reasonable prison policy is not there, which cannot be ignored.

The hon. Member for Hastings and Rye (Mrs. Lait) must be the only hon. Member who maintains that one can readily define a split between policy, which is the prerogative of Ministers, and operations, which are allegedly the sole province of the Prison Service. I will, for the hon. Lady's further edification, quote directly from Hansard the Home Secretary's statement last Thursday:

"We are confident that the revised policy provides the correct balance without reducing security to unacceptable levels."—[Official Report, 18 January 1996; Vol. 269, c. 893.]

We have it from the mouth of the Home Secretary himself that handcuffing and chaining women during labour was a matter of policy. He conceded that in his statement.

Most sensible Members in all parts of the House accept that that practice was unnecessary and certainly barbaric, but I wish to distance myself from some of the more personal attacks made on the Minister of State.

Hear, hear.

However, the Minister cannot and must not maintain that she did not know about the practice. The chairwoman of Whittington hospital trust had written to the Prison Service about the practice. I mentioned the matter when I had a private meeting with the Minister and the Director General of the Prison Service, and voiced my concerns in early December.

Does my hon. Friend recall that, when we visited Holloway prison just before his meeting with the Minister, we met some of the women who had been handcuffed in Whittington hospital? It was clear to us both that Whittington had complained about the handcuffing of women entering the hospital for treatment, often for antenatal care, and that the issue had been raised with the board of governors and the prison governor. The concerns were well known by a range of people. I find it surprising that the only individuals who did not know of them were at the Home Office. I find that scarcely believable.

I confirm my hon. Friend's observations. He has saved me having to make those points myself. When we visited the prison, I was concerned about the policy and the wider difficulties. I am not at all surprised that the chief inspector's staff walked out of Holloway prison during their visit. That is the sorry pass that we have come to.

On 30 November 1995, 2,072 women were held in prisons, as has been mentioned. Not all had been convicted—about 400 were on remand. The women's prison population has been growing, and we must be honest and admit that the offences for which women are held on remand or convicted are generally in a different class of criminal than those typically associated with men. The figures show that 37.1 per cent. of women are in prison for non-payment of fines, and only 7.6 per cent. are there for violence-related crimes.

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

I will not give way, because I have only a short time, and the Minister will have only a short time. The hon. Gentleman has intervened often enough.

The pattern of crimes committed by women is wholly different from that associated with men. The hon. Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman), in a typically eccentric contribution—

She is not eccentric.

My hon. Friend is characteristically generous.

There is a difference between women in prison and men in prison, and that has been recognised since Victorian times. I do not know which history of women in prison the hon. Member for Billericay has read, but I am sure that she is a fan of the utilitarian, Jeremy Bentham. Even he accepted that there is a difference between women in prison and men in prison, and that the arrangements for them needed to reflect that.

I would like to say much more, but time forbids. It is necessary sometimes to pause in the operation of public policy, and if the great furore that has taken place over the past few weeks produces anything good, it should be a reassessment of what we want to achieve by putting women in prison.

I think that hon. Members on both sides of the House agree that the Prison Service has three aims. The first is to punish, which is a legitimate step to take on behalf of society. The second is to protect society by removing some people from general circulation to prevent them from creating more mayhem in the community. The third must be—I know that the Minister accepts it, because she has said so before—rehabilitation. Without rehabilitation, the whole process is a waste of time.

We must question whether the Prison Service is achieving those aims. It is not doing so in Holloway or in Styal, which has a high level of drug abuse among its women. Perhaps it is time to pause and ask what we are achieving for women in the prison system. Are those punishments for non-payment of fines the most appropriate ones?

What would the hon. Gentleman do?

I shall deal with that, if the hon. Gentleman will hold himself in patience.

Are there alternative ways of punishing and rehabilitating women that might be more appropriate and more effective? I wish to make an offer to the Minister. Will she set up an inquiry, not necessarily a high-profile one, to consider what alternatives may be available to punish women for non-payment of fines?

If the Minister was serious about that, and appointed the right people, who were prepared to consider the problem dispassionately and thoughtfully, we would be willing to co-operate—as, I am sure, would other parties in the House. If we could arrive at a formula for punishment that was acceptable to the House, was recognised as sensible by the general public, and, most importantly, was a more effective way to deal with the problem, we would all gain. Public policy, the Minister and the Opposition would all gain, and we would deal with the problem more intelligently.

If we could stop slinging abuse across the Dispatch Box—something I would never do to the Minister—and pause to give some thought to how we are dealing with the problems, we would reap the benefits. I make that offer to the Minister seriously, and I hope that she will take it up. I also hope that, after this debate, we shall start to deal with the problem more effectively and sensibly, instead of trading slogans all the time.

I wish to start my reply to this debate by paying a tribute to the Prison Service. It has come in for much unfair criticism for some time, and it is right to put on record what it has achieved.

Escapes are now down by 77 per cent. compared with the figure when the Prison Service became an agency. No prisoners are now held three to a cell, and have not been since March 1994, compared with 1,053 in April 1992. At the end of December 1995, 17 per cent. of the prison population were held two to a cell for one, compared with 21 per cent. in April 1992. More than 96 per cent. of prisoners now have 24-hour access to sanitation, compared with 70 per cent. in March 1992. All that has been achieved against a background of a prison population that has risen from 43,400 in April 1993 to 51,300 in mid-January 1996—an increase of 18 per cent.

The Prison Service has provided more than 5,000 new and refurbished cells since it became an agency. Prisoners now spend 7 per cent. more time in purposeful activity than in 1992–93. At the end of December 1995, 36 per cent. of prisoners were unlocked for more than 12 hours per weekday, compared with 24 per cent. at the end of March 1993. All that has been achieved, not just against the rise in prison population, but against a reduction in the cost of a prison place of 2.4 per cent. in real terms.

The combination of the fall in escapes and the rise in purposeful activity, unlocked time and access to decent sanitation points clearly to a lack of any conflict between security and rehabilitation. It is often suggested that there is a natural conflict between the two, but, as the clear statement of purpose outside every prison demonstrates, we are committed to security.

The Minister is arguing that there is no conflict between security and rehabilitation. Does she believe that Richard Tilt, the acting Director General of the Prison Service, was wrong when he said:

"The problem for the Prison Service is that we are trying to balance security with treating people humanely. They are often in conflict"?

Who is right, the Minister or Mr. Tilt?

There is no conflict between the two statements. It is clear that Mr. Tilt made that statement about a particular issue. He was explaining, as I myself have had to explain to the House, that sometimes there is a difficulty in balancing security against dignity. There is no conflict between the two purposes of the prison system—to hold people securely in custody and not let them escape, and to rehabilitate them and raise the chances of their being returned to society as law-abiding and useful citizens. The second purpose is also a major contribution to public protection, and there is no such conflict.

Now that I have said that rather fiercely to the hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng), may I thank him for his sedentary intervention in support of his hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, North (Mr Howarth), when he condemned the attacks on me? I also wish to pay especial tribute to the wife of the hon. Member for Littleborough and Saddleworth (Mr. Davies). I hope that he will convey to her my genuine thanks for what she has done.

I have listened with great care to the points that have been raised this morning. I regret that, because of the time constraints, I will not have the opportunity to answer them all. I shall, however, try to deal with some of the points raised in the time available.

I turn first to the opening paragraphs of the speech by the hon. Member for Knowsley, North, in which he said that I should not claim that I did not know what was going on. It is very important to put the record straight. I have never claimed, in the House or outside it, that I did not know what the policy was. Indeed, the hon. Gentleman will remember that, when he came to see me, the acting Director General of the Prison Service gave him, in my presence, a full exposition of what the policy was. I have never claimed not to know it.

What I said was that I did not know that concern had been expressed by the Whittington hospital about Holloway practice. That statement was utterly truthful, according to the knowledge I had at the time. When I came into the knowledge that had not been available to me, I took the earliest possible opportunity to rectify the situation. Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that what I have said is a truthful statement?

I would never accuse the hon. Lady of deliberately misleading the House or anyone else, but can she confirm that, when we met on 10 December in her office with the acting Director General of the Prison Service, I raised with her the fact that I was aware that Whittington hospital trust had been in touch, possibly initially with the Department of Health but certainly also with her office, to raise its concerns about the medical implications of what was going on? She was aware of that at the time. If I remember rightly, she said that she had had some dialogue with a ministerial colleague at the Department of Health about some of the issues that worried the Whittington hospital trust.

No, there is some confusion here. I had certainly had dialogue with my noble Friend Lady Cumberlege, but that was on the subject of health care throughout the Prison Service, not on this specific topic. That is where the confusion arises. I was assured, I queried the assurance, and I was reassured that there had not been any specific complaints about Holloway practice from the hospital to the prison. I do not think that there is any point in rehearsing the matter much further; I have stated the position as it was.

Will the Minister give way?

No, I am pressed for time. I should like to give way; indeed, I have already given way twice in the course of my summing up. The hon. Member for Knowsley, North did not give way at all.

Yes, I did.

There have been claims by the Opposition throughout this debate that women prisoners and women in general, on being sentenced and convicted, are treated more harshly than men. It is worth recording that, in 1994, the last year for which complete statistics are available, 16 per cent. of adult males were sentenced and cautioned for indictable offences, and were given either an immediate or a suspended prison sentence. The number of adult women similarly treated was 6 per cent.

The use of community sentences for female prisoners has also been mentioned. I regret that we have no published figures later than the year 1993. Nevertheless, those figures show that 6,885 female offenders received probation orders, 2,998 received community service orders, 803 received supervision orders, 696 received combination orders—making a total of 11,382 female offenders who were the subject of community sentences. In the same year, the number of female receptions in prisons for immediate custody was 1,929. I therefore do not think it true to say that there has been a disproportionate use of prison.

We have also heard much from the Opposition about the imprisonment of fine defaulters. When they arrive with us, it is always because the courts have exhausted all other remedies. There has to be a final deterrent, but it is still worth keeping the problem in proportion. On 31 October 1995, there were 414 fine defaulters in the entire prison estate, of whom only 19 were women. So, at any given time, less than 1 per cent. of the female population is in prison for non-payment of fines.

The hon. Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon), who initiated this interesting debate this morning—on which I neglected to congratulate her at the beginning—brought up the problem of a Holloway female prisoner with breast cancer. As she has raised the matter, I think it worth pointing out that that prisoner goes to the Middlesex hospital four times a week. There are two officers on escort duty, and as far as operationally possible the prison makes every endeavour to ensure that both are female. I do not claim that they have always been female, but efforts are made to that end. Physical restraints are applied as a result of a risk assessment.

The Home Secretary made very clear our policy with regard to treatment in hospital. It is worth repeating some of it, although I do not intend to go into all of it, because it is important in respect of the essential point that the hon. Member for Halifax has raised: how we treat people who go to hospital for treatment for conditions other than pregnancy.

First, the Home Secretary made it clear that female prisoners who are admitted to hospital to give birth will not have handcuffs or other physical restraints applied to them from the time they arrive at the hospital until the time they leave. So, while a mother is attending to her child after birth, breast-feeding and so on, she will not be subject to restraints.

Secondly, female prisoners attending hospital for antenatal checks will not have restraints applied to them in the public waiting areas of hospitals. Restraints will not be applied at all during antenatal appointments. The hon. Member for Halifax expressed concern about the use of restraints when difficult treatment is being given, and I understand that point. Restraints may be applied if there is a particularly high risk of escape. Indeed, the hon. Lady herself conceded that restraints would be necessary in such cases.

For cases not associated with pregnancy, governors retain their discretion to decide what security measures are necessary. They must do a thorough risk assessment; following that, some female prisoners can go to hospital on temporary licence—in which case, they take themselves and bring themselves back. But in most other cases, physical restraints will be used.

If, following the risk assessment, the governor decides that restraints are unnecessary, they will not be used. In such cases, the prisoner will be accompanied and supervised by Prison Service staff. If there is a medical objection to the use of restraints at any time, the policy remains—it is not new—that restraints must be removed.

In the concluding minutes of this debate, I want to give a breakdown of the population of female offenders. There has been much talk today about the pettiness of the offences for which, allegedly, most female offenders are in prison. The precise statistics are as follows: violence against the person, 11 per cent.; sexual offences, 0.4 per cent.; burglary, 3.8 per cent.; robbery, 2.1 per cent.; theft and handling, 40 per cent.; fraud and forgery, 10.5 per cent.; drugs offences, 10.4 per cent.; other offences, 16 per cent.; offences not recorded, 5.8 per cent.

A specific point about the provision of education at Holloway was mentioned by the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn). Education in the prison is provided by Kingsway college, and additional money has been put in the education budget for Holloway this year. Far from suffering a cut, therefore, it has attracted additional money.

I should like to say a few words about our overall aims—

And staffing levels.

The hon. Gentleman will be aware that, even preceding the inspector's report, we recognised that there were problems and had put in an extra £326,000, with a specific view to provide extra staff. Following the inspector's report, we drafted in some temporary staff to plug the gap before permanent staff were employed. I hope that that provides some reassurance to the hon. Gentleman. If he has worries about this, he is welcome to raise them with me at any time, as I am aware that he has a genuine constituency concern.

In the final minute of the debate, I should like to say something about our overall aims. I am committed, as the hon. Member for Knowsley, North admitted, to a rehabilitative regime in our prisons. I can think of nothing more—

Order. Time's up.

I am extremely grateful for the opportunity to debate the consequences of abolishing the pound sterling. I appreciate that the debate is about the implications for the United Kingdom of a single European currency, but in plain language what we are really talking about are the consequences of getting rid of the pound. I hope that the sensibilities of right hon. and hon. Members will not be offended if I continue to express myself in those terms.

The debate takes place against the background of a round-table meeting in Brussels, hosted by the European Commission, to discuss the single currency. It will provide an opportunity for the 400 participants, who represent a wide range of interested parties from throughout the European Union, to discuss their expectations, concerns and ideas about the single currency.

There is absolutely no doubt where the European Commission President, Jacques Santer, stands on these matters. He is reported as having said to the European Parliament last Tuesday that a single currency was crucial in building a dynamic, strong and prosperous Europe. He went on to say that, with some member states devoting 20 per cent. of their budget to servicing their national debts, Europe would have to put its economic house in order anyway, regardless of whether it was introducing the single currency.

Indeed, as Europe's largest-circulation English language newspaper, the Europa Times, stated in March 1995:

"A single currency needs uniformly low inflation and stable exchange rates. But with low inflation and stable exchange rates who needs a single currency?"

That view was echoed in the business section of The Sunday Telegraph on 12 March 1995, which quoted the European Commission itself as saying:

"Since the empirical research has not found any robust relationship between exchange rate variability and trade it is not possible to estimate the increase in intra-EC trade that might derive from the irrevocable fixing of exchange rates."

I remind the House that both reports that I have just quoted came after 108 of my right hon. and hon. Friends signed early-day motion 581, tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley (Mr. Baker) on 8 February 1995, which called on the House to congratulate the Prime Minister on making it clear on 8 January 1995 that it is not in the United Kingdom's interest to join a single currency in 1997, and on his confirmation that there are no proposals for legislation necessary for the purpose or for the United Kingdom to accept any changes at the intergovernmental conference that will impact on the constitution of the United Kingdom, and further noted his rejections of support for the principle of a single currency by the Leader of Her Majesty's Opposition and by Mr. Jacques Santer.

It is gratifying to see that the judgment of my colleagues was endorsed by the findings of the Henley Centre for Economic Forecasting, which reported in EP News, the newspaper of the European Parliament, in September 1995, that popular support in the United Kingdom for a single currency was only 31 per cent.—a figure which, broadly speaking, was endorsed by the findings of the Commission's private polling announced this Monday, which showed support for the abolition of the pound at 36 per cent. Clearly, no popular mandate exists for abolishing the pound. Nor, indeed, has one ever been sought.

It is my intention not to burden the House further with reports and opinions of other people in other places, but rather to turn directly to the facts that should concern us as Members of Parliament, answerable and accountable, as we will shortly be reminded, to the electorate whom we represent. The first fact concerns unemployment. In October 1990, when this country joined the exchange rate mechanism, unemployment totalled 1.67 million. Less than two years later—23 months—when we unceremoniously left the ERM, unemployment had soared to 2.85 million. There will be right hon. and hon. Members who will say, "Well, that was just the way the cookie crumbled on that occasion." Let me remind the House that that was precisely what happened when we were on fixed exchange rates between 1925 and 1931. I shall give the House the figures.

In 1925, when we joined the gold standard, unemployment stood at 1.25 million. By 1931, the figure had risen to 2.9 million. That has been the cost to this country of fixed exchange rates. The cost to my constituents has been the jobs that they lost and the consequential loss to many of them of their homes, because they could not keep up their mortgage repayments. In some cases, they lost their businesses.

rose—

I can see that my hon. Friend wishes to intervene. I must make it clear that I shall not be taking any interventions, because I want to allow maximum opportunity for other colleagues to make their contributions to the debate.

Are the figures that I just quoted on unemployment a price worth paying for what is no more and no less than an economic theory? Even if they are, who in the House will vote for a single currency? Certainly not all hon. Members on the Conservative Benches, and definitely not all hon. Members on the Opposition Benches.

rose—

I am not giving way.

Indeed, there is increasing doubt that such a measure would command a majority in the House, even on a free vote. Why can we not simply conclude that a single currency is not in Britain's interest? Why must we keep up the pretence that, in spite of experience and all the political pain along the way, one day—miraculously—it will all come right? What the country needs is certainty. Decision makers in trade, industry and commerce need certainty, as do individuals, families, and—dare I say—politicians, particularly if they are seeking re-election, because in the final analysis there are no votes in equivocation, obfuscation and prevarication.

I hope that, when my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary responds to the debate, she will be able to provide the House with some sound and positive reasons for abolishing the pound. Before she does that, I remind her of yet another fact. Between 1925 and 1931, while the country was on the gold standard, economic activity stagnated, just as it did between 1990 and 1992 during our membership of the ERM. On each occasion, the abandonment of fixed exchange rates resulted in dramatically reduced interest rates—from 6 per cent. in September 1931 to 2 per cent. a mere nine months later, and from 12 per cent. on black Wednesday to 6 per cent. only three months later.

In both instances, the start of economic recovery coincided with the abandonment of fixed exchange rates, the effect of which had been to choke off exports due to an unrealistic and uncompetitive exchange rate, and to choke off investment due to the necessity to keep interest rates high to sustain a totally arbitrary rate of exchange. That was a vicious circle, the inevitable consequences of which were, as I have described, unemployment, economic stagnation and all the consequential effects on Government expenditure and the public sector borrowing requirement.

We should look at the situation today, now we are free of the straitjacket of fixed exchange rates. On 20 June 1995, The Daily Telegraph, in an article headed:

"Britain runs ahead of EU rivals"

said:

"Britain outpaced its main European rivals last year, achieving a growth rate of 3.8 per cent. against 2.9 per cent. for Germany, 2.7 per cent. for France and 2.2 per cent. for Italy."

The report then said:

"Norway, which decided to stay out of the EU, experienced a 5.1 per cent. rise in its gross domestic product last year."

Last week, The Daily Telegraph, in an article headlined,

"Britain shows the way on jobs"

said:

"On internationally agreed measures, the jobless rate in Britain, has fallen to 8.1 per cent. against a European average of 10.6 per cent. Unemployment has reached 11.4 per cent. in France and 9.9 per cent. in Germany."

If my analysis of the effect of fixed exchange rates on interest rates, unemployment and economic activity in Britain is wrong, I am sure that the House will be quick to correct me.

Another question arises from the proposition to abolish the pound. It is the associated costs of doing so—the costs to the Treasury, to banks and the financial sector, and to trade, industry and commerce, not to mention to the general public. Various bodies have made inspired guesses as to the overall cost, but one thing is for certain—Treasury Ministers, as evidenced by their written answer to me on 6 December 1995, do not know or will not tell. They will only say:

"there will be transitional costs to business and public authorities, associated with the changeover to the single currency. These potential costs would be one of the factors that would need to be taken into account, at the appropriate time, when the Government make their assessment of whether it is in the United Kingdom's interest to join a move to the third stage of economic and monetary union."—[Official Report, 6 December 1995; Vol. 268, c. 261.]

In other words, there will be no cost-benefit analysis because, as is all too plain to see, the decision to abolish the pound will be made, not for economic but for political reasons.

Without a shadow of doubt, the abolition of the pound, and all other national currencies in Europe, and the creation of a single currency, is the keystone to the completion of political union—the very apogee of the integrationists' dreams. The implication is that, by not ruling out the abolition of the pound, Her Majesty's Government are reconciled to the inevitability of political union. Again, if I am wrong, let my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary say so unequivocally, but I should perhaps warn her that many Conservative Members will need much convincing that political union does not follow monetary union as surely as night follows day.

I say to the House in all sincerity and with all due humility, this is not an enterprise to be entered into lightly. What we are talking about is the ending of 600 years of parliamentary democracy; the ending of the freedom of the British people to make their own laws in their own Parliament and according to their own preferences freely expressed in British ballot boxes.

Abolition of the British pound would be the final curtain call for the independent nation state. The issue cannot be fudged. The party managers cannot hope to finesse the outcome of a vote on a matter of such crucial importance. I call on our Government to dismiss the proposition for what it is—a mischievous and highly dangerous irrelevance which serves only to distract us from all that we might otherwise be more profitably doing.

Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for calling me. I am grateful, as I am sure are other hon. Members, to my hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Mr. Gill) for initiating the debate, although they do not necessarily agree with most of the points that he has made.

If it does not offend anyone, I should like to follow my hon. Friend's excellent principle of not necessarily giving way to interventions because I am sure that that will allow more hon. Members to take part. I hope to be brief.

At the beginning of last November, the European Commissioner in charge of the EMU plans, the French Commissioner, Yves-Thibault de Silguy, confirmed yet again that the European Union is on target to commence the single currency by 1 January 1999, the expected date of commencement in Europe generally—at least in the rest of Europe.

That statement runs contrary to the superficial counter-propaganda that appears in some British newspapers—they have been growing in number slightly recently—that appear to be nervous and timid about the prospect. They constantly seek to undermine the plans, usually because of the reactionary attitudes of their non-British owners and short-sighted editors. The journalists have to follow suit because, after all, everyone is involved in the circulation battle.

The Commissioner's robust reaffirmation was welcome to those who are keen on this most exciting project and was particularly welcomed—it was mentioned specifically by a number of people—in what I would call financial and City circles. It also fits in with the optimistic and realistic expectation of the Commission President, Jacques Santer, who has now on three separate occasions emphatically reaffirmed his expectation that seven to nine countries could be in line to join in the unified currency system at, or close to, the target date without any impairment of the existing convergence criteria.

There is an interesting possibility that one of the best candidates for convergence criteria realisation will be the United Kingdom although, officially, the Government have our reserve on the opt-out, which seems to meet with the support of most of my hon. Friends for the moment. That is a reserve which in no way says that the United Kingdom is against monetary union or Britain joining it; it just says that we will make that crucial decision at a later date depending on the circumstances that are then emerging.

In the same November statement, Mr. Silguy reiterated, with enormous justification, once again the main objectives of the single currency system. The first is to boost growth and job creation in the future throughout the single market. My hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow is right to point up differences in unemployment figures because the member states' economies have not reached the full real economy convergence, aside from the statistical convergence that is necessary under the programme, that will gradually come as more and more intra-community trade develops. We know already how high our export ratio is to the other European countries.

Secondly, Mr. Silguy reiterated with great emphasis the need to eliminate the unnecessary bilateral and multilateral exchange costs that come from having different currencies in a single market. It is an interesting phenomenon, and a puzzle to me, that Conservative Members, and politicians and others in the United Kingdom generally, who are rightly keen on the single market in all its aspects, which are numerous, from specifications to measurements to trading conditions to standards—the whole edifice of the single market, which is more than just a trading area, as we know—are against the most essential lubricant of the single market; the need for currency harmonisation.

Those extra costs, which exist as a result of having differential currencies, aside from the disutilities of the fluctuations that occur, are estimated conservatively to be a minimum of 0.5 per cent. of combined European Union GDP. That is a vast amount of unnecessary expenditure. I should have thought that it was a good Conservative philosophy not to be in favour of unnecessary, expenditure and wasting of money.

Thirdly, the French Commissioner said that one of the crucial objectives was the cutting of costs for companies—the corporate sector is the most important aspect of that—to ensure that they are not burdened unnecessarily. Conservative Members are rightly keen, particularly with our deregulation policies—this is an aspect of that—to cut the unnecessary costs that companies face. During the past six to nine months, virtually all finance directors have probably expressed the view that the single currency is necessary.

Most important, however, is the need for the single currency not merely to satisfy keen pan-European politicians—regardless of the member state to which they belong—or, indeed, the central banking elites, but to be in the interest of consumers, who, under the Maastricht treaty, are now citizens of the European Union as well as of their own countries. European consumers—patriotic British, French, German and Italian consumers—are increasingly mobile: they want to move around the European Union in economic as well as social and holiday terms, and they rightly want the best possible bargain as purchasers of goods and services.

Boosting mass interest of consumers in the prices of consumer durables and all the available services—to be quoted in the same currency denomination or price expression—would be of enormous advantage to the public. They are slowly beginning to realise that, although—as has been said—they are understandably apprehensive because of false propaganda in the British papers.

I shall give an example of what I am describing, to calm the excited spirits of some of my colleagues who, as we know, wish to live in the past. It is generally recognised that, for some inexplicable reason, motor car final retail prices in Britain are generally higher than those in Belgium, France, Germany and other European countries. Apart from duty differences, no one really knows the reason for that. About four years ago, the Department of Trade and Industry carried out a wonderful investigation, but reached no conclusion other than blaming the sinister impact of some intermediaries—and even that was not properly explained.

We can imagine how the British public—Mr. and Mrs. John Citizen—would feel if car prices were expressed in the same currency denomination, in terms of the euro or whatever it will be called in the future. They would be able to compare the prices of many other consumer durables as well. That is the magic of the single currency and the single market. It is better to bear that in mind than to theorise about convergence criteria, low inflation rates and all the other matters that—understandably—preoccupy the central bankers.

The Commissioner's November statement was important because it provided the basis for Commission and European Union plans for Ministers' policies, and because it was accepted by member Governments at the time. The Commissioner rightly avoided any partisan comments about what the United Kingdom or Denmark should finally decide to do, equipped as those countries are with their reserve opt-out. However, he felt strongly—and I agree with him—that it would be in the United Kingdom's interest to remain an active participant in the detailed preparations for the commencement of the new currency on 1 January 1999.

I thank the Government wholeheartedly: although, for self-evident reasons, we have that constitutional, legal and political reserve, they have participated fully in all the working groups and other preparations as though we were going to join the single currency in any event. That is, of course, unavoidable; it would be very difficult for the Government not to participate, and no final judgment arrêté arises. The Government are simply being very practical. I believe, however, that their actions will in due course help to reassure the public that a single currency is an attractive proposition.

We are not talking merely of the practitioners in the financial markets, and all those who must deal with the increasingly old-fashioned syndrome of European currencies clashing and bumping against each other without any real rationale. Let me offer a chilling reminder of the behaviour of the United Kingdom's national currency. Since 1950, or the year before, when the deutschmark was established, the pound sterling has fallen by 90 per cent. against the deutschmark, which is the most successful currency in Europe.

The general perception is that, in broad output and production terms, the German economy overtook the British economy—sadly for this country—in 1955. Since then, the pound sterling has depreciated against the deutschmark by 79 per cent. Lest those of us who are consumed—as we all too often are—by huge prejudices against our friends in Italy think that the Italian lira has performed less well, I should point out that the difference is not great: the lira has depreciated by 84 per cent.

The sad reality is that that progressive depreciation of the pound has not built the United Kingdom up into a strong, high-output, dynamic economy. Economists never agree about anything, but if one factor can be singled out as the most important it is the rate of reinvestment in new assets. That must be the characteristic of the future strength of production, and of the balance between manufacturing industry and other services in significant economies.

I only wish that Britain were ahead of Germany now. We would have been if, in the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s, we had pursued different currency and reinvestment policies—but, for numerous reasons, that was not to be. Certainly, the latest devaluation of sterling has led to no long-term, durable improvement in the British economy, although I welcome the short-term cyclical improvement. It is good to see the economy recovering in a short-term statistical sense.

We should note the courage of the French in maintaining a high-currency policy despite the pain being experienced in Paris. The French franc is now higher against the pound than it was in December, despite what the British newspapers have said. That policy is now creating a high-production syndrome in France, similar to that in Germany. It will achieve the desired result in the longer term.

We need to exercise common sense in regard to the single currency. We must wait to see how convergence develops. I think that the United Kingdom will be a prime candidate, but we should show more self-confidence, and feel more excitement about the future and more willingness to explain the issue to the public. I am sadly, but understandably, reluctant to agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow.

Although my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes) has been consistent in his views over the years, I think that, as a truthful person, he would accept that the opinions that he has just expressed are now held by a minority in the Conservative party. The party has woken up. I find it a tragedy that the Labour and Liberal Democrat Benches are virtually empty. We simply cannot persuade Labour and Liberal Members that monetary union is not a miracle, and will not bring benefits.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the almost complete absence of Opposition Members demonstrates that Labour is soft on European union, and soft on the causes of European union?

The last thing that I want to do is attack the Opposition parties. I want to persuade them that they are supporting a policy that will create unemployment, misery and degradation. I only wish that every Labour and Liberal Democrat Member would read the book by Mr. Connolly, the man who headed the department dealing with economic and monetary union in the Commission. He put at risk an easy, cushy number— a big job with big pay and big prospects—because he believed passionately that economic and monetary union would create mass unemployment and civil unrest. Unfortunately, however, there is nothing that we can do to persuade people.

Apart from my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East, few Conservatives would support monetary union. The Minister—she, too, is a truthful person—could help to involve the public by answering five brief questions. First, what about the tragedy of France today? France is one of the loveliest countries in the world, and contains the most fascinating people, but it is now creating more and more unemployment. It is putting people out of work and creating human misery solely for the sake of a mad policy of artificial exchange rates, which every Conservative wishes to have nothing to do with. Surely the Government must accept that our experience in the exchange rate mechanism, France's current tragedy and Germany's problem of 4 million unemployed demonstrate beyond a shadow of doubt that fixed exchange rates are simply a recipe for mass unemployment.

As for civil unrest, if Britain were involved in monetary union—if we had high unemployment and, for good European reasons, the central bank decided to raise interest rates—people would be outraged. They would protest. They would go to the politicians, and would find that they could do nothing. I wish that the Government—despite the sincere views of the tiny minority in our party who still support the crazy socialist nonsense of fixed exchange rates and monetary union—would just come out and say, "We will have nothing to do with it."

However, I move to my questions. First, is it true that, if we get involved with the euro, all our gold and other reserves must be handed over to the European central bank? People should be told the answer. I hope that the Minister will answer so that, through Hansard and through our wonderful press, people can be told the facts.

The second question is: is it true that, if Britain were involved in the euro, no Minister, no individual, no banker, not even my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East would be allowed to make representations to the bank about its policy? We all offer advice to the Bank of England and to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. It is appalling that we are going to have a central bank running a nation's economic affairs and that, under the Maastricht treaty, we will not even be allowed to make representations to it. Of course, that may just be silly Euro-sceptic nonsense, but the Minister knows the facts. Her splendid civil servants, who are running up and down to all these meetings all the time, know the facts. Is that true or not? We must be told everything about that matter.

The third question is important to the Conservative party. I was delighted—because I know that, if anyone can solve this problem, our Prime Minister will—to hear the Prime Minister say that Britain will not re-engage in a fixed exchange rate system such as the exchange rate mechanism. My reading of the Maastricht treaty—this is only as interpreted by the European Court of Justice—is that one cannot join the single currency in the first stage unless one goes through two years of fixed exchange rates.

During those two years, in which lots of money will be splashed around to try and create convergence, there will be lots of misery and unemployment, but is it true that, if one is to be one of the first participants in the single currency, one must go through two years of fixed exchange rates, which, unlike the ERM, will be irrevocable and irreversible? If so, it would seem from what the Prime Minister said that there is no way in which Britain could be one of the first participants in the euro. People should know about that.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising this important point. I would like to shed a small bit of light on this matter. When he returned from the Madrid summit, the Prime Minister said to the House that the convergence criteria under ERM conditions no longer applied. Does that not reinforce the fact that the decision to move to a single currency will be primarily a political rather than an economic decision?

My hon. Friend is expressing the sort of fears and worries that I have. It is exactly because of that that I should like the Minister to say what the truth is. If we are going to be one of the first guys in the euro, do we need two years of fixed exchange rates? If so, does the Prime Minister's statement mean that we will not be one of those chaps? That is a simple question; it is not complicated. It would be helpful if the Government would answer yes or no.

I regret breaking into my hon. Friend's speech, but he will know that, subsequent to the statement in the House, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister answered a question on this issue from a prominent friend of ours among the Opposition, and the matter is not as straightforward as it appeared when he made his statement on his return from Madrid. I remind my hon. Friend that the criteria are set out in the Maastricht treaty, which is the law of Europe, and that, to have any change in the Maastricht treaty, there must be a treaty amendment, which would have to be ratified by every country in the European Union.

I am always grateful to my hon. Friend for explanations. He shows that the situation is confusing, but this is where the Treasury can help us. We want to know the facts. Is it true that we need two years of fixed exchange rates and, if so, does the Prime Minister's statement mean that we will not be involved?

The fourth question we must ask is: what are the conditions for countries that join at a later stage? It would be appalling if what happened under the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, Lord Lawson, were to happen again. I well remember how Britain unofficially joined the ERM without anyone knowing about it. This is meant to be a democratic House of Commons and assembly, and we became locked into that business without anyone being aware of it. We did not join officially; we joined unofficially. I hope therefore that the Government will help to clarify those four issues, which are terribly important. In particular, will they say what the conditions would be for joining at the second stage and whether the House of Commons would have an opportunity to express a view?

I have opposed the European Community from the beginning, and have believed passionately that it means misery for poor people, high prices and policies such as the common agricultural policy that cannot be changed. Of course, the Government will be aware that this year the CAP budget is £9 billion more than it was two years ago. We are all told that it will be reduced, but we know that all those assurances are absolute rubbish. It is terribly important that the Government answer this simple question: do they believe that, before any decision is made to contemplate joining the European Union, the people of the country must be asked?

Frankly, I do not think that most people are aware of the matter. It is not simply a matter of saying, "Do we have a currency that we can go to France and to Italy with?" Basically, if one accepts the single currency, in effect one is accepting a single European state without democracy. Mr. Deputy Speaker, you know that I am a well-behaved person, but the one thing that sickens me, and the only time that I feel like punching people—I really mean this—is when I hear a Conservative Minister say, "We are going to fight a federal Europe." There is nothing more sickening or misleading than that statement because a federal Europe would be infinitely better than what we have. It would at least have a democratic base and lay down guidelines on what belongs to the centre and what to member states. With a single currency, we are planning a single European state without democracy and, more important, a socialist state.

The whole principle of the European Union is artificial pricing, which unfortunately creates massive problems. The monstrous CAP policy, which my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) supports so lustily, has meant that the average family in Britain spends an extra £28 a week in higher food prices and taxes. Nothing can be done to reform it—if only people would wake up to the fact that that simply cannot happen. The average family in Britain will pay an extra £5 a week for the net membership fee this year. Poor people are suffering and jobs are being destroyed.

Sadly, as Mr. Connolly rightly stated, across the whole of Europe, including dear old France, fixed exchange rates, where they are applied, are putting decent people out of work unnecessarily, and creating an appalling mess and misery. Question No. 5, as the Minister is aware, is: do the Government think that big countries or big organisations have a better future than small countries? Around the world today, all conglomerations of states are not doing well; small countries controlling their own affairs and applying Conservative policies are doing very well.

I shall give just two tiny examples. The first involves a little country called Switzerland. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East will have heard of it. How did its exports to the European Community do last year? Strange to say, they increased dramatically more than Britain's did, and that happened by Switzerland not being in the European Union.

Referendums took place in Sweden and Norway. In Norway and Sweden, in which I am interested and which I visit regularly because I am involved in the Ansvar insurance company which promotes temperance, all the people were told that they had to join the European Union to safeguard jobs. The same old Confederation of British Industry blokes we have here told them all that joining was vital. Poor old Sweden voted yes, although I told it not to, and Norway voted no.

What has happened since? Sweden is in an appalling economic mess. I have never heard of such devastating Treasury action taking place in any European country. Norway has never had it so good. If we look around the world—at little countries such as Japan and other countries—we will find that prosperity and growth are occurring in small and independent countries and not in ones that get involved with the big battalions.

What about that little country Great Britain, which is doing more trade with China than it does with any of our European partners?

As always, my hon. Friend is right. She showed great courage and determination in saying such things when we were laughed at and harassed in the party.

Yes.

Yes, indeed. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash) has not had an easy time, but my hon. Friend the Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman) has had a terrible time with people attacking her. Her views are now accepted by the vast majority of the party, and I am obviously glad for her. Still, having said that, I should like to pay tribute to her courage and determination throughout this period.

We must remember that, if we are to survive as a small country off Europe we must go for world trade, low costs and the Conservative policy of getting away from artificial subsidy. I believe that the Economic Secretary to the Treasury is a straight and honourable person and I hope that, instead of voicing the usual Treasury nonsense, ambiguous words and things that mean nothing, she will tell people five simple facts. I have asked her for factual information. I know that we will receive that information from her and that it will be a major contribution to this desperately important debate.

In the next election, how great it would be if it was made clear to the people of Britain that the Conservative party will have nothing to do with this undemocratic, socialist job-destroying nonsense, and that the Labour party—sadly for the working class—will be supporting that nonsense, as will the Liberal Democrats, for reasons that I have never understood. If the people had a choice, they could vote for freedom and liberty and the end of all this nonsense. If the people could have a choice, it would be great, but it would require the Government to take a firm stand. I am sure that the Minister would be willing to do that; I hope that the Government will also.

My friends and family sometimes tell me that one of the many reasons why I have never been asked to join the Front-Bench team is that I have an uncanny habit of naively exposing the fact that I am not as sophisticated or well informed as many people, and that I should keep my mouth shut when I do not know what I am talking about. I am not an economist and, unlike many of my hon. Friends, I feel insecure in talking about economic concepts. There is not a great deal of harm, however, in exposing to the House the type of difficulties that the ordinary punter faces in this debate.

I was brought up to believe that devaluation, on the whole, was to be avoided. As my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes) has pointed out, however, we have been engaged in devaluing the pound since the time I was born, and certainly since the second world war, yet those who most passionately resist any attempts to devalue never seem to talk about any of the costs that are involved therein.

Everyone is against devaluation or debasement of the currency. It is important to realise that devaluation of the currency occurs when one has economic inflation and then resists the consequential adjustment of exchange rates, leaving an imbalance between the exchange rate and the real value of the currency which causes the economic dislocation. That is what occurred when we were in the exchange rate mechanism, and that is what occurred under the gold standard.

I bow to my hon. Friend's superior knowledge, but his contribution does not explain the devaluations that occurred in the years before the European Union was even dreamed of.

National power is one of the main issues in the debate. The truth is that the world was once on the gold standard because it was the currency that the United Kingdom used. Worldwide, people wished to be linked with our currency to give their currencies credibility—a function of the enormous power that was wielded by this country. I have told the House before that we are no longer in a position to dictate to anyone in the world. That has marked consequences, shown most clearly in the Suez crisis when the world decided that it did not wish three sovereign states to continue a war and simply pulled the plug on them.

We are in no position to stand alone. Our armed services are so small that, with the exception of certain fire-fighting activities, there is no way that we can operate alone on the world stage. We require the sort of co-operation that is taking place—one hopes with happy results, eventually—in Bosnia. Except in certain cases, we do not even make our own armaments. We make bits of them because we are entirely dependent on our partnerships with manufacturers in other states. The process of gradually moving towards one another is accelerating.

As an ordinary layman, I become rather confused about why there is the tremendous imperative from above to drive us towards a single currency. A single currency will emerge during the years ahead, as sure as night follows day, as we do more and more business with our European partners. As my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East said, as more people travel through Europe and find that constant currency adjustments are expensive and tiring, we shall find that businesses increasingly wish to make use of a single currency unit. Big businesses will start the process, small businesses will follow, and tourists will follow that. In my lifetime, I do not expect to be able to buy a loaf of bread in my village bakery—should it manage to resist the supermarkets that long—with a single European currency unit.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. I did not give way at all, but he has kindly referred to me twice. Is it not interesting that consumers who go to other European countries are increasingly using credit cards rather than getting too much currency? The equivalent, therefore, is that the single currency becomes the credit card without any charges or expenses.

That is entirely true.

Having a national currency is no guarantee of independence. I have just returned from Nepal, which is desperate to preserve its national independence and have its own currency. The idea that it is not wholly overshadowed by India, its enormous neighbour, is nonsense. I do not believe that the preservation of our national currency is a guarantee that we will not lose our capacity to act independently. That capacity has been substantially diminished over the years, for the reasons that I have set out.

We are engaged in an extraordinarily acerbic debate about something that has been made more immediate than it should have been by the pressures from the European Union and the central bank. I should much prefer us to evolve towards the single currency which I am sure will follow.

My hon. Friend is making a case, albeit not a strong one, for joining a single currency. Given that any single European currency would include Greece and Portugal—that would happen if he were to have his way—would it not be rather better to join with the dollar and the United States?

I am reluctant to join any closer to the United States. I am fond of the United States and think that it is a fine country, but I should infinitely prefer to resist a great many of the influences that come from it. I do not wish to be closer to a country whose racial problems, for example, could be imported into this country. I do not want such a divide in the United Kingdom. The American culture seems to be destructive of many of the values that we in the House hold dear.

I apologise to the hon. Member for Ludlow (Mr. Gill), who initiated the debate, for being elsewhere earlier and not hearing his speech. Does not the intervention by the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) tell us something interesting about that section of the parliamentary Tory party? The fact that the Americans have concluded a North American Free Trade Agreement in which, unless I have missed something, they did not expect the United Kingdom to participate speaks volumes. Does the hon. Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) think that such an approach has any economic coherence given that we are part of a single market?

It is fair to say that my hon. Friends do not stress the fact that we should also join Mexico, although they may prefer Mexico to Greece and Portugal.

It is important not to lose sight of the fact that the origins of the European Union arose from a passionate desire that Europe should not yet again plunge the world into war, the cost of which would dwarf any costs that might be incurred by joining a single currency. This country was ruined as a consequence of our incapacity to contain German expansionism. We have been provided with a mechanism for containing any possible future threat from such expansionism and I am extremely wary of taking steps to turn our back on that.

Will my hon. Friend give way?

I think that I have given way enough. Other people wish to speak.

The European Union must make an effort to contain precisely those pressures that have cost the western world enormous amounts of money, resources and anxiety in Bosnia, to take just one example.

We should therefore evolve towards a European currency, which will come about inevitably, without our having to make artificial efforts to create it. Our membership of the European Union is a partnership that stands by far the best chance of resisting the enormous internal conflicting pressures within the continent of Europe. I hope that we shall not try to bulldoze the Prime Minister and the Government off the strongest position that they can hold, which is that, if other countries adopt a single currency, the United Kingdom will then consider whether it would be beneficial for us to join. The pressure that some of my hon. Friends wish to put on the Prime Minister to say that, whatever happens in the European Union, we shall never consider joining a single currency, would weaken his position absurdly. I hope that they will cease to pressure him in that way.

First, I congratulate and thank my hon. Friend and parliamentary neighbour, the hon. Member for Ludlow (Mr. Gill), for giving us an opportunity to discuss this important subject and for pointing out that a single currency enjoys not only minimal popular support in this country but dwindling support throughout Europe. The gulf between the political elite in Europe and popular opinion on this issue is increasing, which is extremely dangerous.

I was going to begin by saying that the single currency is an idea whose time has come and now, thankfully, gone. Far from moving smoothly towards its conclusion in 1999, as my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes) would have us believe, its wheels are falling off as it moves forward. We have been told that the convergence criteria are being achieved. But only Luxembourg—not exactly a major player in Europe—currently meets those criteria. In 1993, the franc had to be loosened from its 2.5 per cent. band to a 15 per cent. band within the ERM.

It is interesting to read some of the comments of former Maastricht enthusiasts in France, quoted in The Economist this week. Julien Dray, a leading left winger and author in 1992 of a pro-Maastricht book, said that if the fight against the budget deficit was simply to meet the Maastricht criteria,

"our fellow-citizens will rightly soon be saying that they have had enough of this Euro-construction which requires nothing but sacrifices in the name of an Eldorado which no one is any longer sure even exists."

Even Martine Aubry, a former socialist Employment Minister, who happens to be the daughter of Jacques Delors, conceded that a single currency was

"not worth breaking the country to acquire".

Jacques Delors has argued that, if the French and German economies slow down, the deadline for European monetary union and a single currency will not be met. My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East would like us to believe that the French and German economies are not slowing down. The latest figures show that, for the past three months, German gross domestic product has been falling. In France, industrial production over the past three months declined by 6.4 per cent. If that is evidence of their moving smoothly towards the convergence criteria, those who argue it are living in cloud cuckoo land. Theo Waigel, the German Finance Minister, is also gradually distancing himself from the idea of a single currency by arguing for additional criteria and hinting that Italy and possibly France could not meet them.

The wheels of the single currency are undoubtedly falling off, and the reasons are obvious. First, the idea of a single currency is fundamentally flawed. At a time when European countries need to be more flexible in terms of dealing with the "challenge of global competitiveness", a single currency would impose a straitjacket on them by requiring unrealistic convergence criteria in fiscal terms. It would have no popular mandate in terms of the huge transfers of money from one country to another that would be required to make it work. For example, interest rate changes would have a far greater effect on Britain than on other European countries, for the simple reason that more people in Britain own their own homes. It has been calculated that, in Britain, the effect of interest on ordinary householders as a proportion of their household debt is 10.9 per cent., whereas in Germany it is only 3.9 per cent. and in France it is 3.2 per cent. So the effect of ceding decisions on interest rates to a supranational body would be far greater on British householders than it would be on French or German householders.

Secondly, the Maastricht criteria are, inevitably, heavily deflationary, especially if they are related to the strongest currency, as the Germans insist that they must be, through the exchange rate mechanism. As a result, as we have seen in France, Germany and other countries that have become constricted into preparations for the convergence criteria, our economy would probably gradually contract.

Moreover, budget deficits, the reduction of which is a major Maastricht criterion, will not be reduced as a result of cutting Government spending. That would be a virtuous way of achieving the criteria, especially for countries like Germany where nearly 50 per cent. of the country's resources go to the Government. Instead, they will be reduced by raising taxes, which will make the problem far worse in the long term. It will also worsen the problem of Europe's global competitiveness. So the criteria impose a fiscal straitjacket, whereas strenuous slimming is needed.

The third reason why it is becoming increasingly evident that a single currency is unrealistic is that it is not only anti-competitive but totally unnecessary. The Germans are so keen on it because they want to lock other countries into the very high social costs that they now endure. No less than one third of GNP in Germany goes on maintaining the welfare system, and the add-on to the average wage to cover welfare costs is no less than 80 per cent. As a result, the German economy is becoming increasingly sclerotic, and Daimler, Volkswagen and Siemens—companies that one would think of as paradigms of German competitiveness—have lost 150,000 jobs between them in the past few years.

It is small wonder, therefore, that even people such as the chief executive of the CBI, Adair Turner—he has never been exactly regarded as a Euro-sceptic—have described the inevitable concatenation of a single currency with the social chapter as "an employment-destroying disaster" here and throughout Europe.

A single currency is also unnecessary, and even the EC is admitting that there is no particular correlation between exchange rate stability and investment or trade flows within the trade bloc. As for Britain being marginalised, I would frankly prefer to be marginalised if our economic performance continued to improve as it has done in the past few years when we have not been part of the ERM, as opposed to how constricted we would be were we a part of it. As evidence for that, the president of the German equivalent of the CBI recently said not only that Britain had attracted nine times as much inward investment as Germany in the past 15 years but that it was the European country best equipped to face the challenge of global competitiveness. That is a result of the flexible, free-market policies that we have been following in this country, away from the constrictions of European monetary union and the single currency.

The main flaw in the single currency enterprise is that its main aims are not primarily economic—however flawed the arguments may be—but political. Helmut Kohl talks about an

"irreversible process for which decisive steps will follow in the next two years".

Does my hon. Friend agree that the Union between Scotland and England was primarily political?

Precisely. My hon. Friend makes my point for me.

When one sees the vilification poured on Bernard Connolly for having the temerity to challenge the intellectual basis on which political union and the single currency are based, the concern felt by many in the EC and the Commission at the feebleness of their arguments becomes ever more evident. The irony is that a single currency will not work unless the conditions for political union are in place. It is obvious that the conditions for political union are not in place, and there is no public support for regarding Europe as a federal body or entity in the way in which a successful single currency would inevitably require.

It is time that the Government recognised that a single currency is a flawed and eventually disintegrating enterprise. It would be very much in their interests if they committed themselves to a referendum on a single currency, if it ever happens—although I do not think that it will ever come to that, and the matter will remain, happily, entirely hypothetical.

Contrary to the Labour party—which is six-sided and hypocritical on this matter as it is on so many policies—we would gain a great deal of political credit if we recognised the single currency as the chimera and myth that it undoubtedly is, and said that to the British electorate.

I am pleased to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre Forest (Mr. Coombs). My hon. Friend referred to Bernard Connolly, who has been a good and faithful servant of the Community and has pointed out some of the inherent problems with the way in which monetary matters are managed.

The debate has focused on a subject which has consumed a great deal of the 20th century: the adjustment of exchange rates between one country and another. We can go back to the post-first world war settlement, Winston Churchill, the gold standard and the famous and wonderful pamphlet by Maynard Keynes, "The Economic Consequences of Mr. Churchill", the Bretton Woods settlement, through to the fixing of exchange rates by the mechanism that Europe developed. Unfortunately, we joined that system and had some very unhappy experiences in it.

My purpose is not to look at the economic side of the matter, although we know full well that only 44 per cent. of our total trade—visibles and invisibles—is with the continent of Europe, that the principal foreign currency in which we trade is the United States dollar and that we have a critical relationship with the US. Whether the proponents of the single currency or its opponents like it or not, our economic cycles seem to follow more closely those of the United States than those of the central European countries.

I wanted to look at the constitutional argument, which has divided part of our Government and Opposition Front Benchers, and particularly the Leader of the Opposition. Article 107 of the Maastricht treaty, which is justiciable, states:

"When exercising the powers and carrying out the tasks and duties conferred upon them by this Treaty and the Statute of the ESCB,"—

that is, the European system of central banks—

"neither the ECB, nor a national central bank, nor any member of their decision-making bodies shall seek or take instructions from Community institutions or bodies, from any government of a Member State or from any other body. The Community institutions and bodies and the governments of the Member States undertake to respect this principle and not to seek to influence the members of the decision-making bodies of the ECB or of the national central banks in the performance of their tasks."

That is reinforced in chapter 1, article 7 of the constitution of the European system of central banks.

I understand that to mean that no elected representative of the British people—including the present Chancellor of the Exchequer or, should Labour come into office, its Chancellor—may make representations to the central bank in respect of monetary policy, to cite one area. This is a huge constitutional change, and so profound. How is it possible for the Leader of the Opposition to say that he has no constitutional problem with that?

If the Leader of the Opposition becomes Prime Minister, what will he say to the millions who vote for Labour when our economy is out of joint with the central European economies? What will he say when interest rate policies pursued in Frankfurt are not appropriate for the British economy? What will he say to all those who elected him? Will he say that we no longer have the constitutional power? Is that what the present Chancellor of the Exchequer is saying by his promotion of the endeavour?

I suggest that it is a profound constitutional area and it startles me slightly to understand that, on the very basis of article 107 and the subsequent articles, any British Government could contemplate turning round to their people and saying, "I am afraid central European interest rates, although not appropriate for us, are the governing factor." We will then ask what the Government are doing about that and whether they are making the sternest, strongest representations to the government of the European central bank. The present Chancellor would no doubt reply, "Oh no. What does it matter? I no longer have authority as we signed it away by treaty without any consultation with the British people." I have not heard a reply from the Prime Minister on that subject, and we have great difficulty in pinning down the Chancellor to specific detail on such matters of great importance.

I had thought, and this may be based on the over-optimism of someone who watches things come and go, that the clear experience of joining a fixed exchange relationship, which ended so tragically and unfortunately less than three years ago, would have exorcised from the mind of the House the desire to enter into something even more absolute. Let us remember that exit from the ERM gave us the ability to make our interest rates more consonant with the needs of the British economy. That was the constitutional power of the British Government.

Now, under the Maastricht treaty, the Leader of the Opposition says that the Labour party has no constitutional difficulty about denying us, the people, the right to influence output, employment and all the necessary apparatus of sensitive management of an economy.

I hesitate to intervene in the debate lest I interfere in the private grief of the Conservative party. I suspect that all parties have their own reservoirs of private grief to entertain them. The Minister and I have agreed to be relatively brief, and for that reason I should prefer not to take any interventions as there is a lot to say on the issue.

I welcome the debate and I congratulate the hon. Member for Ludlow (Mr. Gill) on raising an issue of such enormous importance to the people of Europe in the coming decades. It will not surprise him when I say that I fear that the Labour party does not agree with him. The Labour party approves of the principle of economic and monetary union, but believes that questions about the practicalities still need to be resolved. In principle, we believe that in the long term a move towards economic and monetary union through the creation of a single currency would produce significant benefits for the people of Britain and Europe. In particular, a single currency would remove the cost of currency transactions, which have been variously estimated to cost in excess of £15 billion per year. The hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes) said that such transactions account for 0.5 per cent. of GDP of European currencies. It is also likely that a single currency would boost inward investment by reducing exchange rate risks, and in the long term it would create a more stable economic environment for industry by reducing currency speculation.

Unlike the Government, the Labour party has a clear principle to guide it when assessing the criteria and practicalities of entry into a single currency. Getting the circumstances right is important to the Opposition. We will take a hard-headed, businesslike view of the costs and benefits of a single currency. If approached wrongly, a single currency could do enormous damage to the British economy; if approached correctly, it could be a great stimulus to trade expansion, new jobs and prosperity.

The Opposition's criteria for judging the issue are clear. We believe that the convergence of the real economic performance of member states is a vital precondition of economic and monetary union. Convergence must be based upon improved levels of growth, jobs and productivity, and not just on monetary objectives alone. That is why we have long argued that the Maastricht convergence criteria need to be applied flexibly and that real economic convergence is of primary importance. Indeed, the hon. Member for Milton Keynes, South-West (Mr. Legg) said that the Prime Minister had suggested that the Maastricht criteria no longer applied at all—I hope that the Minister will tell us whether that is the case.

I was pleased to see that page 1 of the report from the European Monetary Institute on the circumstances for EMU contained the following sentence:

"For there to be a successful European currency area, a high degree of sustainable convergence of economic performance in the participating area is a pre-requisite".

We in the Labour party agree with that. I was also pleased to note that during a recent debate in European Standing Committee B the Paymaster General agreed that Labour's policy that economic convergence was a prerequisite of entry to a single currency had now been accepted by the Government.

The Labour party also believes that, on entry, we should be confident that British industry will be able to compete effectively within the single currency area. Furthermore, and in response to the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd), the Labour party has always said that it wants the Council of Economic and Finance Ministers to be developed as the political counterpart of the proposed European central bank to give the public a voice in shaping economic policies. The move towards a single currency must also be based upon the consent of the British people.

The Labour party's first commitment in Europe is to jobs for our people. That is why we back the Swedish proposal to write into the Maastricht treaty a clearer commitment to full employment. Labour's vision is not of a Europe for bureaucrats or politicians, nor is it just a Europe for business—although we want business to succeed and prosper—our view of Europe is a community for ordinary people. We want workers to have better rights at work. That is why the Labour party will sign the social chapter and join our European partners in setting a minimum wage. We also want the unemployed to have jobs, which is why we put economic convergence before monetary criteria for joining the EMU.

The Opposition want a Europe in which Britain has a central role—where it is, in the Prime Minister's own words:

"Where it belongs, at the very heart of Europe".

Under the Tories, Britain has been reduced to the sidelines in Europe. The Prime Minister has sacrificed the interests of Britain to the interests of the Tory party.

The Tories are now so divided that they cannot agree the agenda for Britain's future in Europe. Some of them would crawl forward; some of them would go into reverse. I have made the analogy before and I will repeat it today. The Prime Minister reminds me of the driver of a stalled, clapped-out old bus marked "Conservative party". He sits there watching his passengers squabble while he tells them that he is not going to start the engine. The reason is that he is unable to move. He knows that if he starts and moves either way some of his passengers will get out. Two of them have already vacated the old bus. The Prime Minister dares not move, so he spends his time inventing excuses for doing nothing.

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

The hon. Member was not present for the entire debate, so I will not give way to him.

Because of the Government's policies, Britain is marginalised and isolated. We do not know whether the Government support the principle of European monetary union. The Prime Minister has been quoted as saying:

"There is no more important issue facing the European Community than the path we choose towards economic and monetary union. We are all committed to this goal."

Does that remain the Government's position? Who knows, least of all, I suspect, the Prime Minister? The Deputy Prime Minister has said:

"No truly unified market can exist without a single currency. A close association of monetary policies will be needed if the single market itself is not to be put at risk."

Is that Government policy? Who knows, least of all the Deputy Prime Minister? Are the words of the former Conservative Prime Minister, Baroness Thatcher, the policy of the Conservative party? Is it based on the words of the Secretary of State for Defence? He has said:

"Economic and monetary union are a long way to political union and no Government can give up the government of the UK."

Who knows whether that is Government policy, least of all the British people? We simply do not know the Government's principles on this matter. As a result, as the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath) recently said, so simply but accurately:

"Our partners in Europe do not listen to us."

They do not listen because the Tories continue to play the British hokey cokey—in, out, in, out, shake it all about. They are having a pointless little dance, which is played to placate the egos of the Euro-sceptics on the Conservative Back Benches, but which, by turns, now simply irritates or amuses our European partners.

It is fair to say that over the years all political parties have had their internal disagreements about Europe. It is also fair to say, however, that historically there has always been leadership from the leaders of both parties, whether Macmillan or Gaitskell, Alec Douglas-Home or Harold Wilson, the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup, Lord Callaghan or Baroness Thatcher. In each case, leadership was displayed—a sense of direction was clear for the Government of the day. Today, we have a divided, disorganised and disunited Cabinet, which fails to provide the sort of vision that Britain needs on the European issue.

The decision to publish a White Paper on the intergovernmental conference was dictated by internal struggles within the Tory party. It was a victory for the Europhobes. It is vital that British interests in Europe are determined not by parties' internal problems but by a genuine appreciation of where those interests lie.

The hon. Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) asked the Minister five questions. Let me put our five questions about the White Paper and Government policy. Do the Government agree with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who said that a single currency is not

"a threat to the nation state"?

Do they agree with the Deputy Prime Minister that a single market needs a single currency? Can they say whether, in the unlikely event of their re-election, a single currency is a possibility in the next Parliament, if the economic conditions are right? If the economic conditions were right, would the Government in principle favour persuading the country that it was right to join a single currency? One must ask whether they are prepared to agree with the following statement:

"Some observers hope—and others fear—that economic and monetary union as set out in the Maastricht treaty will be a step in the direction of a federal Europe… I believe that such hopes or fears are unrealistic".

Do they agree with that statement by the Prime Minister? Of course they do not.

The Government do not know what they want on Europe. In a sense it does not matter, because by the time the decisions have to be made, the Government will be gone. The divisions in the Tory party will be played out, as we have seen in this debate. The Tory party is taking up positions from which to fight its civil war in the long period that it is about to undergo in the wilderness. Meanwhile, there will be a Government with a clear vision, sense of direction and agenda for Britain's future in Europe, and it will be a Labour Government.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Mr. Gill) for obtaining this important debate. It shows the importance that the Conservative party attaches to European matters that so many of my hon. Friends are here. It also shows the absence of concern on the part of Labour Members about a matter of vital importance for Britain that they feel that they have better things to do elsewhere.

They are beating up Harriet.

I should not like to speculate about that, but we shall find out at lunchtime what happened.

I suppose that the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. O'Brien) should be congratulated on his efforts to find a fig leaf to cover the absence of a Labour party policy on Europe. He spoke about clear principles. Perhaps I may remind him of statements made by three of his Front-Bench colleagues recently. We shall be interested to know with which of these statements he agrees.

Perhaps the hon. Member for North Warwickshire agrees with the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott), who said of a single currency:

"Yes we are against a single currency".

Perhaps he agrees with the right hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham), who said that he was

"Personally…in favour of a single currency";

or with his party's Members of the European Parliament, who are in favour of a single currency within the time limits and timetable. Or does he agree with the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook), who said some time ago that setting such a timetable was "irresponsible"? Those clear variations exemplify a party with no policy on this vital topic.

I consider all the points made by my hon. Friends in this debate to be important and I will answer as many of them as I possibly can. On those points that I do not reach, I will write to my hon. Friends giving full and detailed answers.

The Government have consistently said that the United Kingdom would join a single currency only if it was in the national interest to do so, given the circumstances at the time. It is because the Prime Minister secured our right to opt out that Parliament and the Government can take a decision at the appropriate time in the light of all the circumstances.

I remind the House of the answer that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister gave to my right hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Mr. Hurd) when he said:

"I can certainly reassure my right hon. Friend that, for a decision of such magnitude, we shall keep in mind the possibility of a referendum, if the Cabinet were to recommend British entry. That has been in my mind, as my right hon. Friend knows, for a long time and it remains there. I think that it is right to keep that before us for consideration."—[Official Report, 18 December 1995; Vol. 268, c. 1225.]

I am sure that all my hon. Friends will agree with that.

It is clear that it would not be in the national interest of any European country to proceed with a single currency—or in Europe's interest for any country to do so—before conditions were right. A premature economic and monetary union could be disastrous for the future of Europe. Given the importance of the United Kingdom's trade with the rest of Europe, and the rest of the world, we have a strong interest in making sure that such a disaster does not occur, whether or not we take part.

The convergence criteria set out in the Maastricht treaty aim to ensure that economies are moving in the right direction towards economic convergence, a necessary condition for economic and monetary union. However, the criteria of reducing debt and low inflation are sensible economic criteria in their own right.

Growth rates in many European countries are relatively sluggish at present, a point made by many of my hon. Friends. The problems that France is experiencing spilled over into the streets at Christmas. Its economic activity has slowed substantially, strikes have destroyed jobs, unemployment is 3 million and rising, and a high percentage of the work force is unemployed. Germany also reports economic difficulties, with new investment plans being directed to former eastern European countries or to lower-cost countries such as Britain.

Fulfilment of convergence criteria, while necessary, is still an insufficient condition to ensure successful economic and monetary union. The criteria represent nominal convergence. That is important but only alongside proper convergence, which requires economic liberalisation to encourage economic growth—the sort of measures that we have already enacted. If Europe wants proper convergence to make a single currency obtainable, it will have to follow suit.

Integration of markets is important for assessing whether countries are ready for EMU. That is illustrated by unemployment, which was mentioned by my hon. Friends the Members for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) and for Ludlow. High unemployment is a problem for many of our European partners. It is rising in Germany and high in France. In Italy it is 11.5 per cent. and in Spain over 22 per cent. In the United Kingdom, it is at 8 per cent. and falling. Of the five largest European economies, Britain is not just doing well but doing substantially better than the others. It is worth looking at the reasons why that is so.

In Britain, for every £100 spent on wages, an employer has to add an extra £18 for non-wage costs. That same employer would have to add £32 in Germany, £34 in Spain, £41 in France and £44 in Italy. Those are substantial additional costs.

The head of the German CBI recently said that German labour laws were "too rigid" and that social costs and taxes were "too high". He added that Germany worked

"the shortest working week in Europe"

and that

"the German Government spends 50 per cent. of GDP as opposed to 34 per cent. in Britain".

He went on to say:

"No wonder Germany has a problem".

The Germans' proposals to help reduce their economic problems include reducing employers' social costs—a policy that has been followed by the British Government. In addition, they are talking about cutting income tax—precisely what the British Government are doing.

In a week in which hypocrisy has hit an all-time high, is it not grossly hypocritical of the Labour party to want to introduce a European jobs tax into Britain by adopting the social chapter and thereby, at a stroke, increasing unemployment in Britain? Hypocrisy is saying one thing when another is in fact true. We all want Europe to follow the more flexible wage markets, lower tax burdens and lower non-wage costs that we have in Britain. We have the basis of an enterprise economy, and foreign investors recognise that.

My hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow asked about the pros and cons and costs and benefits of a single currency. It is too early to judge the costs and benefits, as the Prime Minister said in the debate on 1 March. That illustrates the value of the United Kingdom's opt-out, because it is impossible to judge something until one gets closer to it. The views of industry vary considerably. The business world has mixed views on the subject, but UK businesses are sure that if the single currency goes ahead it will have important implications for them whether or not Britain participates, so it is important that it is well planned. One reason why Britain is participating in the negotiations is to ensure that practical issues such as that are properly considered.

The City of London is also a subject of vital concern. It is a centre for international financial excellence and innovation and it is the overwhelming choice as the European headquarters for major international banks. It handles more currency than all the other European Union centres put together and I am confident that it will remain competitive and rise to the challenges, whether or not the United Kingdom participates in the single currency.

My hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East raised five issues, which I shall address one by one—

Order. I am afraid that we must move to the next topic.

I am pleased to have been granted this short debate, as there are important questions to be answered about the ROM-Data Corporation and the way in which the Department of Trade and Industry grant aid has been given to companies in the south-west. I am happy to allow the hon. Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Mr. Coe) to have some time to speak in the Adjournment debate that I have initiated.

The south-west is in great need of economic regeneration; there has been a rundown in defence industries and many of the primary industries that used to exist in Cornwall and parts of Devon. As you will know, Madam Deputy Speaker, unemployment is high, not only in Plymouth, but in Falmouth and Camborne. That is why inward investment is essential to create new jobs and improve the long-term economic conditions of the south-west.

I welcome the regional office that has been set up in our area, which has helped to make improvements in some of those sectors. I fully appreciate that there are limited and finite resources available for that assistance, which is why those resources must be used well and effectively. I also appreciate that, when those grants are given to companies, spotting winners is difficult, that only some companies can benefit from those funds, and that no Department can ever guarantee success. It is sometimes easier to spot losers and guaranteed failure.

The Department of Trade and Industry has an absolute responsibility to undertake the most careful checks before large sums of taxpayers' money are given to any company. At least two factors must be considered: the first is that a proper, skilled assessment of business plans must be conducted by an independent authority. Secondly, careful checks into the financial background of directors should be carried out to discover any former bankruptcies, liquidations or even fraud.

In the case of the ROM-Data Corporation, various questions are raised. The first involves the competence of the advice given to the DTI. The second relates to the DTI's policy when giving grants to people with dubious financial backgrounds. Were checks made of the ROM-Data Corporation? Was there a full and proper scrutiny of the company's business plans before the grant was made?

I shall give a brief history of the ROM-Data Corporation. It was set up in Falmouth in 1991 to do the job of data processing. In that year, it received regional selective assistance of £825,000 of taxpayers' money—a substantial sum. It is the sort of sum that many companies in the south-west would like to enjoy, and they would welcome receiving a fraction of it. A promise was made that many jobs would be created.

Early in 1994, wages and value added tax were unpaid, and, I believe, the company approached the hon. Member for Falmouth and Camborne, who assisted it to obtain more time to pay the VAT. That is what any Member of Parliament would have done in those circumstances.

Later that year, the company received £250,000 of loan guarantee—another substantial sum of taxpayers' money—despite the fact that it had not been paying wages, and was clearly experiencing financial difficulties. At the end of 1994, not only were wages and bills unpaid, but the company went into liquidation. It left many creditors; the wages of many workers in the Falmouth area, Cornwall and Devon were not paid. Many small businesses suffered as their bills were not settled.

The question must be asked: what checks were made in 1991 by the DTI into the directors of the ROM-Data Corporation, particularly Mr. John Dawson? Mr. Dawson was a former Bath Conservative councillor whose firm, John Dawson (Motor Holdings) Ltd, in 1981, suffered a spectacular bankruptcy—one of the largest bankruptcies in the south-west at that time. Mr. Dawson left more than £2 million of debts. Wages were unpaid; there were many creditors—many of which were small businesses—who were hurt when the company went into liquidation. I believe that Mr. Dawson fled to the West Indies on his yacht, and a warrant was issued for his arrest.

What checks were made into Mr. Dawson's background, and, more importantly, what did they reveal? The DTI Minister, Baroness Denton, wrote a letter to the hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway), who had quite properly inquired why one of his constituents had not received his money from ROM-Data. On 12 January 1992, the Minister wrote to the hon. Gentleman saying:

"all applications for Regional Selective Assistance are rigorously appraised by officials within this Department."

The hon. Gentleman must have pressed the matter further on behalf of his constituent, as the same Minister admitted on 2 April 1993 in a further letter to the hon. Gentleman:

"Mr. Dawson may have made a commercial mistake in his past."

She was presumably referring to the liquidation that amounted to more than £2 million and the fact that the police were looking for Mr. Dawson in 1981.

On 2 March last year, I asked a question of the former President of the Board of Trade, now the Deputy Prime Minister, about what checks were made. The answer that I received stated:

"A range of inquiries were undertaken by the Department and others into the background of ROM-Data, including checks on the directors of the company through the Companies House and the insolvency service".—[Official Report, 2 March 1995; Vol. 255, c. 716.]

On 19 July 1995, I asked a further written question of the President of the Board of Trade. I asked him whether the Department was aware of the previous bankruptcy of the director, John Dawson. The reply that I received stated:

"The Department made certain inquiries into the background of the directors prior to the offer of grant in 1991. However, the bankruptcy record referred to did not come to light at the time."—[Official Report, 19 July 1995; Vol. 263, c. 1562.]

The bankruptcy did not come to light, despite the checks that had been made with the Insolvency Service, but, in 1993, Baroness Denton had had the information at her disposal—she said that Mr. Dawson had

"made a commercial mistake in his past."

She must have known then the information held by the DTI, so why was that not made clear in the answer before the House in July 1995?

When pressed on the matter of the checks, the new President of the Board of Trade came clean in a written answer to me on 19 December last year. He said:

"although some checks may have been made…the subsequent investigation has revealed no documentary evidence that these checks were made."—[Official Report, 19 December 1995; Vol. 268, c. 1091–92.]

In a further letter to the hon. Member for Ryedale, the President of the Board of Trade said of the answers given to me earlier in the year:

"Answers which had been given earlier this year…were misleading."

In his letter, he underlined the word "were".

The answers given to me in the House were indeed misleading: they were untruthful and incorrect. The President of the Board of Trade said that checks were made, but in December he said that there was no evidence that those checks were made. The President of the Board of Trade has therefore admitted that the previous President of the Board of Trade misled the House on that important issue.

I shall now discuss the way in which those grants are assessed. A panel has been set up by the DTI, composed of people employed by the DTI, to inquire into those matters. I have not received answers from the President of the Board of Trade, which were due on 15 January 1996, to questions about the role of a Mr. Kenneth Holmes. I believe that he was an accountant. He was appointed to the DTI, I believe in the late 1980s, to help assess grant applications to decide whether they were the right type of applications to be eligible for substantial grants.

I ask the Minister today, because he has failed to answer that question so far in written questions that I have tabled: was Mr. Holmes involved in the vetting of the ROM-Data application for grant in 1991? The answer needs to be given to that, and I shall return to that later.

Was it known that Mr. Holmes, as it is alleged, has been involved with other companies that have had financial difficulties? I quote the company H. Bear and Sons, which he bought in 1987, which I believe went into liquidation in 1989.

If Mr. Holmes vetted the ROM-Data application, was he given permission by the DTI to become, on 21 November 1993, not only a director but the chairman of the ROM-Data Corporation? Only 12 months before ROM-Data went into liquidation, the man who had approved the grants had become a director and a chairman of a company that subsequently went into liquidation. The company has left unpaid the wages of constituents of the hon. Member for Falmouth and Camborne, and has many creditors for more than £2 million. I am pleased to note that the Serious Fraud Office is now inquiring into those matters.

Does the Minister approve of employees of the Department of Trade and Industry, who are carrying out the extremely sensitive work of vetting grants of substantial sums of taxpayers' money, becoming directors of companies that have benefited financially from their own decisions? How does he feel about a DTI official approving a grant and later becoming a director of that company, which then owes the DTI that money? Is it a coincidence that Mr. Holmes, like Mr. Dawson, is a member of the Conservative party? I believe that his wife is vice-chairman of the Totnes Conservative party. In spite of his liquidations, Mr. Holmes carries on in a very comfortable life style.

The DTI should have conducted a searching internal investigation, and a careful analysis of what went wrong. I have been told by the President of the Board of Trade that those investigations are now complete. They are so detailed that, I believe, the two most important players, Mr. Dawson and Mr. Holmes, have not even been interviewed. I want to know from the Minister why those two people have not been interviewed in connection with that important matter.

I am sure that the hon. Member for Falmouth and Camborne, in whose constituency the events occurred, has acted honourably in this matter throughout. He played a part in helping the ROM-Data Corporation to defer payments of VAT, as any hon. Member would have done for a time.

I believe that the hon. Member for Falmouth and Camborne also helped the company obtain the loan guarantee. I question whether that was entirely wise. I notice that, in July 1995, the hon. Gentleman was quoted in the Daily Mail. He said that he had not investigated Mr. Dawson's background

"because I am only an MP and cannot be expected to rush off to Companies House to check out track records every time a business wants help".

[Interruption.] A quick check with the House of Commons Library would have given him the information he wanted.

Even if that was not good enough, the hon. Gentleman may also have read the Western Morning News, which, as early as 3 June 1992, published an article entitled "£2m debts that haunt high flier". If the hon. Gentleman had read that, he would have known that that man was extremely dubious. Was not the hon. Gentleman slightly suspicious that Mr. Dawson was not paying his constituents' wages? He nevertheless helped him to obtain further assistance.

I called the debate with some reluctance. [HON. MEMBERS: "Nonsense."] I had to call it, because we are not receiving satisfactory answers from the President of the Board of Trade to questions. [Interruption.] I believe that the previous President of the Board of Trade has seriously misled the House in that matter. [Interruption.]

Order. The debate is becoming a little cantankerous. I ask hon. Members, however provoked they feel, to observe the highest standards of courtesy.

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I hope that the Conservative Members who appear to be disturbed by the truth coming out about this matter will make their own contribution to the debate, and tell us what their part was in the matter.

We need a thorough investigation into the way in which those grants were made in the south-west. I am sure that any hon. Member representing the south-west would agree that we need to help genuine companies, those that can create real jobs and buy from other companies to create other jobs. That will not be achieved until the DTI makes known its plans to improve.

The case of ROM-Data shows what happens if one mixes together a solution of taxpayers' money, incompetence by officials, obfuscation by Ministers, a large handful of people in the same political party and a generous supply of greed. A rich soup is created, in which taxpayers' money may be misappropriated and corruption may thrive.

I resent being limited to barely a few seconds in a discussion that centres on my constituency.

It is a matter of record that I drew attention to most of the issues that have been mentioned in the debate well in advance of the hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Mr. Jamieson). More than a year ago, I expressed my anxieties about the way in which the company had operated, and its subsequent liquidation, to one of my hon. Friend's predecessors at the Department of Trade and Industry, the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Mr. Wardle).

It is a matter of record that ROM-Data was given a grant to set up in my constituency in 1991—a year before the general election, a year before I was honoured with the stewardship of that constituency. The hon. Member for Devonport mentions the way in which the vetting procedure may or may not have taken place, and I know that that is the subject of a full and thorough inquiry within the DTI, which I instigated and asked for more than a year ago.

Several issues have been raised, but I do not wish to enter into those, as they will be the basis of that inquiry and the President of the Board of Trade has promised to report back to the House.

I want to tease out two or three issues. It would be odd for a Member of Parliament representing a constituency with higher levels of unemployment than in most parts of the country, to sit on his hands when confronted, in the space of three or four days, with the potential loss of 170 jobs in his constituency. I very much doubt that the hon. Member for Devonport would have acted differently in those circumstances.

No local Member of Parliament has the ability to rubber-stamp or hand out a Government grant. There is a lengthy application process, in which many agencies in the constituency—and in this case the county—are involved. That is what happened in the case of ROM-Data. All types of agencies were involved, including economic development organisations. Jobs are important. No Member of Parliament will sit and do nothing when there is the potential for job losses on that scale in his or her constituency.

Broader issues should be discussed. The hon. Member for Devonport spoke of the need to vet grants. Of course that is paramount in any process. However, he has failed to say that, in my constituency, like his, and in much of the south-west, our lifeline is regional selective assistance and grants. That assistance should be provided.

I recently met an all-party group of councillors and local business men in my constituency. They said that they were aware of the way in which the ROM-Data case has been dealt with, and the way in which the hon. Member for Devonport has made mischief and slowed the process dramatically. I am delighted to be joined in the Chamber today by my fellow Conservative Members of Parliament from Cornwall and the south-west, who know that those delays have not been helped by the actions of the hon. Gentleman.

It is a difficult issue, and we must tease out and examine various points. However, the manner in which the hon. Gentleman raised the matter this morning leaves something to be desired.

I have listened carefully to the points made by hon. Members this morning, and I shall attempt to deal with them in the short time available.

I refer at the outset to the allegation by the hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Mr. Jamieson) that Mr. Holmes was a Department of Trade and Industry official. I state categorically that that was not the case.

I shall continue with some general remarks about the way in which the Department has approached the case. First, I make it absolutely clear that Ministers accepted from the beginning that it was important that the facts of what occurred should be investigated fully and properly, and that the results should be made known. My hon. Friend the Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Mr. Coe) and others have been active in raising concerns about the case, and Ministers have been equally anxious to discover what has happened.

That is why the Department set up a formal investigation into the handling of the case as soon as problems became apparent, and why the Department drew the case to the attention of the Serious Fraud Office. Above all, it is vital that we know what happened and why, so that we can take effective action to ensure that there is no repetition.

Secondly, we have made it absolutely clear that we shall be open about what went wrong, both to ensure that we get to the bottom of what has been a lengthy and complex sequence of events, and, more importantly, to ensure that nothing is done to impede or prejudice in any way the investigation of the events by the Serious Fraud Office. That investigation is continuing, so I am limited in what I can say today about the company's actions, or about particular individuals who might be the subject of further proceedings. I also must not prejudge the further inquiries that are being made under the Department's internal disciplinary procedures.

However, I assure hon. Members that we intend to be open about the matter. That is why, as soon as it became clear that answers to earlier questions from the hon. Member for Devonport might have been based partly on inaccurate information supplied by officials, my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade warned the House of that possibility. When, following further investigation, it became clear that that had occurred, he informed the House immediately. It is in that spirit of openness that my right hon. Friend has undertaken to report the findings of the Department's investigation to the House as soon as he is able to do so. That will not be long delayed.

The Department's internal report on its handling of the ROM-Data case has now been completed. Ministers have received the report only in the last few days. It deals with a series of complex events which must be considered carefully. However, Ministers remain committed to making the Department's findings public as soon as possible. The Department will also consider taking further action under its disciplinary procedures. That latter aspect, together with the continuing investigations by the SFO, makes it difficult to say much about the role of individuals at this stage.

The DTI has rigorous procedures for handling public money, which are communicated to staff in extensive written guidance. The Department's financial procedures and systems are regularly checked by its internal auditors and the National Audit Office. My initial impression of the common theme running through the report's findings is that the main problems resulted from failings in the way in which the specific ROM-Data case was handled, rather than major deficiencies in the Department's overall systems and procedures—although clearly improvements can, and will, be made in a number of areas.

We shall consider how to implement the report's various recommendations for improvements in existing procedures once we have had the opportunity to consider them properly. They are essentially concerned with detailed additions to the existing systems and procedures. In light of the findings, the DTI will also pursue the necessary further inquiries under its internal procedures in order to establish whether and what disciplinary action should be taken against any staff members.

I had intended to run through the chronology of events at ROM-Data. However, as time is limited, and as most hon. Members are aware of that chronology, I shall not do so. I turn instead to the role played by my hon. Friend the Member for Falmouth and Camborne.

My hon. Friend was obviously concerned about the failure of an important local employer and a company which had received substantial sums of public money. As the constituency Member of Parliament, he had quite properly and assiduously supported the company's application to secure a loan guarantee scheme loan which offered an opportunity to protect jobs in his constituency. In so doing, he acted in the same manner as any hon. Member seeking to fulfil his proper role in this place. I find it difficult to believe that the hon. Member for Devonport would not have done the same thing in similar circumstances.

I would have checked.

If the hon. Gentleman is saying that directors' backgrounds should be checked every time that Labour Members lobby for regional selective assistance or a loan guarantee scheme grant, I suggest that he conduct a poll of his right hon. and hon. Friends. I will be amazed if he can find one Labour Member who has done such a check.

Will the Minister give way?

No, I will not give way. The hon. Gentleman had quite enough time to put his case.

I pay particular tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Falmouth and Camborne, because he contacted Ministers as soon as he became aware of possible irregularities in the case. I make it absolutely clear that he was the first person to contact Ministers following the company's liquidation. He immediately passed all his information to Ministers, and he has kept in close touch with Ministers since then. He has acted properly and constructively throughout.

Ministers want to get to the bottom of the matter, put right any failings by the Department and be as open as possible about the circumstances. As soon as Ministers heard about the ROM-Data case, they asked the Department for an urgent report. The contents of that initial investigation, which was conducted in February 1995—shortly after the meeting with my hon. Friend—led to the decision to establish a full internal inquiry into the Department's handling of the case.

The inquiry's terms of reference were extended subsequently in light of emerging concerns—for example, concerns about earlier ministerial answers that were given on the basis of inaccurately supplied information, to which I have referred already. Parallel work by the Department on the circumstances of the ROM-Data Corporation led to the establishment of a separate SFO inquiry after the Department had referred the case to the SFO in August 1995.

The Department aims to find out what happened, where, and how any mistakes were made in its handling of the case, and to suggest ways of preventing such failings occurring again in future. I attach particular importance to that last point, as will be apparent from what I have said about the important action that the Department will take. It is clear that there have been procedural failings, and, if we find that DTI officials have breached the Department's rules of conduct, they will be held to account through the Department's disciplinary procedures.

Will the Minister give way?

With respect to the hon. Gentleman, he has taken up half the time available for debate. He raised a series of complex issues, and I am doing my best to address them. I must add that most of those issues had already been raised separately by my hon. Friend in whose constituency the problem occurred. I do not believe that the hon. Member for Devonport has any constituency interest.

The SFO must determine whether others have acted improperly, and its inquiries are continuing.

Will my hon. Friend give way?

I hope that my hon. Friend will excuse me, but I have only a few minutes in which to conclude my speech.

Finally, I shall put the unfortunate events into context. As my hon. Friend the Member for Falmouth and Camborne pointed out, regional selective assistance is a highly successful and popular scheme. Last year, the DTI offered grants of £159 million, which are expected to result in £1.3 billion in new investment and the creation or safeguarding of 36,000 jobs. In the same year, we wrote off less than £2.5 million. That is too much, as no one likes to see public money lost. However, some failures are inevitable and the RSA failure rate is extremely low. We must learn the lessons from this case, in order to prevent any repetition in the future.

Before the House debates the next topic, I want to point out that although the Adjournment debate embraces different topics, technically it is one debate, so that any right hon. or hon. Member who wants to speak twice should seek the leave of House. That is the case for the hon. Member for Hastings and Rye (Mrs. Lait).

I am grateful for that guidance, Madam Deputy Speaker and I hope that, with the leave of the House, I may be permitted to speak again. I am grateful for the opportunity to raise the subject of rest homes for the elderly, and to the Under-Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Mr. Bowis), for kindly taking time out from a busy day to respond to my concerns.

I have long taken an interest in rest homes for the elderly, and the debate was provoked by a document from the Centre for Policy on Ageing, "Home Life II", to which I shall refer later. First, I refer to the bed blocking that occurred over Christmas because social workers, for all sorts of valid reasons including flu, were not available to ensure the appropriate care. Many of my constituents involved in the rest home sector made the sensible proposal that in such cases, there is no reason why a hospital could not discharge into a rest or nursing home, for respite-type care over a brief period, people who could so benefit. Hospital beds would not be blocked, but available for more crucial cases, and social workers would have adequate time to make an assessment. I should be grateful if my hon. Friend the Minister could throw that suggestion into the melting pot of ideas when his Department considers the matter.

Does my hon. Friend's constituency encounter the same problem as Lancashire, where the Labour-controlled county council keeps open expensive county homes rather than use more efficiently run and cheaper private homes?

My hon. Friend anticipates my next point. That problem exists in East Sussex, as in other counties. Sometimes it is caused by people being inappropriately allocated to nursing homes, rest homes or domiciliary care. General practitioners have reported seeing bed sores of considerable size and complexity on elderly residents in rest homes who should be in nursing homes. Similarly, there are people in domiciliary care who should be in rest homes. At one stage, Lancashire county council was maintaining people in domiciliary care in their homes on packages costing £1,000 a week. I understand that that practice has come to an end, but in Hertfordshire, payments to private sector nursing homes have reduced from £370 to £350. Some nursing homes have been allowed residential care beds, with an insistence on the same staffing levels, and are paid only £250 a week. It is not difficult to anticipate the problems as county pressure increases on the private sector to reduce nursing home fees to £250 to cater for Hertfordshire residents, while county-owned beds will be considerably more expensive.

As my hon. Friend the Minister knows, East Sussex is currently wasting £4 million a year by overpaying itself to the extent of £100 per week per bed. The solution is to split the purchaser from the provider. As long as the present system remains—whereby social service departments are providers and inspectors and they let the contracts—we shall continue to receive justified criticisms from the private sector.

The Centre for Policy on Ageing was instrumental in producing the Government-sponsored report "Home Life", which set out rest home care standards that are generally accepted and agreed. Subsequently and under the same chairman, Lady Avebury, the centre established a further working party to produce "Home Life II". In fairness to the working party, Lady Avebury and the centre's director, Gillian Dalley—who has been helpful in advising me—I shall quote from a letter that Gillian Dailey wrote to me, referring to

"the draft which has been circulating without the Advisory Group's authorisation."

She wrote also to everyone who commented on the draft:

"The draft of the revised document which many of you have seen was an interim draft not intended for public circulation because further work and editing was going on."

I completely accept that explanation, but when the draft entered the public domain of the rest home sector, it caused those of my constituents who are rest home owners and others throughout East Sussex promptly to contact me, because of the history of Government sponsorship of "Home Life". The fear was that the Government had sponsored "Home Life II" as well.

The interim draft included the recommendation that every rest home room should measure 12 sq m, excluding bathroom facilities, and that 15 sq m would be better. In Hastings and St. Leonards, we are in the process of raising a large sum to help our local voluntary association for the blind to provide rooms that measure 10 sq m—the current standard. It does not take a big leap of the imagination to appreciate the effect on the private, public and voluntary sectors of a requirement for rest home rooms measuring 12 sq m or 15 sq m.

The interim draft's other recommendations include:

"Residents should not be thought of as objects of charity to be entertained through carol singing or children's plays, or be recipients of harvest festival goods or Christmas presents."

That is one of the draft's more ludicrous suggestions.

And patronising.

My hon. Friend is right.

One of the interim draft's more impractical suggestions is:

"Commodes should only be used as a last resort. Portable chemical toilets are a better option."

I am sure that many hon. Members are aware of the down side of chemical toilets.

Certainly those of us from rural areas.

Those of us from rural areas are well aware of the down side of portable chemical toilets, and I am sure that we would not want many of them in rest homes.

Rest home owners anticipate problems with recommendations such as:

"The window cill should be low enough so…resident can see out when seated or lying down. There should not be horizontal bar obstructing vision."

Many rest home residents are a bit dodgy on their pins and it does not take much imagination to realise the risk of nasty accidents in the absence of window bars. That apart, many rest home windows are of Victorian or Edwardian design. Their replacement would not only involve expense but require extraordinarily long and complex planning negotiations. Further, the document states:

"Annual accounts should be readily available to residents, relatives, inspection units and other organisations involved."

In one sense, I have no difficulty with that. I just hope that local authority homes could provide that information, because one major criticism from the private sector is that local authorities cannot do so.

The recommendation in the document that strikes terror into hearts of my local rest home owners is:

"Homes which fail to meet these standards will be required to make changes in order to meet them."

That is the most draconian requirement that I have come across in the guidelines. The National Care Homes Association, the East Sussex Registered Rest Homes Association and many others to whom I have spoken point out not only that the recommendations are expensive, but that they are inappropriate in a number of cases and are not suitable for many residents of rest homes. They are prescriptive and coercive. They do not allow for innovation, change and local interpretation by the people who run the rest homes and who are expert in providing good standards of care, as most people involved in the sector know.

The document is a motherhood-and-apple-pie wish list. I am told by the Centre for Policy on Ageing that it is amending the list. If anything like it was ever to emerge into the light of day officially, that would not just kill off the private sector, but the voluntary sector could not comply with its requirements. The public sector in its present state certainly would be unable to comply in most cases. I rather suspect that the public sector would try to comply at enormous cost to the public purse. That might mean a wider provision of beds by it. It would not utilise the expertise of the private sector, which would be forced out of the business.

If one is a conspiracy theorist, one can perhaps work out some of the thinking behind the document. However, I believe in a broad and wide provision of rest home and nursing home care and I do not wish to see anything done that would make the private or voluntary sector less competitive and less able to offer the high standards that those sectors now offer.

I am conscious, because of the research that I have done, that alternative work is being down by bodies such as the Residential Care Forum, which may produce some standards that people will find more compatible and easier to provide. We know from the past that, when guidelines come out, they are treated so often as law. Registration officers and social services insist that the guidelines are met. Too often, the guidelines are entirely physical and do not take into account elements such as the friendliness of a home and the involvement by owners and staff in ensuring that residents feel that they are living in their own homes. That is one of the keys to providing the best standards of care in the rest home sector.

I should be grateful if my hon. Friend the Minister could repudiate the report and ensure that the Government will not in any way encourage such guidelines to be used in the rest home sector. If any further standards are to be encouraged by the Government, they should be produced in collaboration with the key people in the sector—the owners.

My hon. Friend referred to the voluntary sector. I am sure that she is aware of the superb work done by the Abbeyfield Society. In Lancaster, we have been fortunate for some years to have a go-ahead chairman, Mr. Chirnside. Many Abbeyfield homes are doing a superb job, but they would find it very difficult to comply with those guidelines, even the modern ones.

My hon. Friend makes an extraordinarily good point. I was tempted to mention all the people who provide such good care, in both the voluntary and the private sector. Many organisations, some very large and some small, have helped me in my research, but I was conscious that I would like the Minister to have as much time as possible to reply. Therefore, I am afraid that I refrained from commending many of the people who produce such good care in that sector.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye (Mrs. Lait) for raising this subject. In another place, this would be called the dinner-hour debate, and it is perhaps appropriate that we take this half-hour to consider care for some often vulnerable people in our society who need to be looked after safely and of course with common sense. That is the flavour of the debate and of my hon. Friend's speech.

I have noted the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye and of my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman) about bed blocking and the inefficient use of the independent sector by some social service departments in providing or obtaining good-quality care for people who need residential care.

The debate gives me the opportunity to put the record straight on a matter that I know has been brought to the attention of and exercised the minds of a number of hon. Members in the House and one or two in another place. As I have said, I have noted the comments that have been made today, and my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Mr. Streeter), who is in his place, has also written to me about the subject.

I can assure my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye that the draft publication known as "Home Life II", which has so upset owners and managers of residential care homes, is nothing whatever to do with my Department. The publication is the work of a group set up by the Centre for Policy on Ageing, which is a wholly independent organisation. The document is not the result of a Government working party, we are not funding it and we are not associated with any of the draft recommendations in it. I hope that that is clear. There has been some misunderstanding because of the origins of the original document, "Home Life".

My hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye has quoted sensibly from the draft document and has drawn to our attention some of its absurdities. There are others. The requirement that residents' bedrooms should have not only television and radio, but music centres strikes me as strange for a residential home. My hon. Friend referred to the mention of carol singing and Christmas presents. She might also have referred to the fact that the document claims that

"An objective measure of food acceptability is to weigh and record plate waste."

The requirement on window sills and horizontal bars has been mentioned, but the document also suggests that every room, irrespective of personal need, should have a remote control system for closing windows and drawing curtains. As my hon. Friend said, the document is a wish list that goes beyond sensible borders.

The document also contains a glossary, which includes such gems as

"gender—all words indicating one gender must always include both genders"

and

"singular/plural—words indicating singular or plural always include the other".

And again:

"Life is always taken to include all aspects of life, physical, medical, social, cultural, spiritual, economic".

The term "relatives" is primarily used to describe people living outside the home

"whether they are related or not. It certainly includes friends".

Perhaps my favourite quotation is:

"Positive/negative—statements often have an equivalent negative/positive statement. The opposite is always assumed to hold even if it is not stated."

If you can work that out, Madam Deputy Speaker, I congratulate you.

We know that this is a draft, not a final document, but it has caused unnecessary concern among home owners and people living in homes. That is unfortunate. As I said, the document has nothing to do with our Department; I hope that it is now being revised in accordance with the commonsense response from my hon. Friends, among others.

There are some things in the document with which we would all agree and many others that are unexceptional—but I share the concerns about some of the contents. A number of statements in the document are far too prescriptive. They attempt to play nanny or to interfere in the lives of residents in an unnecessary way. There are some ludicrous examples, too, of political correctness. We have not been asked to endorse the publication and there is no question of that endorsement being given to the sort of ideas that we have heard discussed today.

If there is a "Home Life II", there must have been a "Home Life I". There was: it, too, was produced by the CPA, and that one we did endorse. It subsequently became widely used as a standards document by homes and regulatory authorities. But that was in 1984 when the Registered Homes Act was being introduced, and there was a widely recognised need for standards in homes to be improved.

Since "Home Life" was first published, a number of other, similar documents have been published. I could cite a range of them, including "Homes Are For Living In" and the "Caring For Quality" series published by the social services inspectorate. Any successor to "Home Life" will need to find its own place among those and other new publications being planned, for example, by the Residential Care Forum.

Whether or not we endorse particular documents that try to define standards for homes, we all recognise how vital it is that homes provide quality care. But I believe that that can be done while avoiding unreasonable and costly demands—of the sort my hon. Friend has highlighted—being placed on homes, and unwarranted interference occurring in the lives of residents. Homes, after all, are for living in. Moreover, the wish to see quality care should not lead us to too much prescription. We are committed to keeping the regulatory burden on homes to the necessary minimum, without loss of safeguards for residents.

We believe that much can be done to maintain and improve the quality of care by a sensible dialogue: a partnership between homes and authorities—and above all, between homes and authorities on the one hand and residents and families on the other.

Local standards for homes should be drawn up by authorities only after full consultation with providers, and those standards should be published. Such a process means that homes know what is expected of them and authorities have a clearer appreciation of what it is reasonable for homes to do. It also means, in accordance with the citizens charter principles, that potential residents will be provided with more and better information about homes.

Guidance about the local development of standards and other regulatory matters was issued to all authorities by my Department last September.

Does my hon. Friend agree that while we are always seeking information from private homes, it would be no bad thing to get rather more information from the county homes?

My hon. Friend is right. As she will know, we require county homes to be inspected against the same standards as are expected of the independent sector.

Critics of our determination to improve regulation of homes have, I believe, been proved wrong. We did not abandon the law. We took steps to restore a sense of appropriateness to regulation—keeping things in proportion, cutting paperwork, seeking consistency in enforcement practice within and between authorities, and targeting enforcement effort. All that will benefit everyone. Residents will benefit by not having their homes unnecessarily examined or invaded in an unco-ordinated way by a range of bodies. They will also benefit from care staff not having their attention unnecessarily diverted; and of course taxpayers will benefit from better value for money.

I am not suggesting for one moment that we should go soft on poor homes in any sector: far from it. We expect regulatory authorities to take all necessary steps to bring low-standard homes up to scratch. The law provides authorities with all the powers that they need to take enforcement action in the light of the evidence concerned. We expect them to take similar action—this answers the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster—when their own homes are not up to scratch.

Our community care reforms are now in place. Our community care development programme is about moving on from consideration of structural changes. I hope that this will reassure my hon. Friends. We now want to concentrate on improving the quality of life of the people who rely on services. That is certainly true of care homes. Better outcomes for residents mean listening to what they say, involving them as far as possible in decisions about their care, and allowing them to exercise choice and control. Residents must be valued and their needs not subordinated to the needs of the home or the opinions of local authorities or inspectors.

My hon. Friend referred to the need for residents to be given choice. Is he confident that all social service departments are giving residents and prospective residents the widest possible choice of homes to go to? Is he aware that social services still exhibit some restraint when offering choices to prospective residents?

The answer to the first question is no, and to the second question, yes. The problem is that they do not offer enough information about all the options that are available. I should like some improvement in that area. Assessment and care plans should ensure that residents get the care that they need. Privacy, confidentiality and sensitive treatment are all essential. Much can be achieved by the idea of partnership between the home and its residents.

I came to the debate to listen to a speech by the hon. Member for Hastings and Rye (Mrs. Lait) about standards of care in homes, but the debate might have been better entitled, "The business interests of private care home owners". I was saddened to note that, in a 14-minute speech, the hon. Lady did not mention residents' interests once.

We are talking about vulnerable people, and I am pleased to hear the Minister, at least, talking about their interests. The current review of the 1984 legislation is worryingly underpinned by a belief in deregulation that forgets the fact that people in care homes—I have talked to some of them—feel demeaned when they receive third-hand apples and oranges at harvest festival.

Order. I am sorry, but this is a short debate—and interventions should in any case be short.

I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman did not go on to criticise the nonsense in the draft document—unlike my hon. Friends—but I suppose that that shows the differences between our parties.

My hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye did talk about the interests of residents. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the SSI recently published a report—"Responding to Residents"—based on an inspection of local authority homes. There are many important lessons in it for all homes in respect of providing individualised care for residents. For many elderly people, it is important that homes do not become too restrictive—as the document under discussion seems to be—or lead to a loss of continuity or contact with their past lives. Relatives and friends should be encouraged to participate in the life of the home and how care is provided. A friendly, domestic environment should be maintained, and there should be opportunities for contacts with the wider community to be developed in accordance with residents' wishes. They should be allowed to have their own possessions around them. There should be sensible policies on risk taking, and encouraging residents to pursue leisure activities or to go outside if they feel that they can and wish to do so.

Many good homes provide such care now, and others are working to get there. A review is under way on inspection and regulation. I believe that it will open up some of the debates on how we should seek those qualities and standards in the future. We have seen considerable growth in the independent sector in recent years. One of the concerns that the review has is that we do not wreck the quality of the homes with a whole panoply of regulation. We are exploring that area in the review so that providers can be treated even-handedly.

I believe that I have had the opportunity to clarify our stance on the CPA's draft and to emphasise our concern to see standards in care homes maintained and improved, in full collaboration with providers—

Order. We now come to the next topic for debate.

I am grateful for the opportunity to raise my concerns and, more importantly, those of my constituents, about health provision in Bradford. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden) will wish to comment on this important matter.

It is my belief, as I hope to prove today, that Bradford people are losing confidence that their national health service will be able to meet their medical needs when they require it. I have no intention of talking down the health service. I am proud that it was a Labour Government who set up the national health service based on need. Indeed, I pay tribute to the doctors, nurses and health workers, who are acting above and beyond the call of duty. I shall read an extract from a letter that one of my constituents, Mrs. Jean King, whose mother is in hospital, wrote to the chief executive of Bradford hospitals trust. She says:

"I am writing both to compliment and complain. The compliments are directed at your nursing staff and the complaints are directed at your organisation. All credit must go to the staff, they never complain they just get on with their duties as best they can. They look tired, stressed and they are definitely overworked. I am sure that they know they have not got the time to give the sort of service they used to give.

My mother has become depressed and distressed, not because of her illness but because nobody has the necessary time to give her the sort of care which used to be available for patients.

My mother is only one of many needy patients on that ward who try not to trouble the nurses because they can see how busy they are."

In another letter, one of my constituents, Mr. Key, makes further mention of the shortage of staff. Unfortunately, his wife passed away in hospital. He said that, in the last few days of her life, she was concerned about being moved into a side ward, as she feared that she might not be heard because the staff were so busy. Eventually, to benefit her family, she agreed to go into a side ward. She died with the alarm button in her hand.

There are many other cases that I could quote, but the constant theme remains the same: grateful thanks to the doctors, nurses and health workers, but harsh criticism of the system.

Bradford nurses still have not received their pay rise in their pay packets, due to the financial crisis facing the hospitals trust. That crisis is based on the faltering relationship between the purchaser, Bradford Health, and the provider, Bradford hospitals trust. The evidence is that, in the past, both parties had to go to arbitration to confirm their financial settlements, as Bradford hospitals trust claimed that it was not receiving the appropriate funds. To balance the books, the trust has had to make efficiency savings, which have resulted in savage cuts in the number of staff, the closure of wards and the loss of beds. That in turn has affected morale among hospital workers, who have seen the quality of their service deteriorate and the number of skilled and qualified staff reduce. At the same time, the number of administrators has increased, due mainly to the bureaucratic relationships and complexities of the purchaser-provider split.

In Bradford, we have seen an increase in the need for charitable donations to provide much-needed equipment, particularly in the care of cancer and heart patients. The death two weeks ago of my constituent, Mr. Geoffrey Cranswick, was a great tragedy, not only for a loving family who lost a special person but for Bradford. Mr. Cranswick collapsed in his doctor's surgery. His general practitioner tried to save his life, and hospitals in the area were contacted for an emergency admission to intensive care. Bradford royal infirmary has only five intensive care beds, four of which were in use at the time. The fifth bed was unavailable because of staff shortages. Eight other hospitals were contacted in the region until a spare bed was found, in Scarborough. Sadly, Mr. Cranswick died just after arrival in Scarborough.

Bradford's population of 485,000 deserves more than just five beds. Following the announcement of Mr. Cranswick's death, the director of nursing services commented:

"For the size of our population we look to be lacking in Intensive Care beds at the moment".

That is somewhat of an understatement. In December, 19 people needing intensive care had to be transferred outside the Bradford area.

The irony is that Mr. Cranswick was a tireless worker for the British Heart Foundation. I believe that a full inquiry is needed into the circumstances of his case. I hope that his family's pleas for extra intensive care beds will be heeded as a fitting memorial to him. I have a relevant quotation from our local evening paper in Bradford, the Telegraph and Argus, which said:

"There is obviously a nationwide problem. It is hard to work out whether the crisis is the result of a shortage of funds—or due to mismanagement of resources and bad planning."

The Secretary of State for Health is the man ultimately responsible for sorting out the mess. The Government created the new-look NHS. They must ensure that it stops failing people when they are in desperate need. The indications are not good. When I raised a question in the House about the problems of purchaser-provider splits, I was told that it was a matter for the chief executive of the trust and for the commission. I believe that to be an abdication of responsibility. The Government should and must act when things go wrong.

Again in December, the hospitals trust had to subcontract more than 1,000 patients to other private and NHS facilities because it did not have the capacity or the notice to make arrangements. Some £1.9 million was found by the regional health authority out of "unrenewable resources" to meet the backlog of cases that had been waiting almost 12 months. There were 516 general surgery cases; 322 orthopaedic cases; and 278 urology cases. Operations were carried out in the private sector at premium rates by consultants who would have carried out the same operations within the NHS. I urge the Minister to investigate how it was possible for such a situation to occur.

Bradford hospitals trust has shut down its capacity to match its budget provision. The trust's chief executive raised concerns with my colleagues and me about the seriousness of the financial situation. In the contracting year 1994–95, the trust was required to carry out 76,500 finished consultant episodes from a budget of £80.5 million. In 1995–96, it has been requested to supply 79,500 FCEs for £82.1 million—an increase of £1.6 million for a further 3,000 operations. In effect, it is a 4 per cent. increase in requirement, but with an increase of only 2 per cent. in funds.

Needless to say, the health commission does not accept the figures and makes the case that the trust is the provider and that it must be competitive on its prices to win contracts. That would be understandable if we were talking about a business, but we are not. Nor are we comparing like with like. Bradford hospitals trust depends on Bradford health commission for more than 90 per cent. of its budget. The trust forecast that it is heading for a finance deficit this year of £5 million. It says that further financial pressures are unavoidable on issues that have been agreed by the Government—the cut in junior doctors' hours, and more medical education—but have not been budgeted for.

The only method of retrieving the shortfall is for further cuts to be made in an already beleaguered service. The trust maintains that it is cost-effective, low priced, and an efficient production unit. It points to several local and national indicators to prove the point. What is clear to all of us in Bradford who use, and depend on, our hospitals is that we cannot afford more cuts. Yet we discover that the new formula funding for the regional health authorities means that Bradford will receive £5 million less next year, on top of the £5 million shortfall for this year.

Taxis ferry patients across the city, because the trust operates on two major sites. X-rays and scanners are available only at one site. We need more money and more investment, not less money and further cuts. Staffing levels on the wards are the lowest in West Yorkshire. On most wards, 19 staff provide 24-hour cover seven days a week. On others, there are six nurses—three qualified from the Royal College of Nursing and three auxiliaries—to 51 patients. When there is absence through sickness, the staff have to go to the management to arrange cover instead of using agency nurses.

All training courses have been stopped until the end of the financial year as the training budget has been used up. Nurses and staff are not allowed time off to attend courses to develop their skills. They have to pay for the courses themselves and attend them outside working hours. Staff working on Christmas day had to pay for taxis to get to work because there was no public transport and when they applied for a refund they were told to deduct the amount of the bus fare. That is outrageous.

In 1994, a document was launched in Bradford outlining the strategy for health until 2000. It pointed out Bradford's medical requirements and all the agencies involved gave a commitment to make Bradford a healthy place with healthy people able to depend upon first-class health provision. If present trends continue, that will become a worthless piece of paper to put alongside the patients charter. We do not want more words; we want a health service that provides for us when we are in need.

The trust recognises that it has a problem. It forecasts increased waiting times and says that current contracts will mean that people will be on waiting lists for more than 12 months. It believes that a cost reduction programme will make matters worse, putting the trust at greater risk of complaints and litigation. Bradford people cannot afford that. I urge the Minister to investigate and put matters right. If he does not, the Government cannot continue to say that the health service is safe in their hands. This is not a matter of the numbers of patients being treated; it is a fundamental question of providing an effective, efficient and caring public service.

In 1991, the Bradford hospitals trust was launched as a flagship of the new approach to health provision. It saddens me to say that it is floundering and in danger of sinking. The casualties will be the decent people of our city, people who cannot afford to buy their way out through the private sector if they are in trouble.

It is a great privilege and responsibility to represent Bradford, South. I hope that the Minister will take the issues seriously and not respond by quoting statistics showing the throughput of operations. I hope that he will show a genuine desire to get to the heart of the issues and to put matters right.

Doctors, nurses and health workers in Bradford deserve better support. People in Bradford know what the problems are and they deserve better treatment. I hope that the Minister will investigate all the matters that I have raised and ensure that Bradford receives proper and appropriate health care.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Sutcliffe) on securing the debate and allowing me a brief opportunity to participate.

The Under-Secretary of State for Health is new to his portfolio, but I am confident that the briefing material given to him before the debate will have said that concerns about the NHS in Bradford have been put to the House by different Members of Parliament representing the city during the past 10 years or so.

I do not want to be alarmist—what I have to say is substantiated by what my hon. Friend said—but the NHS in Bradford is in deep crisis and unless the Government intervene decisively, that crisis will deepen. Those who depend on the NHS in Bradford are clearly not receiving the quality of service to which they are entitled and all the prospects are that that quality of service will deteriorate unless decisive action is taken.

As the House has been told on numerous occasions, Bradford suffers from deep poverty. That poverty is endemic and breeds all sorts of health demands. Clearly, Bradford NHS is incapable of meeting those needs at present and, as time goes by, without the injection of additional funding, it will continue to be unable to meet those growing and important needs. We suffer particularly from high rates of heart disease. Thankfully, our infant mortality rates have improved substantially in recent years, but there is continuing concern about infant mortality and the health of children in our district.

As my hon. Friend said, the NHS in Bradford is grotesquely underfunded. That has been the case ever since the NHS trust was first established there. Public warnings were consistently given about that underfunding, which were reaffirmed by the Select Committee on Health which visited Bradford at that time. Those warnings were never heeded, but I appeal to the Minister to do so today and to take action.

The morale of nursing and medical staff is at an all-time low. There is gross understaffing. As my hon. Friend said, the nursing staff-patient ratio is not only below the regional average but way below the national average. Considerable burdens are imposed on staff, who experience great stress and there is unacceptable dependence on temporary or so-called bank or agency nursing staff.

There is also considerable anxiety about the need to increase the number of consultants, in comparison not only with Airedale but with the rest of Yorkshire. My hon. Friend rightly spoke about the language that we now hear so much of in the health service—for example, throughputs and activity rates. We are dealing not with supermarkets but with those who are desperately trying to provide the best quality of care and service in Bradford, as is the case throughout the rest of the country. That is not being delivered in Bradford today and the main reason for that is the underfunding.

As my hon. Friend has already said, it is no good the Minister saying, as he may well do, that the funding is adequate and that the matter is one for the trust and the health commission—once better known as the health authority. Despite the new name, the reality remains the same, and that is that there is serious underfunding, which is historical. Unless action is taken, the consequences of that underfunding will continue and there will be more unfortunate cases, such as that of Mr. Cranswick, which has illustrated the need for urgent action now.

Some particular incidents have caused considerable concern recently. My hon. Friend referred to the decision to spend nearly £2 million on reducing the number of those who have been on waiting lists for nearly a year which, as the Minister will have heard, has resulted in that money being spent primarily within the private sector. It is unacceptable that nearly £2 million of taxpayers' money should be spent within the private sector.

The absurdity of that is compounded because most of the operations were carried out by NHS consultants who should and would wish to carry out those operations within the NHS. That decision was politically driven. The Government clearly said that they wanted to reduce waiting lists and did not care how it was done. In Bradford, the result was that money that should have gone into the NHS went predominantly into the private sector.

I hope that the Minister will give us more than sympathy today. I hope that he will call urgently for information about the situation. If he agrees with the views expressed not only by me and by my hon. Friend today but continually by many others who are desperately concerned about health in Bradford, I hope that he will find a way of injecting substantial funds into the NHS in Bradford and do so urgently.

I am glad to have the opportunity to respond to the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Sutcliffe). I congratulate him on securing time in the House to debate the important matter of health care in Bradford. I acknowledge, too, his long-standing concern and his local knowledge. I well understand his feelings following the sad death of Mr. Geoffrey Cranswick, his constituent. He made an eloquent plea not only on the general question of health care in Bradford but on the particular question of intensive care beds, which are a material factor. I also acknowledge what the hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden) said. He too has a great deal of knowledge about, and concern for, health matters in Bradford. I promise not to give too many statistics, but we must include a few facts in dealing with this case.

Before referring specifically to Bradford, let me say a little about the position in the country as a whole in order to put the matter in context. The number of available intensive care beds has increased by nearly 90 in the past four years. We recognise that the lack of intensive care provision has provoked criticism. It is sometimes claimed that the problem is due to a shortage of qualified nurses; retaining highly qualified nurses can be a problem, but—as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State confirmed only last week in Health questions—we now have 1,000 more qualified nurses than we did in 1990. Indeed, the number of qualified general intensive care nurses increased by more than 18 per cent. between 1990 and 1994.

It must be stressed that intensive care is precisely that: it is a very intensive business. Between five and seven highly trained nurses are required to deal with one bed in an intensive care unit. That is one reason why we are encouraging the development of high dependency units, which can take some of the strain off intensive care provision.

In response to the claims of shortage in provision, the Department of Health commissioned a study from the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, led by Professor McPherson. His report, which was published last year, identified considerable variation in provision; it also found a significant number of inappropriate admissions. It must be recognised that what capacity we have must be used sensibly: it should not be misused in the handling of cases that do not necessarily justify intensive treatment. Following the publication of the McPherson report, a working group of medical and nursing professionals was formed to draw up guidelines for admission to, and discharge from, intensive care. It is expected to complete its work early this year.

Both the hon. Member for Bradford, South and the hon. Member for Bradford, West said that this should be a matter for the Government. In fact, the Government—or, rather, the professionals whom they have commissioned—are examining the whole business of intensive care, including intensive care in Bradford. Last year, we also asked local health authorities to review local intensive care provision in the light of Professor McPherson's report. We are also supporting the Intensive Care National Audit and Research Centre with a grant of £400,000. Both performance and outcome are being examined. I agree with both hon. Members, however, that we should consider not merely short-term but medium and long-term benefit.

Let me now deal with the position of local health commissions, and Bradford health commission in particular. It is the responsibility of district health commissions, or authorities, to use their resources to meet the health needs of their populations. The hon. Member for Bradford, South expressed the fear that resources for Bradford might be insufficient, but let us look at the facts. In 1995–96—the current financial year—Bradford health commission received over £200 million, an increase of £9.6 million in cash terms, including an increase of £1.6 million for development. Furthermore, in the next financial year, beginning in April, Bradford is to receive £210 million—another substantial increase in cash terms, including a real terms increase of £1 million. While the hon. Gentleman clearly believes that Bradford's health service is underfunded, the fact is that it is receiving substantial amounts each year in addition to what it already has.

The worries that we have expressed are not merely our personal worries; they have been substantiated by the hospital trust management, which says that it faces real shortfalls.

I hear what the hon. Gentleman says, but the fact remains that we are increasing funds for Bradford in real terms.

Let me be more specific. One of the ways in which Bradford has benefited from the extra money is through improvements in its accident and emergency department. After Bradford health commission had completed its own review, the results of which were published last September, it was able to assist with A and E services at Bradford royal infirmary, which is part of Bradford Hospitals NHS trust. The commission also provided an extra £140,000 for A and E staffing. This year, the trust has increased the number of staff in its A and E department by one consultant, four senior house officers and eight nurses. It has invested a total of £420,000, and a new computer system has been installed.

The hon. Gentleman, however, is concerned about not just A and E but wider health matters. The trust has also appointed eight additional consultants, including three anaesthetists and a general surgeon. As recently as the end of 1994, my hon. Friend the Minister for Health opened a new wing at St Luke's hospital in Bradford, which is part of the trust. The development cost £25 million.

The hon. Gentleman raised the sad case of Mr. Geoffrey Cranswick. I shall not go into that tragic case at length, because it has already been dealt with exhaustively, and we probably agree about what happened. Following the case, however, Bradford health commission's chief executive visited the trust—I believe that he did so the day after the events with which we are dealing—to discuss the need for more intensive care beds. To that, extent prompt action was taken, as it should be in such cases.

As I explained earlier, the health commission's contract allows for the funding of five intensive care beds, so the recent difficulties are not related to funding. In this case, as the hon. Gentleman admitted, they were due to staff shortages. Two people were not available because of flu, and there were four more shortages because of the inability to attract properly trained nurses. That is a problem, but it does not relate specifically to funding.

I am sorry to interrupt the Minister when he has only a few more minutes in which to speak. May I ask, however, whether he has received any representations from either Bradford health commission or Bradford Hospitals NHS trust regarding the allocation of resources and the need to increase those resources?

No, I have not. What I have received is a report on the position. I looked into it after the hon. Gentleman raised the issue in an Adjournment debate. I am assured that much joint work is now being done to bring about a better understanding of the pressures on the service in Bradford. That involves more co-operation between the commission and the trust—the specific point about which the hon. Gentleman complained.

As the hon. Gentleman will be aware, the commission and the trust have been working together on a programme called "Making Bradford Better". He did not mention it, but I am sure that he knows of it. The project evolved from joint discussions and work, and is intended to effect early improvements in specific patient services. Specific programmes include dealing with emergency admissions and the Bradford eye service. Whatever may have obtained in the past, the relationship and level of understanding between the commission and the trust are improving. I acknowledge that great effort is needed to ensure the continuation of that joint work, which clearly benefits Bradford.

On the occasion in question, only four intensive care beds were in service. There should have been five, and it is clearly vital for that fifth bed to be returned to service as soon as possible. It is accepted, however, that five beds are not enough to serve the 500,000 people who live in the Bradford area. Six beds should be available as early as possible, and the commission and the trust assure me that every effort will be made to achieve that.

I mentioned high dependency beds, which can take the pressure off intensive care beds. There are plans to fund an additional four such beds.

The hon. Members for Bradford, South and for Bradford, West may never accept that Bradford has enough money, and I would probably feel the same if I were in their shoes, but funds have been increased substantially. Moreover, as far as I am aware, co-operation between the trust and the commission is becoming better and better. Such co-operation must exist if the problems are to be solved. Specific attention is being paid to the question of intensive care and high dependency. I hope that all those factors will lead to an increase in Bradford's health provision, and I join both hon. Members in paying tribute to the work done by the professionals.