Business of the House
The Lord Privy Seal and Lender of the House of Cemmons (Mr. John Biffen)-
TUESDAY 13 MAY→ There will be a debate on civil nuclear matters. The debate will arise on a motion which will invite the House to approve the Government's first stage response to the first report of the Select Committee on the Environment 1985-86 on Radioactve Waste (HoC Paper No. 191).
Motion on the Hong Kong (British Nationality) Order.
The House will wish to know Mr. Speaker that it will be proposed that the House should rise for the Spring Adjournment on Friday 23 May until Tuesday 3 June.
Mr. Neil Kinnock (Islwyn): I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for that statement. I also thank him for responding to my request last week for an early debate on civil nuclear matters.
In view of the recently increased possibility of a decision by the United States Administration that would allow the deployment of United States' binary chemical weapons in Britain, will the Leader of the House allocate Government time soon so that the House can debate the matter fully before any final decision is taken?
Last week, the right hon. Gentleman recognised the need for a wideranging debate on foreign affairs. That need increases—indeed, intensifies-when we hear, as we did this afternoon, that the Prime Minister apparently believes that the Contra terrorists, with President Reagan's support, are killing innocent adults and children in central America in order to save Nicaragua for democracy. If it is not possible before the Withsun recess to have a debate on foreign affairs, can the Leader of the House give a guarantee that such a debate will be held as soon as possible after the House resumes on 3 June? Will he also ensure that it will be a two-day debate, as a large number of issues need to be attended to?
Mr. Biffen:
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his comments about the nuclear debate that we have arranged. I note what he said about prospective developments in American defence policy in relation to chemical weapons, and I shall bear that in mind. Obviously, we can consider this through the usual channels, but perhaps it might also be related to the debate that we shall have in due course on the defence White Paper, once we have had the opportunity of considering the observations of the Select Committee.
I accept, as I do every week, the great and compelling need for a debate on foreign affairs. I realise that the right hon. Gentleman is raising the ante somewhat by suggesting a two-day debate. Let us look at the matter through the usual channels to see where it can be arranged at a time that is to the general convenience of the House.
Mr. J. Enoch Powell (South Down): On Tuesday, will arrangements be made to ensure that there is adequate time to debate the Hong Kong order?
Mr. Biffen: At present, the motion would mean a one- and-a-half hour debate, but if there is concern to have the matter reconsidered through the usual channels, we would be prepared to accept that.
Mr. Eric Forth (Mid-Worcestershire): My right hon. Friend will be familiar with the reply of 6 May, as reported in column 95 of Hansard, to my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) on the European Community budget and contributions thereto. Does my right hon. Friend conclude from this reply that we are to have a European Community supplementary budget every year? Can he assure the House that if and when we are asked to approve supplementary budgets in the European Community the House will be allowed to separate out those elements in the budget which refer to the United Kingdom's rebate, on the one hand, and those elements that may consist simply of increased European Community expenditure on the other? Can he indicate that we will be able to make a selective choice of what we approve of in the Community and will not be expected to link one unnecessarily with the other?
Mr. Biffen: My hon. Friend raises again the matter touched on by my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen) last week. It is of some complexity. I would very much like to be able to write to my hon. Friend on this point and set out the record as I feel it should be.
Mr. James Wallace (Orkney and Shetland); While we welcome the fact that statements have been made this week by Ministers on developments following the Chernobyl disaster, and in spite of the fact that we are to have a general debate on civil nuclear power next week, will the Leader of the House give an assurance that in case of any new developments arising out of that disaster in particular, Ministers will be equally willing to come to the House and make further statements?
Mr. Biffen: I willingly give that undertaking. The House has a responsible role in damping down any kind of popular scaremongering in these matters.
Mr. Harry Greenway (Ealing, North): What will be the motion for the debate on civil nuclear matters? Will it enable hon. Members to raise the need for an international standard of safety in civil nuclear installations, bearing in mind the very serious disparity between safety standards in this country, and at Chernobyl? Is not it absurd that we can have such high safety standards in this country and that the population can still be threatened by the sort of tragedy that has happened at Chernobyl?
Mr. Biffen: I very much hope that the motion can be tabled shortly, and the intention is that it should be drawn most widely indeed in view of recent circumstances. It would not be appropriate for me to anticipate what would or would not be in order, but I do not think that my hon. Friend will be disappointed when he sees the terms of the motion.
8-5-86
cols. 270-277
Vol. 97
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.