§ The following Question stood upon the Order Paper
§ 121. Mrs. BARBARA CASTLE,—TO ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, before the House disperses for the Christmas Recess, he will make a statement on the progress of the ceasefire negotiations in Korea.
§ Mrs. CastleOn a point of order. In view of the much greater importance of Question No. 121 as compared with Question No. 78, Mr. Speaker, may I ask if special facilities could be given for the answering of Question No. 121?
§ Mr. SpeakerI cannot do that. I call the Private Notice Question.
§ Mr. Fenner BrockwayOn a point of order. I desire to move the adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9 to call attention to a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely—
§ Mr. SpeakerThat Motion can be moved only at the end of Questions. There are still a Private Notice Question and the Business Question to come.
§ Mr. Desmond DonnellyOn a point of order. May I ask you, Mr. Speaker, to repeat your answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn, East (Mrs. Castle), because we could not hear it at this end of the House?
§ Mr. SpeakerMy answer was that I could not comply with the hon. Lady's request. I can call a Question that is not reached only when it is represented by a Minister that the Question is one of special public interest to which he desires to give the answer. That has not been represented to me with regard to the hon. Lady's Question. Therefore, I cannot call it, as it was not reached before 3.30.
§ Mrs. CastleOn a point of order—
§ Mr. SpeakerLet us have one point of order at a time.
§ Mrs. CastleOn a point of order. Are we to take it that it has been represented to you, Mr. Speaker, by the Government, that it was much more important to deal with Question No., 78? [Interruption.]
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. With reference to the hon. Lady's Question, no comparisons of importance were made. I merely received a request from the Home Secretary saying that he desired to answer Question No. 78, even if it were not reached by 3.30. That was all. There was no question of comparing the importance of the issues as between one Question and another.
§ Mrs. Castle rose—
§ Mrs. CastleIn view of the great anxiety on the part of the parents of the boys who are fighting in Korea, is there no facility open to the House—[HON. MEMBERS: "Speech."]—for asking for an answer.
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. I want to hear what the hon. Lady is saying, and I ask both sides of the House please to keep order.
§ Mrs. CastleCould I ask your guidance, Mr. Speaker? Is there no way in which it is possible to get from the Government a statement on this important matter before we go into Recess for nearly two months?
§ The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Anthony Eden)I have had no representations at all about this Question. Although the Question was not reached, the answer is here. [HON. MEMBERS: "What about beer?"] I am perfectly ready to give the answer to it, and if I had had representations from the hon. Lady perhaps this trouble would have been avoided. After all, the hon. Lady must have guessed that Question No. 121 would not have been reached. Let me give the answer now. It is as follows:
In my speech in the foreign affairs debate on 19th November I gave an account of the progress made at the armistice discussions at Panmunjom up to that date.
Agreement was reached and subsequently ratified on 27th November on Item 2 of the armistice talks agenda relating to the establishment of a demarcation line and demilitarised zone. This, in brief, provided that the line of contact at that time would be the effective demarcation line in any full armistice agreement signed within 30 days. In the meantime, there would be no cessation of hostilities. If, however, discussions on the remaining items of the agenda should be prolonged beyond 30 days it was agreed that a new line would be delineated on the basis of the actual line of contact immediately prior to the signing of the armistice agreement.
2563 The delegations next exchanged proposals on Item 3 (arrangements for carrying out and supervising the armistice). The North Koreans first rejected the idea of inspection outside the demilitarised zone. On 3rd December they modified their stand and, in particular, proposed that representatives of nations neutral in the Korean war should be invited to carry out inspection in such ports of entry in the rear as should be agreed by both sides. They have explained that such countries as Czechoslovakia, Poland. Switzerland and Denmark might be acceptable. The United Nations negotiators are now seeking urgent clarification of certain aspects of the Communist proposals.
§ Mrs. CastleWhile thanking the right hon. Gentleman, may I ask if he is aware that there has been a cessation of hostilities on this front since the last report was made to this House; that Communist troops were playing volley ball across the cease-fire line and the United Nations Forces were not shooting at them and, in very mysterious circumstances and under orders from a very mysterious source, hostilities were restarted? In view of the great confusion of evidence coming from this front, does not the right hon. Gentleman think that this country ought to be more directly associated with these negotiations?
§ Mr. EdenI do not think that there is confusion. We are in close touch with these developments, and I am satisfied that in the immensely difficult and complex handling of this affair we are informed, and we do give our advice and guidance.
§ Sir Herbert WilliamsOn a point of order. Am I to understand that if any disappointed hon. Member does not get an answer to a Question which he has on the Order Paper he has only to make enough noise and he can get one?
§ Mr. SpeakerIn answer to that point of order, the right hon. Gentleman should have received my permission to read his answer after 3.30, but in view of the importance of the matter, I let him do so. But it must be clearly understood by hon. Members that, under the Standing Order, when 3.30 comes, Questions which are not reached cannot be answered unless there is a request beforehand to Mr. Speaker that, in view of the importance of the 2564 Question, he desires to give an answer after that time. That is the rule on the matter applying to ordinary Questions put on the Order Paper.
§ Mr. F. J. BellengerFurther to that point of order, Sir. I understand that the Foreign Secretary said that he was not approached to give an answer, but, nevertheless, you, Mr. Speaker, permitted him to give it. Would it be possible—I am not denying the importance of the Question—for the guidance of the House, for you to consider, and advise the House at a later date, how this rule should be applied because today we have had an example of a Minister approaching you and getting your permission to give an answer after 3.30, and giving it, and, on the other hand, of an hon. Member pressing for a reply from a Minister who had not before been advised?
§ Mr. SpeakerThe procedure of a Minister asking leave of Mr. Speaker, and therefore, of the House, to answer a Question which has not been reached is quite old. It has been done in the past. It is quite out of order, without that permission, for a Question not reached earlier to be answered.
§ Lieut.-Colonel Marcus LiptonThe answer which you have just given, Mr. Speaker, is that the request should be made by the Minister to you before answering a Question after 3.30. May I ask you whether any request has been submitted to you by the Minister of Education to answer a Question today?
§ Mr. SpeakerI have received no such request.
§ Mr. Sydney SilvermanMay I ask, Mr. Speaker, whether it is permissible to ask a supplementary question arising out of the answer which the right hon. Gentleman gave? May I ask the right hon. Gentleman what useful purpose could possibly be served by continuing hostilities after a safe military line on which to cease hostilities has been agreed by both sides, when everyone must hope that within 30 days sufficient agreement will be reached to prevent the outbreak of any further hostilities? Would not, in such a case, all the lives lost in those 30 days be completely and futilely thrown away for no useful purpose of any kind?
§ Mr. EdenI have been into this on more than one occasion, and it has been agreed by all concerned that the cease-fire would be dependent upon the conclusion of a number of matters, as the House very well knows, including the exchange of prisoners, and I do not think that I can carry it further.
§ Mr. SilvermanI am afraid that the right hon. Gentleman has not understood my question; perhaps it was my fault. I understand that the cease-fire will not continue to operate unless and until all other matters have been agreed. What I am asking is that since these other matters are to be discussed within these 30 days, and since fighting will stop on this agreed line, if these other matters are agreed within this time what possible purpose is served by throwing away lives on both sides by seeking to alter the agreed line within the period?