HC Deb 12 December 1984 vol 69 cc1052-4
83. Mr. Yeo

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent steps have been taken to secure the practical establishment of a common market within the European Community.

Mr. Rifkind

In September an important package of standards for industrial products was agreed. In addition, there has been progress on a British initiative for standards for the interconnection of computer and communications equipment, and in similar work on telecommunications. The directive on frontier facilities will enter into force on 1 January.

Mr. Yeo

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his answer. Does he agree that the process of wealth creation in this country and throughout the EEC is far more likely to be assisted by the establishment of a free market in goods and services than by any form of expenditure under the EEC budget? Will my hon. Friend give an undertaking to give the highest priority at meetings with his EC colleagues to sweeping away the remaining obstacles to such a free market?

Mr. Rifkind

The United Kingdom considers this to be the greatest priority at present. I am pleased to say that in one of the ad hoc institutions to which I referred earlier the United Kingdom put forward recommendations for the early implementation of an equal internal market. This has been unanimously endorsed by the committee as a whole.

Mr. James Lamond

Before the Minister gets carried away too far by the free internal market, will he tell us what steps are being taken to try to limit the damage that will be done to the British textile industry when Spain and Portugal join the Common Market?

Mr. Rifkind

I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we are treating the industrial interests of the United Kingdom and of the existing members of the Community as an important priority. This covers a wide range of issues—not only textiles, but motor vehicles and a whole series of other matters which are important to the British economy.

Several Hon. Members

rose—

Mr. Speaker

Do the points of order directly relate to Question Time?

Sir John Farr

Mine is a point of order relating to questions.

Mr. Speaker

Very well. I shall take it.

Sir John Farr

My point of order relates to the format of Question Time today. Seventy-seven Foreign and Commonwealth questions were tabled, of which only 10 were reached, whereas six EEC questions were tabled, and in 20 minutes all six were reached. Mr. Speaker, I have drawn your attention to this anomaly on previous occasions, but it has been even more' aggravated and exaggerated today. Once again may I ask you to pass on to the usual sources that the division of Foreign and Commonwealth and EEC Question Time is not equitable at the moment?

Mr. Winnick

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it not farcical that, excluding EEC questions today and, in the main, brief supplementary questions, the fact is that we have dealt with only 10 questions? I do not believe that any further questions were linked with earlier questions. Is it not necessary to protect the House so that when there is the opportunity to ask questions on foreign affairs we have more than 40 minutes in which to do so? It is only by raising points of order that we can try to ensure that the time which should be ours is given and duly allocated. It is farcical that only 10 questions, or perhaps nine, were reached on foreign affairs, and that no more will be taken until the next round.

Mr. Norman Atkinson

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it not fictitious to ask what would happen to EC questions if foreign affairs questions took up all the time? Should not EEC questions take their chance along with all other foreign affairs questions that are addressed to the Foreign Office? If it is looked upon in that way and if you yourself, were to support the protests that have been made about only 35 minutes being spent on foreign affairs questions, I am told that the Procedure Committee would pay much more attention.

Mr. Hill

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I would suggest that it should be called, not EEC Question Time, but the European Institutions Question Time. There are frequently questions on other European institutions which override EEC matters.

Mr. Speaker

I share the worry about the shortness of time available for foreign affairs questions. It is a matter not for me, but for the usual channels, whether the Order Paper is broken up as it is today with, effectively, 35 minutes allotted for foreign affairs questions and 20 minutes for EC questions. That should be taken up through the usual channels.

I should tell the hon. Members who said that we had got through only 10 questions today that although Ministers do not always link questions, I seek to give preference to hon. Members who have subsequent questions on the Order Paper. I see from the indications that I have put on my Order Paper today that no fewer than 10 hon. Members who had tabled subsequent questions were called during the questions that were answered.