m
Business of the House
Dr. John Cunningham (Copeland): May I ask the Leader of the House to give us the business for next week?
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Sir Geoffrey Howe): The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY 2 APRIL-Second Reading of the Human Fertilisation and Embrylogy Bill [Lords].
TUESDAY 3 APRIL-Conclusion of remaining stages of the Social Security Bill (2nd Allotted day).
Motion relating to the National Health Services (Charges for Drugs and Appliances) (Amendment) Regulations.
WEDNESDAY 4 APRIL-Consideration of any Lords amendments that may be received to the Education (Student Loans) Bill.
THURSDAY 5 APRIL-Adjournment debates.
It may be for the convenience of the House if I indicate that the business for the first week after the Easter Adjournment will be as follows:
WEDNESDAY 18 APRIL-Second Reading of the Courts and Legal Services Bill [Lords].
THURSDAY 19 APRIL-Second Reading of the British Nationality (Hong Kong) Bill.
FRIDAY 20 APRIL-Private Members' Bills.
The British Nationality (Hong Kong) Bill will be published next week and will therefore be available some time ahead of the debate that will take place in the week following the Easter recess.
Mr. Bob Cryer (Bradford, South): Can we have a debate on Wednesday on the illegal export of nuclear bomb triggers instead of dealing with Lords amendments to the Education (Student Loans) Bill? Today we had only a private notice question on the nuclear bomb triggers; a Government statement should have been volunteered. As the Leader of the House knows, the United Nations nuclear non-proliferation treaty is very important and has suddenly leapt into prominence. We should be given time to debate it and to support the 137 non-nuclear nations who support the treaty. We want to strengthen it. We could discuss how the Government are sabotaging the treaty by being in breach of article 6 because of the development and purchase of £10 billion-worth of Trident nuclear weapons. We could examine and expose the double standards of a nation and Government who want an increase in the capability to cause mass extermination but condemn other nations that want to follow suit.
Sir Geoffrey Howe: The quality of the hon. Gentleman's argument in support of his case is such that it convinces me that his case does not deserve to prevail. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has dealt clearly today with the instant matters. It is also manifest from the success of the authorities in intercepting the equipment that Her Majesty's Government take their obligations in this respect very seriously.
Mr. Roger Knapman (Stroud): Will my right hon. and learned Friend find time for a debate on the situation in Hungary? It would seem that the Hungarian Communist party changed its name to the Socialist party to fight the recent elections. But only 10 per cent. of the population voted for that party, and presumably the other 90 per cent. could not tell the difference between socialism and communism. Does he agree that that would be an interesting subject for a debate?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: My hon. Friend makes a penetrating observation about an interesting subject. I am not sure that it carries the matter far enough for me to arrange an early debate.
Mr. Greville Janner (Leicester, West): Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman accept that the important debate on Hong Kong will not cover the conditions under which Vietnamese boat people are still living there? Is he aware that, in response to my complaint about the filthy, insanitary conditions in the place, I received a reply from the Hong Kong authorities saying that the reason was not that the drains were open, but that people put excrement into them? Can we please have a debate on that, as those conditions are unworthy of us? Will the Leader of the House be kind enough to refer the matter to the Home Secretary, or to someone who can ensure that the people at least have reasonable conditions rather than conditions of which this country should be ashamed?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: The hon. and learned Gentleman offers us a glimpse into the obvious when he says that those matters will be outside the scope of the debate on the Hong Kong legislation. He will appreciate that everyone who has addressed the question is bound to be deeply concerned about the conditions in the Hong Kong camps: that is the very reason why the Government are following a policy designed to diminish the numbers forced to face those conditions, and to improve them as far as possible. The real improvement is to be found through reducing the numbers that are obliged to stay there.
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.