asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, bearing in mind that a thermo-nuclear explosion in any part of the world can be detected by its atmospheric effects, what forms of control he intends to propose in the course of his discussions inside or outside the United Nations Disarmament Commission for the purpose of limiting or ending test explosions.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will publish the proposals for the limitation of hydrogen bomb tests which have been submitted to the Disarmament Sub-Committee by the United Kingdom delegate.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if, in view of the fact that other participating Governments have stated their disarmament proposals in detail, he will inform Parliament of the British proposals put forward at the United Nations Disarmament Sub-Committee meetings.

As regards the detectability of tests I would refer the hon. Member for Gorton (Mr. Zilliacus) to the announcement made at the conclusion of the Bermuda Conference and to what the Prime Minister said in the House on 1st April.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the contention that hydrogen bomb tests cannot be detected by some means if they are big enough to be worth detecting is very strongly contested? Will not he reconsider this question? Will he say whether it would not be just as easy to conclude an agreement abolishing hydrogen bomb tests as an agreement for limiting hydrogen bomb tests? Will the Government please try to work for an agreement to abolish tests rather than for one merely to limit them?

We do not accept what the hon. Member said about the detectability of all tests. All that my right hon. Friend said was that, if a particular Power tried, it could make a bomb test which was not detectable at a great distance. That is all he said. With regard to the question whether we would like to have the banning of all tests, as well as the limitation of tests, that was also made perfectly clear; but the banning of all tests is a much more difficult problem and would have to take place in the context of a general disarmament agreement.

With regard to the publication of Britain's proposals, as suggested in my Question, would the Minister of State say why it is that the other countries feel able to state beforehand what their respective positions are? While accepting the fact that discussions must be in private, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he does not think that Parliament here is entitled to know what is being said in its name?

At a certain stage it is certainly entitled to know, but we hope to achieve some results from these discussions, and we have learned from bitter experience that if we publish exactly what our proposals are and almost immediately they are repulsed, we then make no further progress. There is a great advantage in having these discussions confidential, and we think we are more likely to achieve results by that method.

If my right hon. Friend has any difficulty in providing an argument in favour of the retention of these tests, will he consider publishing as a White Paper "Talking Points for Speakers", issued by the Labour Party recently, which sets out the arguments very cogently and clearly, and would be of benefit to hon. Members opposite if they read it?

In view of the fact that the Government have promised to work for a limitation of tests separately from, and in advance of, a general disarmament convention, will not the right hon. Gentleman at any rate give an undertaking to the House that an interim report upon the discussion of this limited proposal will be put before the House as quickly as possible.

I will ask my right hon. and learned Friend to consider that.

Can the right hon. Gentleman clear up a doubt which he seemed to raise last week? In the proposals that we are putting forward, are we suggesting any limitation at all either of the number or the power of the tests to be carried out?

That would require my going into details of our proposals, and at this stage I am not prepared to do that.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what action Her Majesty's Government are taking in response to the appeal issued to all member Governments of the United Nations by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees for further assistance in the resettlement of refugees from Hungary, with special reference to the 18,000 now in Yugoslavia.

The appeal is under consideration, but I am not yet in a position to make any statement. As regards the admission of further refugees to this country, the position remains as stated in the Written reply given by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary on 14th March.

Is it not the case that in recent weeks, and since the matter was considered earlier, there has been a new appeal by the United Nations High Commissioner? Is it not a fact that very few refugees have been able to leave Yugoslavia and that if they are not removed in considerable numbers before the summer season starts there will be very real danger of difficulties about their accommodation?

Yes. We appreciate that, and we sympathise with the position of the refugees, but we must make it perfectly clear that this country is not normally a country of immigration. We have already made a considerable contribution to this problem. That is our position.

If we are not able to take them into this country, could we not make a contribution to I.C.E.M. to help to move them?

As I have said, the appeal is under consideration, and we will look at it.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will make available the text of the speech of the United Kingdom representative at the United Nations indicting Archbishop Makarios.

I am not aware that the United Kingdom representative at the United Nations made any speech specifically indicting Archbishop Makarios. As Archbishop Makarios is a British subject it would not be appropriate to indict him in a legal sense in the United Nations. The speech made by my right hon. and gallant Friend the Minister of State on 18th February this year at the General Assembly of the United Nations is contained in United Nations document No. A/C.1/PV.847 of that date, a copy of which is in the Library.

Would the Joint Under-Secretary of State suggest to the Foreign Office that it might be useful to us to have a White Paper with the whole of the Assembly debate on Cyprus available for the use of hon. Members?

I will certainly consider that.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will make a statement on the result of the representations made by Her Majesty's Government to the United Nations Organisation and the present position in respect of freedom of passage of ships of all nationalities through the Suez Canal and the Straits of Tiran and the Gulf of Aqaba.

On the Suez Canal, I have nothing to add to what the Prime Minister said on 1st April. We have made no representations to the United Nations on freedom of passage through the Straits of Tiran and the Gulf of Aqaba, but Her Majesty's Government's position was made quite clear to the General Assembly by my right hon. and gallant Friend the Minister of State on 4th March.

Dealing with the first part of the reply, will the right hon. Member say whether he is not satisfied that it is pure hypocrisy on the part of Egypt to refuse to allow Israeli ships to go through the Suez Canal, in view of the declaration of the Security Council and Article 25 of the Charter? Turning to the second part, will he do the same, or encourage doing the same, as the Americans have done—by encouraging British ships to carry oil through the Straits of Tiran in order that the position may be further established?

Replying to the first part of the supplementary question, it is certainly our case that there should be no discrimination against the shipping of any country going through the Suez Canal. Replying to the second part of the supplementary question, we have declared that we believe this to be an international waterway and that there is right of free passage for the ships of all nations through this waterway. We have stated that we will exercise that right through those Straits.

Would the Minister confirm that although Israel has apparently now established a right of passage for ships in the Gulf of Aqaba, that should in no way prejudice her right with all other countries to free passage through the Suez Canal?

That is perfectly true.

Are we making it clear that in this country we consider that it would be intolerable if Israel had to endure another long period of years in which, as has been the case, none of her ships were allowed to pass through these international waterways?

Yes, Sir.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what is now the policy of Her Majesty's Government in regard to the re-entry of the Egyptian Army into the Gaza Strip.

Her Majesty's Government's policy remains as stated by my right hon. and learned Friend on 14th March.

Will my right hon. Friend ask his right hon. Friend to encourage the United Nations to keep their Force in the Gaza Strip as long as possible, with a view to trying to reach a final settlement of the Arab refugee problem in the Gaza Strip?

Yes, Sir. It is certainly Her Majesty's Government's policy to see that the United Nations Emergency Force remains in the Gaza Strip for as long as it is needed—and that is for some considerable time.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will now make a statement on the consultations Her Majesty's Government have been having with other Governments about the recent memorandum of the Egyptian Government relating to the Suez Canal.

The Egyptian document in question was a draft, and it has not been published officially. We have expressed our views on this draft to the United States, French and other interested Governments. The United States Ambassador in Cairo is discussing it with the Egyptian Government, and until these discussions have reached a conclusion I am not in a position to make a statement.

Do the Government agree with the view of the United Nations Secretary-General that there seems to be no serious conflict between the Egyptian Government's memorandum and the six principles? Can the Minister give any indication whether there is likely to be a conference with the Government of Egypt on the matter in the near future?

Of course, by saying that there is nothing in conflict with the Resolution of the Security Council, it does not follow that this draft memorandum covered all the points in that Resolution. That is what discussions are now taking place about. I think it might be fair to say that the points in the memorandum do not run contrary, but they do not go far enough. As regards a conference with the Egyptians on the matter, I am afraid that I have no statement to make.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what action Her Majesty's Government will take as a signatory of the 1888 Convention to ensure the passage of Israeli shipping through the Suez Canal.

The aim of Her Majesty's Government is that Egypt should fully honour the 1888 Convention and also the six principles of the Security Council Resolution of 13th October, the first of which provides for free and open transit for all without discrimination.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the fact that the Answer he has given made no reference to the 1951 Resolution demanding that Israel had the right to send her ships through is extremely sinister? Is he prepared to take more action than the Government have done since 1951 to see that that Resolution is implemented?

We certainly think that the Egyptians should abide also by the 1951 Resolution. I would point out that the Israeli Government have been particularly cautious in their remarks about the use of the Suez Canal, and it would be just as well at the present time if we were equally cautious.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Israelis intend, probably in the very near future, to send a ship through as a test case? Is he also aware that it is reported in the Press that Cairo Radio is threatening to destroy any Israeli ship that tries to go through the Canal? In such circumstances, what action would Her Majesty's Government take?

That is a completely hypothetical question which I cannot answer.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is yet in a position to state the terms under which British ships will pass through the Suez Canal.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he has any further statement to make on the future of the Suez Canal and the advice given to British ships over the payment of dues.

I have at present nothing to add to what the Prime Minister and my right hon. and learned Friend said during the debate on the Bermuda talks on 1st April.

Is not the right hon. Gentleman very unhappy at having to give so many negative replies today? Is he aware that, according to the New York Herald Tribune, the number of shipowners who have asked to be transferred to the Liberian flag has increased by 200 per cent, since the Canal was reopened, including a large number of British shipowners? Shipowners, being good Conservatives, believe in private profit being paramount, but is there not a danger that more ships will be transferred from the Red Ensign to the flags of Liberia, Panama, Costa Rica and other countries?

That sort of consideration is very much in our mind, and we are doing all we possibly can to get a reasonable settlement of the Suez Canal problem.

Surely the Minister can give some direction in the near future to British shipping or it will be heavily handicapped. Are we to understand from the right hon. Gentleman's previous answer that the Government are prepared to have a settlement on the basis of the six principles that we could have had in October?

As I have already said, we propose to negotiate on the six principles. There is no evidence that we could have got agreement with the Egyptian Government on those six principles If the hon. Gentleman will read the reply of Dr. Fawzi, the Egyptian Foreign Minister, he will see that he made certain conditional demands with regard to the six principles of the Resolution of 13th October.

What responsibility, if any, have the signatories of the Constantinople Convention of 1888 for making effective the provision of the Convention that the ships of all nations would be free to go through the Suez Canal in peace or war?

Any settlement has also to be on the basis of the 1888 Convention. That is one of the things that are being discussed with the Egyptian Government at the present time.

Is it not a fact that a letter of the Secretary-General of the United Nations on 24th October last set out a settlement virtually agreed with Egypt which would have safeguarded British interests, and that Egypt proposed a meeting in Geneva on 29th October?

The right hon. Gentleman is incorrect. The Egyptian Government did not accept entirely the Secretary-General's letter of 24th October.

Was not the only reservation they made a small point about police action, which was very doubtful on its merits?

It was a point on arbitration, which was of very great importance.

Have not the Egyptian Government, in their latest proposals, accepted full arbitration on all points, including reference to the International Court, of any dispute about the 1888 Convention?

I am not prepared to discuss what is in the Egyptian memorandum, but I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that in many respects it is totally unacceptable.

Would the October position also have safeguarded the passage of Israeli ships?

That is a hypothetical question.

Oh.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what information he has concerning the progress of the trial of the four British subjects on charges of espionage in the Egyptian criminal court.

The case has been heard by the Court of Committal, which sent all the accused for trial by the assize court. The trial is expected to open on 13th April.

Would my hon. Friend agree that the decision of the Egyptian authorities to time these arrests in August last year was to enable them to use these men as a bargaining counter in the Suez Canal dispute and that the very long delay which occurred before they were brought to trial and the present delay in the conduct of the trial are due to the same reason? If we can get no satisfaction from the representations of the Swiss authorities, will he consider raising this matter in the United Nations, because these unfortunate men have now been in custody, and, what is more, in Egyptian custody, for over seven months?

I sympathise very much indeed with the points which my hon. and gallant Friend has made. This trial is about to proceed, and I think it would be wiser to await events before taking any further action. Her Majesty's Government are satisfied that the defence of the four British subjects is in the hands of competent lawyers.

Does the hon. Member appreciate that the trial which is about to take place in Egyptian territory cannot be regarded as sub judice? Have the Government made any attempt to ascertain whether these four men have been implicated in espionage in any form? What is the Government's opinion about these men? Are they regarded as innocent? Ought we not to make a public declaration to that effect?

These men are in the hands of the Egyptians at the present time.

We know that.

We have to consider what is in their best interests. I think the right hon. Gentleman would be wise to await the proceedings which are about to take place. We will take what action appears to be most appropriate.

Are the Government under any illusion as to the strength of British feeling about this in all sections throughout the country? I hope they are not.

This Government are under no illusions about anything.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will state the precise terms on which the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation has offered its good offices for conciliation between Turkey, Greece, and Great Britain.

Not at present. The communication from the Secretary-General of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation is a confidential document. But, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Colonies stated on 20th March, it is in accordance with the Resolution on the Peaceful Settlement of Disputes which was adopted by the North Atlantic Council last December, whereby the Secretary-General was empowered to offer his good offices.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that until the public can be assured that this good offices intervention has nothing whatever to do with the internal affairs of Cyprus, there will be great uneasiness throughout the country?

The proposal was simply to appoint a conciliator or conciliators. There is no question of N.A.T.O. arbitrating on this matter and I therefore do not think that my hon. Friend's fears are very well founded.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will give an assurance that Her Majesty's Government will resist proposals for admitting the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation to any share of responsibility for the Administration of Cyprus.

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Colonies has already given an answer on this matter on 20th and 28th March.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the answers already given are a little confusing? I should be most grateful if he could say categorically that N.A.T.O. will have nothing to do with the internal administration of Cyprus.

The internal administration of Cyprus is a matter entirely for my right hon. Friend, but I can say that the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation's offer was simply to send a conciliator round between all the parties concerned and to give advice to Her Majesty's Government. There is no question of arbitration by the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation.

Does not the Minister realise that his position will be very much stronger if the Government will start negotiations and discussions with the representatives of the Cypriot people about their own future?

That is a matter entirely for my right hon. Friend.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what discussions are taking place in the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation about Cyprus.

Discussions at the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation are confidential and I cannot disclose information about them, but I can tell the hon. Member that Her Majesty's Government do not accept that the door is yet closed to conciliation through the good offices of the Secretary-General of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation.

Has Greece refused this offer of conciliation and, if so, what is to be the nature of the conciliation? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that if it goes on like this much longer, people will regard this device as something to stall off the real issue, namely, the discussion of the future of the island with the people of Cyprus?

It is not designed to stall off any issue. As the hon. Member knows perfectly well, this initiative by N.A.T.O. was warmly welcomed by him. We are hoping that the Greek Government, in view of recent events, will reconsider their attitude to this offer.

Can my right hon. Friend assure us that there will be no discussions with these foreign Powers about the internal administration of Cyprus?

That is quite another question, but I can assure my hon. Friend of that.

While awaiting the N.A.T.O. initiative, do the Government stand by the Resolution of the United Nations on Cyprus for which they voted?

Certainly.

Mr. Fletcher.

May I ask, as that Resolution called for discussion with the Cypriot people—I am sorry, I thought that you called me, Mr. Speaker.

I did not observe the right hon. Gentleman rise a second time, but I will call him now.

Since that Resolution called for a discussion with the Cypriot people, what are the Government doing about that part of the Resolution?

The Resolution calls for talks in an atmosphere of peace and the absence of terrorism, and those conditions have to be fulfilled before talks can reasonably take place.

Further to that last answer from the right hon. Gentleman, may I ask whether it is not the case that there has been only one murder—[HON. MEMBERS: "Only one?"]—only one murder since the offer of a truce by E.O.K.A. and that that murder has never been laid officially at the door of E.O.K.A.? In view of the fact that this was a month ago, how much longer has the island to lie without any administration at all before conditions are satisfied in which the Government will be ready to enter into talks?

These are questions for my right hon. and learned Friend, but I think it would be a great exaggeration to say that peaceful conditions now obtain in the island of Cyprus.

On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker. May I ask your guidance. Three times last week when I tried to put supplementary questions—and I rose to my feet every time from the beginning of the supplementary questions and answers—a Privy Councillor or a Member on the Opposition Front Bench jumped up and was called. This afternoon, once again the next Question was called and the right hon. Gentleman got up and was called and I was not, and he was followed by another hon. Member on the Opposition Front Bench and I again was not called. Has one any protection at all as a back bencher against the very determined use of their prerogative by Privy Councillors and leading Members of the Opposition?

I am afraid not at present. Mr. Fletcher, Question No. 36.

Further to that point of order. With due respect to you Mr. Speaker, I am asking a question on a point of order, about which I may be wrong.

The hon. Member asked me whether a back bench Member has any form of protection against what the hon. Gentleman considered to be an undue number of interventions by Privy Councillors and I had to tell him, "No, not at the moment"—unless the House otherwise orders.

I am very sorry, Mr. Speaker, I did not hear your answer. I am most grateful to you.

Can you indicate to me, Mr. Speaker, what right the hon. Member for Yarmouth (Mr. Fell) has to ask supplementary questions on a Question which he has not put down?

He has the right to ask supplementary questions—

The same as you.

Order. Hon. Members on both sides of the House, including the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan), frequently ask supplementary questions on Questions which they have not put down.

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. On many occasions when you have not called me, I have never protested about it.

I think that is quite true.

rose—

Order. Now may we have Mr. Fletcher's Question?

Further to that point of order. In the first place, since I have been in this House I have never asked a facetious supplementary question. Secondly, all the questions on which I tried to ask supplementary questions last week were, in fact, related to Questions I had put down on the Order Paper, first, to the Prime Minister and, in the second place, to the Foreign Secretary, which were not reached. Therefore, I think it a little unfair to make the suggestions which have been made.

May I invoke your protection, Mr. Speaker, against the attempt of the hon. Member to prevent me from putting my Question?

rose—

Order.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether Radio Athens is still broadcasting Enosis propaganda to the people of Cyprus.

Yes, Sir. I am circulating in the OFFICIAL REPORT extracts from the monitoring reports of some recent broadcasts.

Can my hon. Friend say whether these show any reduction in their hostility to British policy or not?

I regret to say, no, Sir.

If not, if the Greek Government wish friendly relations in this matter, is it not about time that these broadcasts were stopped?

I think we can all sympathise with that point.

asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance what reply he gave to the deputation from the British Legion and other organisations when they asked for a basic pension of 90s. per week.