§ Mr. George Robertson (Hamilton)On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I seek your guidance and, I hope, your support? On Monday 21 and Tuesday 22 July, the Foreign Affairs Council of the European Community met in Brussels under the Presidency for the first time of a British Foreign Secretary. A very serious report was given to it on the subject of South Africa by the Foreign Secretary, who is now perambulating his way around South Africa, being snubbed by all varieties of black opinion. He reported to Foreign Ministers of the European Community on his visit to the United States of America and on his conversations with Secretary Shultz and President Reagan, and informed them of his itinerary for this week.
But this afternoon there has been no report to the British House of Commons about that council meeting. We are left with a written answer to the hon. Member for Leeds, North-West (Dr. Hampson) if we are to work out precisely what the Foreign Secretary intends to say to the South African Government and to those elements who may choose to meet him. Surely it is intolerable for the Foreign Office and the Foreign Secretary to treat the House like that, and not to pay us the elementary courtesy of reporting back from that Foreign Affairs Council. It leaves us asking what on earth the Foreign Office has to hide if it has to take such an unprecedented step following the first meeting held during our Presidency. It has simply hidden behind a slim written answer given this afternoon.
§ Mr. SpeakerAs the hon. Gentleman knows, whether the Government make a statement is not a matter for the Chair. I have no control over that.
§ Mr. Tam Dalyell (Linlithgow)Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I ask you a factual question? Is there any precedent for such behaviour? In my 24 years of involvement, I cannot recall a time when there has not been a statement on such an occasion. If senior Ministers have been ill, their place has been taken by junior Ministers. Is there any precedent for a report being given in the form of a written answer instead of a statement? The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office is certainly in the building.
§ The Lord Privy Seal and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Biffen)It may help the House if I say at once that it is by no means unprecedented for the proceedings of the Foreign Affairs Council to be reported to the House by means of a written answer. A case in point is the written reply given to my hon. Friend the Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls) on 12 March 1986.
§ Mr. Alan Williams (Swansea, West)Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. In normal circumstances, we would no doubt accept what the Leader of the House has said, but there are only two days to go before the recess, and it will be October before the Foreign Secretary or one of the Foreign Office Ministers will be standing at that Dispatch Box again. It is imperative that we should have a statement before the recess. I hope that the Leader of the House will ensure that there is a statement tomorrow afternoon or, if necessary, on Friday morning.
§ Mr. BiffenThis afternoon the House has a pretty full bill of fare, and I appreciate that the right hon. Gentleman has tried to be helpful. Of course, we could look at this 363 issue through the usual channels to see whether something could be done on Friday morning. But it should be placed on the record that last week we had a very authoritative debate on foreign affairs and on the South African issue. My right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary then gave the House the most authoritative report on the Government's position. He certainly would not have gone beyond that in Brussels.
§ Mr. WilliamsThis issue is important. I understand that the meeting with the American President took place after the debate last week in the House, so it is even more important to have a statement this week.
§ Mr. BiffenAs I have said, we can discuss the matter through the usual channels. However, my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary would not take new policy initiatives with the American President. What he said to the House last week was a clear and definitive statement of the British position.
§ Mr. DalyellFurther to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I declare an interest? The Leader of the House has just slipped in the suggestion that, if there is to be a statement, it could be on Friday morning. But on Friday morning I have an Adjournment debate on the Westland affair. Is the idea that my debate should be truncated in any way? After all, there is a great deal to be said about the Defence Committee—
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. I think that I can help the hon. Gentleman. I recall that his debate on the Westland affair will be held before 11 am. If by chance there is a statement, it will come after his debate.
Later—
§ Mr. Dick Douglas (Dunfermline, West)On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Perhaps inadvertently, your response to the point of order raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) on Friday's Adjournment debates gave me the impression that, if a statement were made on the Foreign Affairs Council, you would protect Adjournment debates prior to the statement. I and others have Adjournment debates that will take place after a possible statement and I trust that you will keep these in mind as well.
§ Mr. SpeakerGenerally, I deprecate statements being made on a Friday because they intrude into Back Benchers' time; if they take place I normally adjust the timings of debates after 11 o'clock but not before. That is because statements on a Friday take place at 11 o'clock.