Business of the House
The Lord Privy Seal and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Biffen):
MONDAY 12 MAY Until Seven o'clock, Private Members' motions.
Motion on the Hong Kong (British Nationality) Order.
Mr. Kinnock: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. Will he ensure that the House is kept fully informed of any further details which the Government obtain about the consequences of the Chernobyl disaster? I am sure that he agrees that it would be appropriate to have a debate in the near future on the issues raised and highlighted by this most serious incident.
! Will the right hon. Gentleman provide time for the debate on foreign affairs which I have requested on several occasions?
Mr. Biffen: I accept that we need to turn to foreign affairs for a debate. I hope that that matter will be considered through the usual channels in the reasonably near future. I take note of what the right hon. Gentleman said about the importance of keeping the House informed of any consequences of the nuclear power station disaster in the Soviet Union. That is what we shall do.
Sir Fergus Montgomery (Altrincham and Sale): I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to the points put to him last week by the Leader of the Opposition about trying to attract American tourists to Britain and their anxieties about terrorist attacks. Is my right hon. Friend aware that, apparently, some people have been told by the State Department that they should not travel to Britain? Is not that a disgraceful line for that department to take? Exactly what have the Government done to impress upon the American Administration the safety of the Americans who come to this country? If that has not been done, why not?
On the debate on Monday week on the Hong Kong (British Nationality) Order, will my right hon. Friend say why we had such an unsatisfactory reply last week by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary? Is my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House aware that many of us are unhappy about the way in which the Indian minority are being treated in Hong Kong and that some of us are not prepared to support the Government on that issue unless changes are made?
Mr. Biffen: I simply do not accept that the reply which my hon. Friend found unsatisfactory was necessarily unsatisfactory to many of my other hon. Friends. That matter can be argued in substance when the motion is considered on Monday 12 May.
I have no knowledge about the United States State Department advising Americans not to visit this country. Of course, I shall refer the matter to my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary, because I agree with my hon. Friend that it would be most offensive if such assertions were made. My hon. Friend will have his opportunity on Wednesday, when my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary will be taking questions, to make his points directly to my right hon. and learned Friend.
Mr. David Alton (Liverpool, Mossley Hill): Following the assurances that the right hon. Gentleman has already given, will he confirm that if there are any signs that the students who return from Minsk are adversely affected by radiation an immediate statement will be made to the House? Why were not the orders for the Nuclear Industry Radioactive Waste Executive site laid during April? Will the right hon. Gentleman give an undertaking that there will be a full debate on the future of the nuclear industry in Britain?
Mr. Biffen: On the question about students returning from the Soviet Union, clearly my statement was a general one. The specific instances will be considered in the context of what I have said.
On the question of NIREX, it might be helpful if the hon. Gentleman recollected that I was pressed on that point last week by my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown). I have written to my hon. Friend saying that it will be the Government's intention to have a general debate on the policy of nuclear waste disposal. After that, the special development order will be laid before the House. If the order is prayed against, there will be a separate debate on that.
Mr. Tony Marlow (Northampton, North): As my right hon. Friend is always totally frank with the House and has a great understanding of European issues, will he confirm that our abatement is sacrosanct against the European budget and was agreed at Fountainebleau and that there is no requirement for the House to agree to a supplementary budget to ensure that we get it?
Mr. Biffen: I agree that I have a degree of innocence, but I hope that it is not carried to the extent suggested by my hon. Friend. Of course, I shall look at my hon. Friend's second point. should prefer to make a considered judgment.
Mr. Nicholas Budgen (Wolverhampton, South-West): Will my right hon. Friend arrange a debate next week about the meeting of the Finance Ministers in the EEC last Tuesday so as to enable my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to explain why he agreed first to a substantial supplementary budget, and secondly to having the figures massaged by moving much extra expenditure from 1986 into 1987?
Mr. Biffen: I cannot accept the situation in quite the way that my hon. Friend suggests. If I were now to disturb the business that I have arranged for the House next week, I should not be universally popular. My hon. Friend is an experienced parliamentarian, and will know that there are many opportunities outside Government time to make such points.
BATE.../5/86
COL. 1101-69
VOL
96