House of Commons Hansard Debates for 20 Nov 1991

Mr. Terry Lewis (Worsley) : It is past its bedtime.

Mr. Butterfill : I am sorry about that. The right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) has adopted the puppy-dog tendency : he and his party roll over to have their tummies tickled every time they are invited to do so by a bureaucrat in Brussels.

11.17 pm

Mr. George Robertson (Hamilton) : This will be a marathon debate by modern standards, but it will not be as lengthy as the five-day debate in 1971 on the decision to enter the EC. However, that was before my time.

Today's important debate centres on a crucial issue facing the country. One major change from the circumstances of 1971 is the sheer speed and scale of current events. Today, nothing is set in stone. Every day old certainties disappear. We must not allow ourselves to believe that the decisions taken today represent the last word. The processes may be irreversible, but their direction will not be marked out easily. We are in that process now--at its heart--directing, not following it. That is what the debate should be about.

It is right that those who have doubts about British entry into any political, monetary or economic union and what signing up to that union would mean should have the opportunity to spell them out. Those who are hostile or opposed to such union should have the opportunity to tell the people about the pitfalls, risks and constraints involved in signing up for more progress towards a European central bank and, eventually, a single currency. They have done so in this debate and will continue to do so tomorrow. For some of them, it will become a lifetime's crusade as self- motivating as that of the well-known gent who patrols Oxford street in sandwich boards proclaiming that society's ills come from the fact that protein breeds excess passion.

Column 380

This is a democracy and opponents of political, economic and monetary union can have their say and outline their case. The right hon. Members for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher), for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley), for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit) and for Blaby (Mr. Lawson) have all made it clear that they are opposed to the principle of a single currency and a European central bank. But precisely where the Prime Minister stands on that principle is still not clear. Although he was asked this afternoon, no answer was forthcoming.

But--it is an important "but"--in British democratic terms, those who parade the downsides so eloquently and in such detail and relish cataloguing the doom on which we are about to embark have a duty to their fellow country men and women : they must spell out the alternative. If they seek to persuade the electorate that a magical, unrestrained alternative world is out there ready for us to join and continue to preach that, if we opt out of this dangerous foreign adventure, national independence of action--genuine independent sovereignty in political and economic policy-- will be available to us, and if they continue to ignore and contradict the relentless and far from recent process of interlocking economies, money markets and political decisions and their effects, they offer only an illusion, a grotesque fiction, of a future for Britain in the world today. Opponents should say where we will be and who will be our partners and allies if we use the Government's famous opt-out or opt-in clause in four or five years' time. Who will be with us then in Europe's second or third division? Certainly not the Americans, because, despite the applause rippling across the Atlantic from the lecture halls of Memphis and Chicago to the theme of "Atlantic economic communities", Mr. Bush and Mr. Baker have heaped praise on the new European thirst for integration.

I deeply regret that the right hon. Member for Finchley is not present. She said so much this afternoon about the importance of the voice of this place. I hesitate to say that this is the second time that I have wound up a debate in which the right hon. Member for Finchley made a dramatic impact, and it is the second time that she has missed the winding up. I just hope that it is nothing personal. I hope that someone will remind her that it is discourteous to the House to miss wind-up speeches. I hope that she will read my speech in Hansard.

In her absence, the right hon. Lady may care to reflect on the words of James Baker, the United States Secretary of State, who said earlier this year :

"The European Community has achieved history's most intense and comprehensive voluntary evolution of governing authority above the national level."

That was risky stuff for the right hon. Member for Finchley and pretty risky stuff for the Government. He went on :

"Thus, the architects of a united Europe have adopted the principle of subsidiarity', something like American federalism'--that is, the devolution of responsibility to the lowest level of government capable of performing it effectively."

Clearly the American Secretary of State has not been paid to listen to the right hon. Member for Finchley as she trudges around every town in the mid- west for larger and larger fees.

It is surely time that we in Britain faced up to the fact that, whether we like it or loathe it, we are part of the inexorable process of integration, and we must either join it or bump along behind it. If there are any doubters left who wonder whether we as a country can follow the

Column 381

policies we want, they should look at Austria and Sweden. Those are two proud and prosperous nation states that are both part of the European Free Trade Association, both long-standing neutral countries and both with applications in to join the European Community. If they ever suffered the illusion of being independent of the EC's influence, they do so no longer.

The newly elected right-wing Prime Minister of Sweden, Mr Carl Bildt, stated the obvious when he said on Monday that Sweden was "determined to converge its economy with the best performing economies of the emerging EMU in all respects considered crucial to the functioning of that Union."

Sweden wants to sign up, as do the rest of the countries in EFTA and beyond in increasing numbers.

Those countries include the nations of central and eastern Europe, which have escaped communism but now see the EC as the model of the sort of economic building blocks that will give their democracies a guaranteed and assured future. All those countries have understood one overriding message : the European Community is the only show in town, and one has to be in it to shape and influence it, and the only alternative is to stand on the fringes and be run by it.

If any other doubters remain, they should look at France--a nation which is every bit as nationalistic as the right hon. Member for Chingford and which has absolutely no intention of conceding even a fragment of its precious national identity. However, it is still enthusiastic to join what we are told is an identity-crushing, centralising nation state. Why is that? The truth is mundane but revealing.

It is not explained merely by the easy theories related to Germany, although we would be wise not to ignore or underestimate the importance of the way other people look at European integration in relation to Germany. I found it offensive when the Chairman of the 1922 Committee earlier today suggested that the process was merely a method for France to tie up Germany, and asked why France did not pay for the binding rope instead of the rest of us. We in Europe are at a time when the apprehensions of Germany's neighbours--which have good historical reasons for being apprehensive--coincide with Germany's sincere wish to reassure them and the world that it is serious about integration, Europe, and being a good partner in a collective future for the continent. Who can say if this time will ever return? In Britain, with a carelessness that has often bordered on recklessness, the Government have dismissed the importance of Germany's desire to be enfolded in the European embrace. Luckily for us, others have been much more wise.

Mr. Cash : Has it occurred to the hon. Gentleman that it is not impossible that the consequences of monetary union could be to hand over the key of the legal structure of the EC to those countries obviously dominated by Germany?

Mr. Robertson : I am reminded of the words of our good friend, Gregor Mackenzie, who in a legendary intervention once said to the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) that the only thing that the hon. Lady and he had in common was that neither of them knew what she was talking about. I feel in precisely the same position, and am

Column 382

beginning to realise why the Tory Whips turned out so many people the other night in order to place the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) in a position which has meant that he has had to sit through all this debate. That is the man who retired from the Cabinet to see more of his family. He is now afflicted with 10- hour debates on Europe. There is a prize !

The French are not ceding sovereignty to Europe. Instead, they are trying to get some back. They are not surrendering their identity, their institutions and their statehood. They are wrenching back a little of what has already gone to the Bundesbank, to Frankfurt and to the driving, dominating and strongest economy in Europe. They recognise what so many of the doubters in the United Kingdom will not face, which is that the choices for them and for Britain are shared sovereignty or no sovereignty, shared influence in Europe or no influence in Europe, and shared power or no power at all. Those are the choices, but I do not know how they would be set out on a referendum ballot paper. Unfortunately, we do not have with us this evening the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown), the leader of the Liberal Democrats.

Mr. Morgan : Not unfortunately.

Mr. Robertson : Or fortunately, as the case may be. The right hon. Gentleman may be concocting more instant policy. I do not expect my good friend, the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber (Sir R. Johnston), to defend the amazing new idea about a referendum that has come from his party, which used to be so in favour of Europe. It strikes me that never has so much been changed by so few for so little.

Mrs. Currie : The hon. Gentleman knows that I agree with much of what he has said. I am not frightened of the change in his party's policy. I wonder, however, whether he is frightened about some people who are closer to home. What is his view as a Scot of the philosophy and policy of many of his compatriots, especially those who are supporters of the Labour party, who would much prefer Scotland to be dealing directly with Europe? Is he in favour of that policy?

Mr. Robertson : Why should we not deal directly with Europe? Why should a Scottish Parliament, which will be set up by the future Labour Government, not deal directly with Europe? If it is good enough for the federal German la"nder, surely it is good enough for Scotland and for other parts of the United Kingdom. If I give way to the hon. Lady in future, I hope that she will not damage my future career by suggesting that she agrees with me.

This has been a remarkable debate. Perhaps it was made amazing after the contribution this afternoon of the former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Finchley. When she made allusions to "her" Government and "her" Foreign Secretary, the Government's position appeared to change. The Prime Minister, who earlier had been resolute--almost absolute--in his condemnation of a referendum, allowed his spokespeople in Downing street this evening to clarify the constitutional issue. It is, of course, possible that a referendum could take place in a future Parliament.

Mr. Favell : Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Robertson : I think that I have given way too often already.

Column 383

Mr. Favell : The hon. Gentleman has not given way to me.

Mr. Robertson : I have not, and I have no intention of doing so. A man with the hon. Gentleman's sense of timing could perhaps resume his seat for a little longer.

The choice is that of shared power or no power. It is a simple choice, but it is not an empty one. The power that we share is in our own tomorrow too. It is within institutions that we can participate to preserve our best and to leave the rest in the Community. It is a shared influence to mould Europe in our style and our way for our people, and also for the people of Europe. Britain now has to decide its place in the inevitable, unavoidable and inescapable new Europe in which we now live. The Government know that it is all unavoidable too.

The right hon. Member for Blaby, who will no doubt put in a star performance tomorrow, set out the issue with his usual blunt frankness last week in the Evening Standard

Mr. Cash : Appeaser.

Mr. Robertson : The hon. Gentleman has allowed failure to go to his head. It would be wise to say it. When there was talk about a single currency, there was no talk about William Cash.

The former Chancellor, the right hon. Member for Blaby, was quoted in the Evening Standard this week as saying :

"In these circumstances a crude No' to the EMU Treaty would be pointless, since it would not stop the others from proceeding with a separate treaty without us, using the EMS agreement as a precedent." His predecessor as Chancellor, the right hon. and learned Member for Surrey, East (Sir G. Howe), also said that this afternoon. But the real problem for the nation is that the Government do not have the vaguest clue about what they really want from Europe. That is why the Government's motion talks about

"preserving the right of Parliament to decide at a future date whether to adopt a single currency".

Strangely, it does not say one word about the imposition of a single currency, which was the slogan so regularly used by the Government to protect any lack of policy.

Of course, that never did make any sense anyway, since nothing can be imposed upon any Government or people, but it served for a moment or two to hide the cracks in the Conservative party. But that was until the right hon. and learned Member for Surrey, East, who at least had the decency to apologise for being absent for this part of the debate, blew the gaffe in last Tuesday's Financial Times, as he did this afternoon, when he said :

"Mr. Major, understandably, has maintained our stand against the imposition' of a single currency. But that, in a way, never was the central question."

Too true, it was not, but it is a pretty late confession to come now.

We know--of course we know--that the Government will sign up to the EMU treaty on 10 December. It is just that we do not know, and we have not been told, why they are going to do it and what the consequences will be. We have an opt-out clause which, as my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition said, will simply create instability and uncertainty in industry and put a brake on inward investment. If they can get away with it, they have no intention of using it at all and we will be in the EMU without even a whimper.

Column 384

But even at this stage, on the brink of signing the treaty, the Government cannot summon the guts to tell the people the cost and benefits of it or how Britain can measure up to it lest they irritate the flat earthers on the Benches behind them. Given the feebleness of the economy and the glaring absence of any plans to make Britain strong again, it is small wonder that they have now turned with renewed paranoia to the political union IGC.

By no stretch of the imagination is the political union IGC a blueprint for a European super-state. The British people are too intelligent to believe that kind of kidology anyway. They know that a single European market cannot be created by a process of majority voting on a huge range of industrial, commercial and business decisions and then go on to start to create a monetary union with a European central bank and one currency and then say that we do not need to develop institutions to deal with the new set-up. That is what the rather ill-named political union IGC is all about- -a step-by-step development of political institutions which will keep the Community democratic, accountable and effective. It will have, first, to be a wider Community with new members from EFTA and ultimately from central and eastern Europe as well.

Mr. Cash : Ultimately.

Mr. Robertson : Of course, ultimately. It has to be ultimately. They could not come in tomorrow, and they would not want to come in tomorrow on those terms. But the Government have still not said an official word about the application from Austria, which was submitted formally a year ago.

It will have to be a more democratic Community, where the powers already ceded by national Parliaments will be accountable not only to Ministers sitting and voting in secret, but to directly elected representatives of the people in the European Parliament. A veto on Council decisions taken by majority vote reinforces and does not detract at all from the say of national Parliaments.

The European Parliament must also have the power to bring the European Commission to account. We know that the Prime Minister agrees, but there has hardly been a word said about how that will happen, and it is not even mentioned in the Government's motion. It will also have to be a more balanced Community in which the social dimension involving people is given the same priority as creating a borderless market place.

Alone among all the 11 other Governments--left-wing, right-wing, centre of the road--the British Government stand opposed to the social charter and the legislation that would make it meaningful. That point was strongly made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell), and by my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bell). Can anyone explain why it was not selling out to Brussels when the Government surrendered the veto on hundreds of single market laws, but that somehow it is an affront to national interests to eliminate the veto on social and environmental affairs? It must also be an outward-looking Community, conscious of its responsibilities to its neighbours in the east, whose economic and social instability is now the main threat to our own security ; and of the countries of the southern hemisphere, which look to our rich trading bloc to relieve their infinitely greater economic plight.

Column 385

It must be a fairer Community, based on subsidiarity--a word that means decisions being taken at the lowest appropriate level--including locally and regionally, as well as nationally and European. It must be a Europe in which its social partners are intimately involved in how programmes are to be implemented.

That political agenda for the new Europe is not copyright, and it is not in any way sinister. It is not new, but Labour helped to create it. We will soon be able to implement it.

11.41 pm

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Francis Maude) : The hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) ended his speech on a fine, rousing note, but we heard from him a not unfamiliar tale. This is the eighth debate on this great subject in which I have taken part in the past two and a half years, and in many of them, I have been sitting opposite the hon. Member for Hamilton.

During that time, I have held a number of different jobs, reflecting the flexible approach to the labour market that my party has--but the hon. Member for Hamilton has been in the same job. He spent the earlier part as Labour's token pro-European, and over the years he has become gradually more cheerful, as he has seen his party catch up with him at breakneck speed. It now seems to have overtaken him--that is, if one could penetrate the remarks of the Leader of the Opposition at the beginning of the debate- -but judging by the sound of the speeches by many Labour Members that followed, the message had not penetrated to most of them. No one has persuaded them of the breakneck rush to full-blown union for which the hon. Member for Hamilton has argued for some time, and for which the Leader of the Opposition argues now, somewhat incoherently.

Most of Labour's Back Benchers still live in the days of outright opposition to the Single European Act, when so many members of the shadow Cabinet and other Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen voted in straightforward opposition to that important step forward in European integration. The Government took that step, and the legislation went through Parliament, but Labour--which now claims to be so pro-European--opposed it outright.

The hon. Member for Hamilton addressed the issue of a referendum, and I am sorry that I missed his earlier point of order on that aspect. Perhaps I can make the position clear. It ought to be perfectly clear, and I am surprised that the hon. Member for Hamilton made such a fuss about it.

As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made perfectly clear, the Government do not intend to hold a referendum on the outcome of the Maastricht negotiations. That, indeed, was not the proposition advanced by my right hon. Friend the Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) : she proposed a referendum in 1996. Surely it is not particularly startling to suggest that this Government, and this Parliament, cannot decide on such an issue now. It is not a matter to be resolved now ; I personally see no need to do so, and neither does my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister.

Until Opposition Members lowered the tone slightly, this was an important debate, and it is important for us to take it seriously.

Column 386

Mr. David Shaw (Dover) : My constituents are very worried about the profound changes faced by a number of customs clearance agents and freight forwarders in the constituency--perhaps 2,000--as a result of alterations to the Single European Act, and the single market proposals. Can my hon. Friend confirm that the Government will continue, at European meetings, to do all in their power to ensure that the effect of those changes is eased for my constituents? Can he also confirm that the Government will continue to examine ways in which their effect can be mitigated to help those working in the industry?

Mr. Maude : My hon. Friend has pressed that cause tenaciously and to great effect, and my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Treasury has listened carefully to what he has said. We recognise that the changes will have an impact on customs agents and freight forwarders, and the Government have been consulting their representatives closely.

Important contributions have been made to today's debate from both sides of the House : by, for instance, my right hon. Friend the Member for Finchley ; my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Surrey, East (Sir G. Howe) ; the right hon. Members for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen), for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) and for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) ; my right hon. Friends the Members for Woking (Mr. Onslow) and for Worthing (Mr. Higgins) ; the right hon. Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies) ; and my right hon. Friends the Members for Shropshire, North (Mr. Biffen) and for Guildford (Mr. Howell). It has been an extremely important and serious debate ; and the theme that has emerged has supported the view expressed by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister that, in these negotiations that matter so much to the House of Commons, we should negotiate hard and positively and seek to build a better Europe.

That means being able to read the fine print--something that the Labour party has been remarkably reluctant to do as it has bashed around Europe signing every Euro-declaration that it can find, and then seeking to deny the terms of what it has signed. It also means--as my right hon. Friend pointed out--being ready to say no as well as yes.

Since the IGCs were set up, we have established our own objectives, many of which are being met. One of those objectives was to ensure that the Community emerged from the negotiations as a better organisation--a more effective and efficient body. We all know that it is by no means a perfectly functioning organisation at present. The measures that we have set out have not been given much high-profile media attention, because they are not particularly glamorous or especially controversial ; none the less they are important, and there are good prospects that, if agreement can be reached in December, it will include serious and substantial reforms that are profoundly in the interests of the Community, and greatly to the benefit of Britain as a serious and law-abiding member state of that Community.

Mr. Dalyell : Will the Minister address himself to the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy)--and by me, twice--about additionality and attribution ? It matters to a great many of our constituents.

Bruce Millan is usually right about these matters ; he has had 25 years' experience. In his considered opinion, the

Column 387

Community lawyers are right ; and you can bet your boots that we are not going to get the money. That matters to a heck of a lot of people.

Mr. Maude : It matters quite a lot to me as well, because my constituency is one of those affected. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will go to Brussels and urge his colleague, Bruce Millan, to stop withholding money that is properly due to the British people. If he can use his well- known persuasive powers in that direction, he will, for once, do something useful. I hope that he will do that. I referred to our proposals for securing much better implementation and much better compliance with European Community law and for entrenching, as we hope we can, the principle of subsidiarity in a way that binds, and also to our proposals for much better financial management and accountability within the European Community. If we can achieve all those objectives--we are hopeful that we can--we shall have a Community that respects the same standards of efficiency and value for money as the British Government have for many years. We want, as a result of this Government's initiative and persuasion in the intergovernmental conferences, a Community that will take better decisions and that will carry them out better. Our proposals are sensible, practical, perhaps workaday and unromantic, but rather important if the Community is to command respect.

My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will talk at greater length tomorrow about economic and monetary union, but the draft treaty, as has been made clear, divides the economic and monetary union process into two very clear and separate compartments--stage two and stage three. The draft treaty lists the articles that apply in stage two and those that apply in stage three. They involve very different institutional arrangements and different allocations of responsibility between the Community and national Governments. In particular, there is a sharp distinction when it comes to monetary policy. In stage two, monetary policy will be a national responsibility. We argued that that. We prevailed. There must be no confusion of responsibilities. Interest rates in the United Kingdom must continue to be set in the United Kingdom. There will be a degree of co-ordination of monetary policies, just as there is now, both within the Community and in other bodies such as the Group of Seven. The governors of the central banks of the Twelve will continue to meet to discuss matters of common concern and, where appropriate, to issue opinions.

My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will no doubt continue to discuss monetary matters with his Finance Minister colleagues in the Council of Ministers, but at the end of the day he alone will be responsible in stage two for monetary policy decisions in the United Kingdom--and responsible to this House.

In other areas of economic policy, there will also be co-ordination. The Finance Ministers will discuss economic developments in the Community and in the member states. The process of convergence will be fostered by multilateral surveillance of member states' economic policies, as happens now.

Some hon. Members have suggested that stage two might bring a host of new commitments and new obligations for the Government and that their freedom of action would thus be undermined. That is not so. In stage two, member states would have to submit to the Community multi-annual convergence programmes. They

Column 388

have already agreed to do so. In stage two, the Economic and Finance Council will be able to comment publicly on the economic performance of a particular member state. It can already do so. Only last week, ECOFIN considered a report on economic policy in Italy. In stage two, the Council will be able to make specific recommendations to particular member states. Under the Council decision on convergence, agreed unanimously early in 1990, the Council can already make such recommendations. The Council's recommendations are not and will not be binding on a member state. The right of this House to determine fiscal policy would not be affected. The power to make recommendations has existed since 1974. It is not an innovation.

It has been suggested that, in stage two, member states would be forced to curb their fiscal policies so as to avoid running an excessive deficit. The relevant text of the treaty and the related protocol are still under negotiation, but as the text stands, no provisions would allow the Council to enforce changes in fiscal policy on member states.

We should be clear about what is envisaged. The treaty provides for the Community to examine the budgetary positions of member states whose deficits appear to be excessive and to decide whether a deficit is such as to be regarded as a gross error of policy. The Council can then issue policy recommendations. That is as far as it can go under stage two. That, again, is not new ; it already has this power.

Mr. Denzil Davies : Who decides whether the deficits are excessive, and are there any definitions of "excessive"?

Mr. Maude : There are no definitions under stage two. The decision is made by the Council. The protocol sets out some reference values, which are still subject to negotiation, but only for member states that participate in stage three. The Council's power to issue policy recommendations under stage two has been in existence since the convergence decision in 1974. The right hon. Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies) may have played some part in that decision. He is shaking his head and pleading not guilty, but he may know something about its origins.

Under stage three, the Council will have no greater power over member states that have exemption status. The latest draft treaty gives the Council power to instruct a member state participating in stage three to reduce its deficit and to impose sanctions if it does not do so. As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said earlier, we believe that the most effective sanctions are imposed by the market, and we shall continue to argue that in the IGC.

Some hon. Members have argued that the distinction between stages two and three cannot be maintained. They fear either that we are committed to move to stage three or that, irrespective of the provision in the treaty allowing us a free choice, we would none the less be obliged to move. We are still negotiating, but let it be perfectly clear that we shall not accept a text that involves such a commitment. The reference to a single currency in the opening articles of the draft treaty is explicitly qualified by the reference to the procedures set out therein, and those procedures include the right to opt for exemption status. If the procedures are acceptable--we are clear that they must be--the opening articles are also acceptable.

It has been suggested that, once we had accepted stage two, there would be intense and irresistible pressure to move to stage three. That has been described as the

Column 389

"slippery slope" argument. I was interested in the argument of my right hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley), that, if convergence is achieved, a single currency is not necessary. That may be true, and it might affect the balance of advantage and disadvantage, but it does not need to be resolved at this stage.

The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) asked what would happen to the pound if the United Kingdom were exempt from stage three. The answer is straightforward : the exchange-rate mechanism would continue, run by the enlarged chamber of governors, and all currencies that were not in stage three could remain in the exchange-rate mechanism or outside it, depending on what they chose. That applies equally to eastern European states that become members of the European Community in the meantime. There are no provisions in the treaty that would exclude them from taking part in it. When my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister opened the debate, he made it clear that he had sensed right the mood of the House and of the British people. They want

Column 390

the Government to be in the heart of Europe, negotiating positively and effectively not only for British interests but for a better Europe. That means a Europe in which national Governments retain the power to make proposals and in which national Parliaments retain their powers.

How different that is from the Labour party's position--it wants to lead according to the principle which states that where others go must be right. That is like the motto of the famous French revolutionary leader who said, "I am their leader ; I must follow them."

How little the Opposition have thought about the issue. They want to commit themselves to a single currency and to deny a future Parliament or Government the power to make a vital decision. They say that they want real convergence and decisions in the treaty for which no one else in the Community has argued at any stage. They continue to argue for what no one else is prepared to offer and they are wholly isolated in a fantasy world. They claim to be nearer than us to the European consensus, but they are as far from reality as they ever were.

It being Twelve o'clock, the debate stood adjourned, pursuant to Order [19 November.]

Debate to be resumed this day.

Column 391

Rape Case (Criminal Investigation)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.-- [Mr. Neil Hamilton.]

12 midnight

Dr. Norman A. Godman (Greenock and Port Glasgow) : I wish to make known my deep concern about the circumstances surrounding the brutal rape of a constituent of mine, who will be known as Mrs. X, about the way in which the criminal investigation was conducted and about certain matters relating to the horrible affair. I wish to ask the Minister a number of questions about such cases. Incidentally, I shall use the name Mary as a double blind in the sense that none of the woman's family or friends knows her as Mary.

I believe that the victims of sexual assault, of child abuse and/or sexual abuse should be treated in a decent, compassionate and sympathetic manner during the criminal investigation of such allegations. The compassionate and sensitive treatment should not harm the search for sound forensic and other evidence. Prejudice and bias have no place in the scheme of things. The Minister knows my views on such matters when they might affect service personnel and families. In every case involving armed forces personnel and their families, the benchmark must be the best practices found in civil society. An example of what I mean can be found in Strathclyde, where in every division of the police force there is a well-established female and child unit, staffed principally by female officers who are well trained and highly experienced in interviewing skills and techniques in cases involving sexual assault, child abuse and/or sexual abuse.

When dealing with previous Bills affecting the armed services, the Minister and his colleagues have always sought to assure me that the armed forces are keenly aware of the need to treat

complainers--irrespective of age--in a sympathetic manner. My first question to the Minister, who is apprised of the case, is whether he is satisfied that Mrs. X and her husband were treated with compassion.

In the summer, I received a letter from Mrs. X which disturbed me greatly. She wrote :

"I am writing to you in the hope that you can help me with the injustice which has occurred.

On 16th February 1991 whilst my husband was serving in the Gulf on Operation Granby, I was invited to attend a function at the Corporals Mess" --

in a particular regiment which, of course, I shall not mention-- "which I did attend with some of my friends. I enjoyed the function and my friends kept me in good cheer as I was obviously anxious about my husband being in the Gulf and did have a few too many drinks. I also had a plaster of Paris cast on my leg (which had been injured in a fall some weeks before) and consequently had some difficulty in walking, I was put on the Regimental Mini Bus which was run purely to ferry married personnel to their married quarters after functions. I arrived at my quarter at what time I do not know due to me being very intoxicated and when I awoke some hours later I discovered the following".

I am quoting verbatim as you would expect, Mr. Deputy Speaker. "1. My blouse had been unbuttoned.

2. My bra had been forced over my breasts.

3. My underwear had been removed and left torn in half on my bed. 4. My trousers had been removed with some force as my right leg was in a great deal of pain around the cast.

I then tried to deduce the events of the previous night and discovered some time later that I had been raped by force by

Next Section

Home Page