Voting Procedures (Hansard, 20 March 1985)

§ 79. Sir Anthony Meyer
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had this year with the French and German Foreign Ministers regarding the improvement of decision making within the European Economic Community.

§ 80. Mr. Hugh Brown
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if changes in voting procedures within European Economic Community bodies are to be considered at the forthcoming summit in Brussels; and if he will make a statement.

§ Sir Geoffrey Howe
I have discussed possible improvements in Community decision-taking bilaterally with other Community Foreign Ministers on several occasions. The issue has also been discussed at length in the Ad Hoc Committee on Institutions — the Dooge committee — whose report will be discussed at the June European Council.

§ Sir Anthony Meyer
As my right hon. and learned Friend has just said, the completion of the internal market is a prime British objective. Is it not a matter of some anxiety, to say the least, that the French and German Governments appear to have taken considerable steps in that direction by improving their common decision-making? If such a thing continues, shall we not find ourselves shut out from the decisions that are of prime concern to us in this country?

§ Sir Geoffrey Howe
My hon. Friend, unusually, has failed precisely to follow the point of what has taken place. The decisions taken recently by the French and German Governments and extended to the Benelux Governments relate to the relaxation of frontier controls at land frontiers. They have not been making any proposals for changes at 866 seaports or airports, which is a different issue. He will find that our arrangements for entry at sea and airports are as free as they can be and compare well with those operated by others in the Community for similar places.

§ Mr. Brown
Does the Foreign Secretary think that moving towards a greater use of majority voting procedures will enhance harmonisation within the EC? Can he offer an opinion as to whether the accession of Spain and Portugal would be desirable in that context?

§ Sir Geoffrey Howe
I am sure that the accession of Spain and Portugal will make an important contribution to the stabilisation of democratic communities throughout Europe, including those two countries. I am equally sure that the accession of those two countries will require the Community to use its existing decision-making procedure more expeditiously and effectively if it is to continue to work properly. It is for that reason that we believe that an increased use of majority voting, in accordance with existing articles, would be of advantage, provided we maintain our respect for the Luxembourg compromise.

§ Mr. Alexander
My right hon. and learned Friend has referred to improved arrangements here, but the whole point is that in the rest of the EC the arrangements at land frontiers are still as bad as they ever were. Surely, then, the decision-making is at fault.

§ Sir Geoffrey Howe
Again, I think that my hon. Friend does not quite understand the distinction I was making. The arrangements arrived at between France and Germany have very recently been agreed for extension to the three Benelux countries. They are intended to produce improved frontier controls within those five countries. They do not yet extend to the other Community countries. They are concerned with land frontiers, as distinct from sea frontiers and airports, with which we are concerned.

§ Mr. Healey
Does the Foreign Secretary agree that the lugubrious ritual through which the Community at present avoids taking all necessary decisions has left it without any budget for the current year, yet with an expensive agricultural policy whose only obvious beneficiary is the Soviet Union?

§ Sir Geoffrey Howe
The right hon. Gentleman is always capable of summing up the most complicated questions with a laconic and imperfect wit. The fact is that the Community's decision-taking processes are in need of improvement, are being improved and are addressing themselves to questions of importance to the people of this country and of Europe as a whole.

§ Mr. Teddy Taylor
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it appropriate at this stage to make the point that I hoped to make—

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. As long as it is not a continuation of Question Time. If it is a point of order that I can answer I shall be delighted to do so.

§ Mr. Taylor
Is it appropriate at this stage to raise as a point of order my intention to raise on the Adjournment the wholly unsatisfactory nature of the answer given to question No. 73, which included an unjustified personal attack on my MEP simply because of the views which he expressed and which he is entitled to express as a member of an elected assembly?

§ Mr. Speaker
It is perfectly in order to do that.

§ Mr. Healey
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will recall that at the end of questions a month ago I expressed a view, widespread on both sides of the House, about the inadequate time available for Foreign Office questions. Can you tell us, Mr. Speaker, whether you have had any communication from the Leader of the House about improving matters?

§ Mr. Speaker
I have had no such communication, but I understand that discussions are going on and that a decision may be taken shortly after the Easter recess.

§ Sir John Biggs-Davison
Further to the point of order raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor), Mr. Speaker, can you give guidance? Has the procedure changed? If an hon. Member is dissatisfied with the reply to a question, is it right that the notice that he wishes to give to the effect that he will seek to raise the matter on the Adjournment should not be given at the time but at the end of questions?

§ Mr. Speaker
The hon. Gentleman is right. I should have allowed the hon. Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) to raise his point of order at the time. I confess that I thought he was on a rather different tack.

§ Mr. Meadowcroft
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wonder whether you noticed that no fewer than six Labour Members were not in their place to ask questions that they had tabled—

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. I am afraid that is definitely not a matter for me. I do not think that we want to start that sort of game.

§ Mr. Meadowcroft
May I put it to you, Mr. Speaker, that you are very zealous to protect the interests of Members of Parliament who want to ask questions at Question Time? Many hon. Members come to ask supplementaries to questions that have been tabled. Would you consider whether it is possible to exact some retribution on those Members of Parliament who are not here to ask their questions?

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. No. I think the retribution is that other hon. Members manage to ask their questions, as a result of some other hon. Members not being present.

§ Mr. Skinner
Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker, could you institute a regime to ensure that every day you have a list of those Members who attend the House? For instance, today you could draw up a list that shows that the Liberals never manage to have more than three members in the House—

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. I do not think that I could do that. It would put an intolerable load upon me.

§ Mr. Skinner
And then, perhaps, you could draw up a list of all hon. Members who voted. You would be able to ascertain that the leader of the Social Democratic Party did so on only 34 per cent.—

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. These interesting statistics, are nothing to do with me.