TNAG-1326-FCO40-1738-Future-of-Hong-Kong-Parliamentary-debates-1984 — Page 101

29/11154

•1089 1097

68

Mr. Kinnock: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. I am sure that the Prime Minister will be making a statement after next week's EEC summit. However, will the right hon. Gentleman ensure that the House will be able to debate the results of the summit in Government time the following week?

The right hon. Gentleman will know that yesterday's High Court ruling by Mr. Justice Hodgson throws doubt on the legality of the £120 million order granting supplementary finance to the Common Market. What do the Government intend to do about the order? May we have an assurance that none of the money has been paid to the Common Market in advance of parliamentary approval, as I know that the right hon. Gentleman is particularly vigilant about these affairs?

May I ask for additional time for two debates-first, on Monday week, on the Local Government (Interim Provisions) Act order, and secondly, on Wednesday next, on the motion to approve the Government's intention to sign the draft agreement on the future of Hong Kong?

Mr. Biffen: Of course, I note the anxiety of the right hon. Gentleman that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister should report to the House after the European Community Summit meeting. The possibility of a debate is a matter that we can consider further through the usual channels.

The right hon. Gentleman asked about the payment of funds to the Community, which has been the subject of judicial comment. This is now being studied, and I shall ensure that the House is informed when I am in a position to do so.

The right hon. Gentleman requested extra time to debate the motion on the Local Government (Interim Provisions) Act 1984 (Appointed Day) Order and in respect of the proposed Hong Kong agreement. I hope that I shall be able to accommodate him on both.

Mr. Eric Deakins (Walthamstow): Why has the Foreign Secretary not yet made a statement to the House this week about the outcome of the recent meeting of EEC Foreign Ministers, bearing in mind that it was the last meeting of the Council of Foreign Ministers before the summit and that the so-called guidelines on budget discipline were considered in the full knowledge that they had not been and would not be approved by the Council of Agriculture Ministers?

Mr. Biffen: I will most willingly draw the attention of my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs to that point.

Mr. Andrew Faulds (Warley, East): Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the debate on the Hong Kong issue on Wednesday will be an historic occasion and that a great many hon. Members will wish to speak? Did I understand him to say earlier that he would provide additional time for that debate?

Mr. Biffen: I am happy to confirm the premise of the hon. Gentleman's point. It will. indeed, be an historic debate. In response to a request by the Leader of the Opposition, I said that we would extend the time for debate to midnight. Legislation on that matter will be forthcoming, so those unlucky on Wednesday will have their opportunity when we discuss the legislation.

Mr. David Winnick (Walsall, North): Regarding Question Time, is the Leader of the House aware that 40 minutes for foreign affairs, including the EEC, is somewhat inadequate? Is he making any progress in doing something about that?

Is the right hon. Gentleman further aware that yesterday 145 questions were tabled to the Prime Minister for answer in two weeks' time? As it is becoming a running farce, is it possible for the usual channels to consider the suggestion that anyone who wants to table a question to the Prime Minister must go to the Table Office to do so?

Mr. Biffen: Any attempt to reform Prime Minister's Question Time would be such a fundamental change in the culture of this place that it would best be undertaken by the Procedure Committee.

On the hon. Gentleman's first point, I regret to say that I have already replied to him with a buck-passing answer suggesting that the matter be referred to the usual channels.

Mr. Johnathan Sayeed (Bristol. East): Will my right hon. Friend fnd time for a full debate on the law of the sea convention prior to 10 December, by which time, if we do not sign it, we will lose our pioneer investor status?

Mr. Biffen: I do not necessarily agree with the reflection of my hon. Friend in making his request. There will be an Adjournment debate on that very topic next week, initiated by my hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyhealth (Mr. Townsend). Perhaps my hon. Friend would get in touch with him.