§ The Secretary of State for Foreign Aflairs (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd)With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, I wish to make a statement on Hungary.
On 1st November, Her Majesty's Minister at Budapest was called urgently to the Hungarian Ministry of Foreign Affairs and was told that new Soviet forces were entering Hungary from subCarpathia. He was also told that Mr. Nagy, acting in his capacity of Minister for Foreign Affairs, had protested against this to the Soviet Ambassador. Mr. Nagy had demanded the immediate withdrawal of these troops. Mr. Nagy had also informed the Soviet Ambassador that the Hungarian Government were withdrawing from the Warsaw Treaty, proclaiming the neutrality of their country, appealing to the United Nations and asking for the aid of the four Great Powers for the protection of the neutrality of Hungary.
Aide-mémoires setting out these facts have been handed to the American, French, Yugoslav and British representatives in Budapest. Later, on 1st November, Mr. Nagy made a broadcast in which he proclaimed Hungarian neutrality and asked that all countries should respect it. He said that Hungary would not join any bloc. She was now independent and neutral.
My information is that although Soviet tanks and troops appear to have withdrawn from Budapest, some units have dug in not far from the city. The airfields near Budapest are under Russian control. Movements of Russian land forces in Hungary are not entirely clear, but on balance they seem to have been reinforced in the last three days.
By latest information is that the Soviet and Hungarian Governments are considering a proposal for the establishment of a mixed commission to discuss the question of Soviet forces in Hungary.
Her Majesty's Government welcome the proclamation of Hungarian neutrality. [HON. MEMBERS : "Humbug."] In the United Nations' discussion of the communications addressed to the Secretary-General by Mr. Nagy, the United Kingdom 1883 Representative—[Interruption]—is supporting Hungary's request for the recognition of her neutrality.
§ Captain PilkingtonOn a point of order. Whenever a Minister has spoken from the Government Front Bench this afternoon, he has been subjected to considerable Opposition interruption. Is it not possible to make Socialist Members of Parliament behave themselves?
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. Some hon. Members in one part of the House keep on talking when other hon. Members are making a speech.
§ Mr. LloydI am sure the whole House will be with me, whatever its views on other points may be, when I say that the further progress towards freedom and independence made by the Hungarian people during the past week has deepened the profound admiration already felt for them in this country.
§ Mr. RobensMy right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition the other day expressed on behalf of hon. Members on this side of the House admiration for the people of Hungary in their desire to establish their freedom and independence. We welcome the statement now made by the Prime Minister of Hungary that he desires his country to be neutral and independent. We welcome the fact that this is a matter which is to be referred to the United Nations. I should like to ask the Foreign Secretary what action the British Government are physically and actually going to take in the United Nations in this matter. Secondly, will they very severely disapprove of any nation which vetoes any resolution seeking to enable the Hungarians to have their neutrality and independence?
§ Mr. LloydWe shall certainly do what we can to support any resolution put forward with regard to this matter. Incidentally, I may say that if the Soviet Government were to accept an international force in Hungary, we should gladly support that, too.
§ Mr. Patrick MaitlandCan my right hon. Friend tell the House whether at any stage the Soviet Government have claimed to be acting as a kind of advance guard of a United Nations police force? Secondly, is it not in general the case 1884 that the independence and neutrality of Hungary depend upon a strong Western Europe, which in turn depends upon the security of the Canal to some extent?
§ Mr. SpeakerMay I appeal to the House not to get the two things mixed up?
§ Mr. J. HyndThe Foreign Secretary has indicated that the British Government intend to support the Hungarian appeal to the United Nations. Can he tell us on what conceivable grounds this Government can defend the claim of the Hungarian Government, and can he give an assurance that Her Majesty's Government will not proceed to bomb Hungarian hospitals in the meantime?
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. The hon. Member has disregarded my plea not to get these things mixed up.
Air Commodore HarveyIn view of the many tens of thousands of injured in Hungary, will my right hon. and learned Friend consider increasing the grant of £25,000 to a considerably larger sum in the immediate future?
§ Mr. MikardoWhat instructions has the right hon. and learned Gentleman given to our delegate at the United Nations to deal with the situation which will be created when the Russians pretend that they have done what they have done only to protect Russian ships with Russian crews sailing along the Danube?
§ Mr. Speakeris again mixing the two things. These are all points which can be made in the debate.
§ Mr. BeswickOn a point of order. While we respect the Ruling which you have made, Mr. Speaker, that these two matters are to be treated separately, is it not a fact that both these affairs are happening on the same world, on the same globe, and that it is quite impossible to talk intelligently about the one without referring to the other?
§ Mr. SpeakerLots of things are happening in the world at this moment, but they are not all in order on a Parliamentary question. It would be quite in order in the debate—or might be in order.
§ Mr. S. SilvermanWould it not be highly inconvenient if the House were to be prevented, even by its own rules, from relating one thing to another when everybody knows that all over the world, and particularly in the United Nations where the right hon. Gentleman has to speak for the United Kingdom, these matters will inevitably be discussed together?
§ Mr. SpeakerThat is all very well, but this is a Question. All these things are quite in order in debate, and I should not dream of checking them, but I was trying to save the time of the House. I think we should now get on with the debate. Mr. Harvey.
§ Mr. SwinglerOn a point of order. I want to seek your guidance, Mr. Speaker, on a point of order concerning procedure at this day's Sitting. We have been sitting today for practically one-and-a-half hours and there have been some most amazing and shameful statements from the Government with practically no opportunity for back bench Members to ask questions or express opinions. In view of the fact that there is only a very brief time left, according to what the Leader of the House has laid down about this day's Sitting, may I ask your guidance how an hon. Member may seek to prolong the Sitting, or to obtain another Sitting, in order that back bench Members may have an opportunity of expressing themselves?
§ Mr. SpeakerI sympathise, as always, with the hon. Member in his main statement, but the Sitting of the House is covered by the Resolution yesterday, and it will last until three o'clock and no longer.
§ Mr. LewisFurther to that point of order and your reply, Mr. Speaker. Would it be in order for an hon. Member to ask the Government to put down a Motion today before the House adjourns and in that Motion to state that on Adjournment the House shall resume two, three or four hours afterwards and continue, if need be, all night? I understand that under the rules the House must adjourn for two hours before it 1886 resumes. If the Government so desire, cannot they put such a Motion down and thus meet the point which my hon. Friend has raised?
§ Mr. SpeakerIt is in order for the hon. Member to make any request to the Government—and I think he has made his request from his point of order. Mr. Harvey.
§ Mr. Hector Hughesrose—
§ Mr. SpeakerMr. Lewis. What is it?
§ Mr. LewisFurther to that point of order. It appears, Mr. Speaker, that you have misunderstood the question which I put to you and the request which I made for guidance. When you replied to my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Swingler), you said that when the House adjourns that was the end of the matter. What I wanted to make clear was that if I or any other hon. Member asked the Government to put down such a Motion, and the Government agreed, is it not a fact that we could continue in session, subject to the Government's putting in that Motion however many hours they desired the Sitting to last?
§ Mr. Hector HughesOn a point of order—
§ Mr. SpeakerThe House can do what it likes if the Government put forward a Motion to that effect. Has the hon. and learned Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hector Hughes) really got a point of order?
§ Mr. Hector HughesI should like to ask for your guidance, Mr. Speaker, out of your great knowledge of the rules and regulations of the House. Is there no way by which, in this very important matter, we can either prolong the present Sitting today or arrange for a Sitting tomorrow to continue this debate?
§ Mr. SpeakerWe arranged this special Sitting by a Resolution passed by the House yesterday. At present I am bound by that.