M. Patrick Nicholls (Teignbridge): Will my right hon. Friend reconsider the request from hon. Members on both sides of the House for an early debate on the implications of the Chernobyl disaster? Will he give us an opportunity to consider the grotesque double standards of the anti-nuclear protesters who, when they wanted to demonstrate, chose as the first port of call not the Soviet embassy but the Department of Energy? Will he give the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) the opportunity to explain why he was with the protesters?
Mr. Biffen: As I have said, such a debate would be very educative, not least because it would enable us to have some insight into the motives of those who protest against civilian nuclear power. However, the House will have the opportunity in the near future to discuss nuclear power in respect of the Soviet disaster as well as our domestic nuclear programme. I hesitate to make any commitment beyond that.
Mr. Robert Parry (Liverpool, Riverside): Will the Leader of the House ask the Prime Minister when she returns from her visit to the far east if she will make a statement to the House on democracy and human rights in South Korea and about the peaceful unification of the peninsula, which is official Government policy?
Mr. Biffen: It is the custom of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to make statements to the House following meetings such as the one in prospect. I shall draw to her attention the suggestion that she might cover those topics, among many others.
Mr. Ivan Lawrence (Burton): May I invite my right hon. Friend to reconsider his advice that questions on the Russian disaster can be subsumed in a possible debate on foreign affairs? If that happened, there would be
insufficient time for the House to consider our relationship with the United States, our relationship with Europe, the problems in the middle east and southern Africa, our relationship with the Association of the South East Asian Nations and human rights on an international basis, and the debate on foreign affairs would become a mockery. I ask my right hon. Friend to consider seriously having a separate debate soon on the disaster in the Soviet Union.
Mr. Biffen: My hon. Friend makes a perfectly fair point, but, of course, it is a point that is frequently made about foreign affairs debates which, by virtue of their diversity, have to encompass a number of highly important topics. As I say, it is a matter for consideration through the usual channels and I do not want to raise expectations which I cannot fulfil.
Mr. Michael Colvin (Romsey and Waterside): Has my right hon. Friend taken on board the request for an early debate on the dangers resulting from nucler disasters? If not, Her Majesty's Government will have to bring forward an alternative plan for preventing fallout from descending on those areas of the country, such as nuclear-free zones, that lack the civil defence resources for dealing with such a contingency.
Mr. Biffen: Many of these considerations, which derive from the unhappy incident in the Soviet Union, could well be encompassed in the foreign affairs debate that we will be having in the reasonably near future.
Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover): I urge the Leader of the House to let the House have an early debate on the use of nuclear power, following the Soviet disaster. Will he bear in mind that, when we have the debate, it will be better if we do not have it on the Adjournment so that we can table an amendment on the lines of the policy statement that was carried by the Labour party conference calling for the phasing out of nuclear power? With a little luck, we might be able to get the Liberals to vote with us. I am not sure about the hang gliding party down the Gangway because when the wind blows that way, they might blow the other way.
Mr. Biffen: The experience of common voting between the hon. Gentleman's party and the other two parties of the Left will be a developing practice over the next few months.
As to the debate on nuclear power, there are aspects about the Soviet tragedy that can be related to the international spectrum, and so debated when we have the foreign affairs debate.
As to the wider issue, the House will shortly have a chance to debate the Government's response to the findings about nuclear waste disposal from the Select Committee on the Environment.
Mr. Greville Janner (Leicester, West): Has the attention of the Leader of the House been drawn to the allegations in The Guardian this week concerning the deaths of two British prisoners of war-a Mr. Fishwick, who died in a concentration camp, and a Sergeant John Dryden, who was handed over to the Germans and disappeared and, in particular, the allegation that Dr. Kurt Waldheim was involved in those deaths? As it has proved impossible to obtain any information from the Government on that matter, will he be good enough to inquire from his colleagues whom one should ask about it; and, if no answer is forthcoming, may we have a statement or a debate on the matter?
Mr. Biffen: I see no particular profit in having a debate or statement on that topic or getting involved in the controversies that now rage between the World Jewish Congress and the supporters of Dr. Waldheim, but I shall consider the point that the hon. and learned Gentleman has made.