asked the Minister of Defence what provision will be made for conscientious objectors in the Armed Forces or among called-up reservists when the tribunals set up under the National Service Acts are disbanded.

The present tribunals will remain in existence for some years. The Government are considering what should be done after that, and I hope to make an announcement in due course.

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his reply, but is he aware, as I am sure he must be, that the present tribunals will disappear with the abolition of National Service and that they are acting as the advisory committees? Will arrangements be made for them to continue as advisory committees for the men in the Forces and for those on the Reserve List?

We have a little time in which to consider this. I agree with the hon. Gentleman. We are quite in sympathy on this, and I would be reluctant to see all this fall to the ground. I will try to make a statement as soon as I can.

asked the Minister of Defence how many Regular officers of the three Armed Services, including the Indian Armed Services, retired since the end of the war; and how many of these retired before January, 1956.

About 33,000, of whom 23,000 retired before January, 1956.

asked the Minister of Defence how many commutations of retired pay have taken place by officers of the three Armed Services, including the Indian Armed Services, since the end of the war; how many of these took place before January, 1956; and what would be the cost today of granting the 1959 pensions increases on the retired pay commuted by officers of the Armed Services.

About 20,000, of which about 12,300 took place before January, 1956. Without a great deal of research I could not say what would be the cost of granting the 1959 pensions increases on retired pay which has already been commuted.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that a large proportion of the officers he has referred to commuted up to nearly half their pay, on which they have received no increase since? Why should these officers be penalised because they did not have a terminal grant at that time and when the Government have made a profit out of it? Will my right hon. Friend look into the matter to see whether something can be done to help these men, who have served their country well?

I will certainly look most carefully at what my hon. Friend has said, but, of course, one of the risks of commutation is that one does get a lump sum for the relinquishment, so to speak, of the claim. I do not wish to be unsympathetic and will certainly undertake to look at what my hon. Friend has said.

asked the Minister of Defence whether a decision has yet been reached in favour of equipping the Army Air Corps with the Scottish-designed Pegasus aircraft instead of the Canadian Beaver machine; and whether he will make a statement.

I would refer my hon. Friend to the replies given on this subject by my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Minister of Aviation on 5th and 9th November.

In view of the correspondence I have had with my right hon. Friend's predecessor, I know that he appreciates the urgency and importance of this matter. As we are having a conference with the Prime Minister in a few minutes' time. I will not now take the matter further.

asked the Minister of Defence whether it is still the Government's policy, as his predecessor stated in reply to Questions by the hon. Members for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Zilliacus) and Newcastle-under-Lyme on 11th February, 1959, to resort to nuclear weapons first in case of an attack with conventional arms on a member of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, South-East Asia Treaty Organisation, or the Central Treaty Organisation.

The Government's policy remains as stated in the Annual Defence White Papers and in Parliamentary debates.

In view of the fact that criticism of this doctrine has now spread to general officers holding very important posts, who have described this policy as being one of insanity, will not the right hon. Gentleman reconsider the fact that no defence policy can be based on a threat to commit suicide? As this is a threat to initiate nuclear war, involving suicide for the British people, will he not turn his mind to the idea of producing a defence policy?

The hon. Gentleman should turn his mind to reading the White Paper to see what was actually said. In any case, this is a matter which will be dealt with in Answers to later Questions.

Does not the new Minister of Defence agree that this is a very serious matter, as his Answer means that he is sticking to paragraph 12 of the 1958 White Paper, which suggests that the very first reaction to a conventional move by the enemy is

"a massive nuclear bombardment of the sources of power in Russia "

It is always very easy to quote sentences out of their context. The right hon. Gentleman's quotation is part of a sentence of paragraph 12 of the White Paper, which starts by saying

"In fact, the strategy of N.A.T.O. is based on the frank recognition that …"

Are we not committed to the policy adumbrated by the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation? Should not the right hon. Gentleman "come clean" about this, for it is better for us to face the facts? Is it not clear that in the event of failure to resist a conventional attack we should use the so-called nuclear deterrent, and obviously, if we do that, it will be very bad for us all.

I know that after his long experience in my present office the right hon. Gentleman will not disagree with me when I say that the purpose of the deterrent is to try to stop war by deterring people. Unless the deterrent is such that it does deter, it does not fulfil its purpose.

asked the Minister of Defence whether it was with his authority that Lieutenant-General Sir John Cowley, Controller of Munitions, said that to bring the nuclear deterrent into play meant committing suicide.

asked the Minister of Defence whether he authorised the recent statement by the Controller of Munitions that using the nuclear deterrent meant suicide.

asked the Minister of Defence whether he authorised the criticism by the Controller of Munitions of Great Britain's defence policy, as defined in the White Paper of 1958; and if he will make a statement.

This officer's lecture was stated at the beginning to be an expression of his own personal views, put forward to promote discussion in the institution. As such, it was cleared by his own Service. It did not represent the official policy of Her Majesty's Government, and it contained a number of statements which I could not endorse.

Does the Minister of Defence quarrel with the statement in that speech that the 1958 Defence White Paper policy of resorting to nuclear weapons first in the case of a conventional attack would mean suicide to this country? Does he disagree with that proposition? Is that still the Government's policy?

Again, the difficulty is that the hon. Member ought to read this very long and very interesting lecture. The first part of the sentence which he has quoted reads, "Unless we bring the nuclear deterrent into play we are bound to be beaten".

Will the Minister take note of the fact that the nuclear obsessions of his predecessor have made quite a number of distinguished Service Chiefs almost mutinous? In those circumstances, will he give an assurance that he will not follow in the discredited footsteps of his predecessor, who is now being disowned to an ever-increasing extent by his own professional advisers?

If I may say so, the hon. Member only discredits himself by trying to bring to this very grave matter of peace or war rather slick political arguments which have very little relevance.

According to the Manchester Guardian—[HON. MEMBERS: "The Guardian"]—

"Sir John Cowley was stating his personal opinions, but there is no doubt that as a serving officer his remarks must have been approved by the War Office."

The hon. Member has not quite brought himself up to date on Parliamentary procedure. In reply to the first part of his supplementary question, if he will be kind enough to read my Answer, he will see that I replied to him. As to the second and more general issue, this officer said—and I again ask hon. Members to read the whole lecture, which is very long and very interesting—that he would be extremely disappointed if anybody agreed with him. At least he will not be disappointed in me.

As one who took the precaution to attend the lecture and to listen to it very carefully, may I ask whether the Minister does not think it significant that this distinguished officer has reached the conclusion that precisely the policy embodied in paragraph 12 of the White Paper is no longer a deterrent because it is not credible even to him?

My right hon. Friend the Minister for Aviation, who was my predecessor, in my view took very brave decisions which did a great deal to maintain the peace of the world. I challenge the right hon. Gentleman to answer that, and he will have the opportunity to do so when we have a defence debate. As to the other issue about this lecture as a whole, this officer very carefully put several sides to the various arguments, which obviously as a new Minister I wish to examine. I think that after only four weeks I should be extremely unwise to give the House at this stage the benefit of what study I have been able to make.

Irrespective of whether the Minister agrees with the contents of the lecture, does he not think this a dangerous practice? Does he not intend to take some steps to try to stamp out this frankness and these blatant remarks by officers of Her Majesty's Forces who are openly declaring opposition to the Government's defence policy?

I do not agree with the hon. Member in that. I think that the right drill—and I think that in the future it will be followed—is that statements or lectures Which bear on major defence policies of the Government must be cleared with me.

asked the Minister of Defence by how much defence expenditure will increase as a result of the new status of the forces agreement recently signed between the Federal German Republic and the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation countries with troops in Germany.

About £1 million a year.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether this is the extent of the commitment? Can he further say whether, as a result of this new agreement, Britain's forces serving in Germany will not be at less advantage than are the American forces serving in Britain?

I think that the answer to the second part of the question is that this is true; they will not be at less advantage. The hon. Member asked whether this commitment will increase. My understanding is that this is part of the settlement which arises from the ending of the occupation status, but it brings us the corresponding advantage that West Germany begins to play her own part in bearing some of the cost of N.A.T.O. defence. We have an advantage there.

asked the Minister of Defence what proposals he has for the provision of modern amphibious forces.

I am giving consideration to the future of our amphibious forces, but at present I have no statement to make.

When considering these problems, will my right hon. Friend bear in mind the importance of providing landing ships with sufficient speed to keep up with a Commando carrier? Will he also bear in mind that in the past this branch of our defence forces has tended to be rather neglected by the three individual Service Ministries?

I would not comment on the second half of the supplementary question at this stage, but I am certainly giving very careful study to this matter because I think that increased mobility in our defence forces is a vital factor which we must try to secure.

asked the Minister of Defence whether his conversations with the Secretary of State for the Home Department to co-ordinate the policies of their respective Departments concerning defence in case of nuclear attack are yet concluded; and whether he will make a statement.

Matters of this kind are dealt with by the normal processes of consultation within the Government. I have therefore no statement to make.

While fully appreciating the fact that the right hon. Gentleman has not been very long in his Department, may I ask whether he will not look at the statements made by his predecessor and by the Home Secretary in the House, both in the course of considered policy statements and in reply to Questions? Is he not aware that his predecessor repeatedly declared, in the most categorical terms, that there was no possibility of defending the civil population of this country in the case of nuclear attack and that therefore defence would have to be limited to the airfield—[HON. MEMBERS: "Speech."]—whereas the Home Secretary, when he was asked what bearing this statement had on civil policy, said in the House in reply to a Question by me—[HON. MEMBERS: "Order."]—that consultations were taking place between his Department and the Ministry of Defence in order to reconcile the obvious conflict between the two Departments, and that when these consultations—

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, can you possibly give hon. Members an indication as to how they will have a chance to put their later Questions to Ministers when an hon. Member makes a speech like this?

I will make this observation to hon. Members. They will all realise that long supplementary questions are very inconsiderate to hon. Members who have Questions following.

I apologise for the length of this supplementary question, but I think you will see how necessary it was when I say that, at the end of that statement, the Home Secretary promised the House that when the consultations were completed he would make a statement. It was because of that promise that I directed this Question to the right hon. Gentleman.

The hon. Gentleman himself, by the possibly justifiable length of his supplementary question, has shown how complicated a matter this is. It is certainly not for me to add to the complications at Question Time.

rose—

Does the hon. Gentleman wish to raise a point of order?

Yes, Sir. The only question that I directed to the Minister was whether he would make a statement. I have not had an answer, except the one to which I directed a supplementary question. It is not an answer to state that the Minister would not want to add to the complications at Question Time. I asked him whether he was ready to make a statement.

The hon. Member is so much experienced in this House that he will know that that is not a point of order for me and, also, that the Minister is under no obligation to answer if he does not want to do so.

asked the Minister of Defence what are the prospects of reducing expenditure both in the nuclear and non-nuclear fields.

The Government's proposals for defence expenditure will be laid before Parliament in the normal way. No useful purpose would be served by anticipating the statement.

Is it not true that certain influential voices are urging a cut in expenditure on nuclear arms, only to increase it on non-nuclear weapons? Would the right hon. Gentleman cut both and permit the saving to go to housing and pensions instead?

The hon. Gentleman is perfectly well aware of what the Government's policy is. Incidentally, it has been stated quite clearly in the Defence White Papers. It is to secure complete disarmament as soon as we can under proper safeguards.

Is the deplorable state of the present equipment of our troops the first instalment in the Government's defence policy?

The hon. and learned Gentleman had better put down a specific question if he wishes for an answer.

Is not the Minister making it one of his cardinal duties to reduce the crippling burden of armaments consistent with the safety of the Realm?

I quite accept that as the duty of the Minister of Defence.

asked the Minister of Defence if he will make a statement on the Government's policy on nuclear weapons and the means of their delivery.

I have no statement to make at present.

While realising that the Minister is new to his office, may I ask him whether he will bear in mind, when he does make up his mind about this, that there is a growing opinion in this House, among Service chiefs and experts that the dependence of the Government on an independent British nuclear deterrent is now neither increasing the safety of the West nor, in fact, is it effective?

That is the hon. Gentleman's view. It is not the view of the Government, as set out in successive White Papers. I am certainly not going—nor would this House expect me to go—into these vast and complicated matters after having sat in my seat for only four weeks. I must carefully examine these things, and that I promise to do. When we have our normal defence debates, I shall be perfectly ready to answer all these sorts of Questions in the House.

Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that many of us would regard him as a first-class humbug if he were to say that we shall not have our own deterrent but shall rely upon the Americans and, thereby, somehow be morally better and decent?

I will go with the hon. Gentleman in this matter to the extent of saying that I would be a first-class humbug if I were to stand at this Box and pronounce on all the issues of war and peace and defence at this stage until I have had a proper chance of examining them myself. When I have done that, I will try to take the House into my confidence as much as I possibly can.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs how the British delegate to the United Nations voted on the motion relating to Chinese action in Tibet.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs why instructions were given to the representative of Her Majesty's Government at the General Assembly of the United Nations to abstain on the vote on the resolution expressing grave concern over the events in Tibet and respect for the fundamental rights of the Tibetan people and for their distinctive cultural and religious life.

The United Kingdom representative at the United Nations abstained on the resolution on the question of Tibet. But I should like to make it clear that our abstention in no way implied any diminution in our sympathy with the Tibetan people or in our feelings about recent events in Tibet. Speaking in the general debate in the Assembly on 17th September, my right hon. and learned Friend said that we had been greatly grieved to hear accounts of the massive repression by Communist China, of the suppression of national liberties and of ruthless assaults upon the historic life of a sturdy and friendly people.

While no one would wish to exacerbate the relations between India and China at this moment, is the hon. Gentleman aware that many of us desire to see the independence of Tibet realised and the retention of its very distinctive personality?

indicated assent.

Is it not somewhat inconsistent for the British representative to speak in favour of this subject being raised at the United Nations and then to refrain from voting when it is raised? Secondly, is there not some danger that that kind of action may be regarded as a sign of weakness on the part of Britain?

I do not think so. Her Majesty's Government thought that it was right, in view of the grave reports referred to, that the United Nations should be given the opportunity to take cognisance of what has happened in Tibet, and for that reason we voted in favour of the inscription of the item.

Is my hon. Friend aware that many others besides the two hon. Members who have asked these Questions are very puzzled about this abstention, particularly on a resolution moved by two members of the Commonwealth? Would my hon. Friend consider publishing in the OFFICIAL REPORT, or putting in the Library, a brief statement of the reasons which led his advisers to consider that the affairs of Tibet were essentially a matter of domestic jurisdiction for the People's Republic of China?

I will certainly consider what my hon. Friend has said.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will instruct the British delegate to the United Nations to propose, when the report of the Security Council's committee on Laos is discussed, that the provision of arms and military personnel from any foreign territory should be prohibited.

No, Sir.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that when I questioned the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs on this matter a few days ago he declared that the policy of Her Majesty's Government was to maintain neutrality with Laos? In view of the report of the United Nations' Mission that China and North Vietnam have not been responsible for providing arms, does he not agree that America should also not be providing arms and military personnel to this territory?

I hope that the hon. Gentleman, when he quotes from the report of the Sub-Committee, will be very careful to take a broad view of this. The reports which have been read have not been entirely and wholly accurate. There is evidence that there is some help coming from the other side of the border.

Not military.

Assistance. In the view of Her Majesty's Government, the acceptance by the Laos Government of American aid has not in any way contravened the Geneva settlement.

In view of the fact that the United Nations Sub-Committee's report has been made available, will my hon. Friend say whether Her Majesty's Government are proposing to make any reply to the Soviet proposal that the Geneva Conference should be reconvened?

We are in close touch with the Soviet Government and have explained to them that in the present circumstances we are unable to agree with the Soviet suggestion.

Is it not a fact that the United States Government are responsible for the whole defence budget of Laos and that Government are no more neutral or independent today than the Government of South Vietnam or Southern Korea?

The International Commission did not find that the American arm supplies violated the Geneva Agreement. I do not think there is any reason to believe that the supplies going to Laos since the Commission was there are violating the Agreement.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs for what reason the Government failed to support Poland's candidature to the Security Council, in disregard of the gentlemen's agreement concerning representation of the group of States associated with the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what is Her Majesty's Government's policy regarding the representation of Eastern Europe on the Security Council of the United Nations.

I have nothing to add to what I said in the reply to the debate on the Gracious Speech on 29th October.

Is it not a fact that since that reply it has become more than ever clear that this attitude by Her Majesty's Government tends to cast doubts on the sincerity of the Government's effort to improve relations with the Soviet Union and with Poland and her associates? Is not this an act of hostility towards these countries and the violation of a gentleman's agreement? How can the hon. Gentleman reconcile this kind of thing with an attempt to smooth out the tensions and ease the whole situation in Europe?

There is nothing derogatory to Poland in this at all. Europe, outside the Soviet bloc, is now under-represented and the gentleman's agreement made no provision at all for Asian representation and left Europe under-represented.

Is it not the case that on previous occasions the British Government have supported the Polish candidature and that Turkey has already been twice represented on the Security Council? In view of the fact that the general policy of Her Majesty's Government is to relax tension in Europe and to try to blur the divisions between the two blocs, is not this an admirable occasion for the Government to stick to their previous policy and show the same independence to other countries' direction as is being shown by Canada and Norway?

I did my best in the debate the other day to explain the position of Her Majesty's Government on this matter. Balloting resumes on 17th November. Meanwhile, I do not think it would be appropriate, nor indeed helpful, to add to what has already been said.

Does that not put the House of Commons in an absolutely impossible position? First, the Government take an action and then we are told, "We have taken the action and there is nothing we can do now about it. We cannot go into it". Then they say, "We shall not tell you what action we are going to take because this is a delicate situation". Is that not putting the House of Commons in an absolutely impossible, indeed a trivial, situation?

I do not think so. I think the right hon. Member knows that these matters are delicate and difficult. We are not the only party involved in this situation and I do not think it is for me to say what consultations may or may not be taking place in New York at present.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs how the United Kingdom delegate to the Trusteeship Council of the United Nations voted on the resolutions on the subject of South-West Africa; what was the outcome of each resolution; and which delegates voted for and which against.

In answer to the first and second parts of the Question, seven resolutions were adopted. The United Kingdom delegate voted for one resolution, opposed two, and abstained on four. As the answer to the third part of the Question is very long, I am putting in the Library the texts of the resolutions and the full voting record.

Does not the hon. Member agree that in the light of the Answer he has given us, there is a grave risk of it being thought that this country sides with the Union of South Africa on the racial matters indirectly related to the Question? Will he not have another think about the way in which we should instruct our delegate at the Trusteeship Council, in order to ensure that misapprehension does not arise, especially among the uncommitted nations?

To some extent I agree with what the hon. and learned Member says, but deploring and criticising the racial policy of South Africa does not help towards the solution of this problem, which demands the co-operation of the Union Government. Without their co-operation we shall not achieve a solution of the problem.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs to what extent United Kingdom representatives in the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation agreed to the proposal to provide West Germany with atomic tactical weapons and guided missiles.

As my right hon. and learned Friend explained in his reply to the right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan) on 2nd December, 1958, this was a decision of the North Atlantic Council at ministerial level, in which my right hon. and learned Friend of course participated without reserve.

Is this action wise? Does the hon. Gentleman understand that if this process continues, apart from Soviet Russia, Western Germany will be the strongest military nation in Europe and armed precisely with those weapons which it was originally intended Western Germany should never possess? What has caused this change of front and this partiality to Western Germany all of a sudden?

There is no partiality to Western Germany. As I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will know, the German authorities will not have control over the warheads. But we do not consider that in an alliance it is wise or indeed feasible to discriminate against soldiers because of their nationality.

Does not the hon. Gentleman realise that I am not to be taken in with all this—

Order. A multiplicity of supplementary questions from one individual hon. Member makes it difficult for me.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Am I to understand that if I wish to elucidate further information on this very important topic I am to be prevented from doing so? Is that to be your decision?

No, but I hope that the ordinary practice of the Chair may be, so far as is possible and convenient, to call for supplementary questions from one side of the House and the other in succession.

Since this is likely to be the thorniest problem the Ministers will face at the Summit Conference, would it not be wise if there were no further developments until a Summit Conference has been reached?

We have been associated in this decision with our N.A.T.O. allies and I think we must stand by it. I believe that the House would wish us to do so.

It is not merely a matter of association with our N.A.T.O. allies, but what action did the British representa- tives take at Ministerial level. Did they propose it or support it, or are we to be told that they yielded to the argument on the other side? In the second place, what is the use of telling the House of Commons that we do not discriminate among allies when, in fact, the answer of the hon. Gentleman shows discrimination—he said himself that the warheads would not be in the possession of Western Germany? Is not that a discrimination in itself?

In reply to the first part of that supplementary question, I said that we have participated in this without reserve.

What does that mean?

It means exactly what it says. Regarding the second part of the right hon. Gentleman's supplementary question, discrimination is not really there, because they are not in possession of warheads so long as there are no hostilities.

May I ask the hon. Member please to be frank in his replies? We do not know what he means by "participating without reserve". Did we agree with the proposals, did we make proposals, or did we acquiesce in proposals? Secondly, is not there discrimination already, and why not discriminate earlier by not providing nuclear tactical weapons at all?

My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister explained this in considerable detail on 9th April. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will look up that explanation.

Really.

The hon. Gentleman seems to have given us a new process about this alliance, that is, participation with or without reserve. Can he tell us the difference between the two?

If the hon. and learned Gentleman thinks it more legal for me to say "participating", then participating it shall be. I hope I have explained to the House that we are in agreement with the decision which was taken at Ministerial level.

Then why did not the hon. Gentleman say so?

Can the hon. Gentleman tell us when there is to be a stop to this process? First, it was 12 divisions, and now it is a question of a navy, an air force and tactical weapons. When is a stop coming?

I have given an answer to the Question on the Order Paper. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to ask any specific question, perhaps he will put it on the Order Paper.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs why permission to build missiles has been given to West Germany by the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation Council.

The Western European Union—not the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation—has permitted German manufacture of certain missiles for antiaircraft defence, because they are strictly defensive, and their manufacture does not contravene the spirit of the revised Brussels Treaty. It is in the interest of the North Atlantic Alliance that the industrial capacity of the Federal Republic of Germany should be harnessed to the joint armaments efforts of the Allies.

Is not this the thin end of the wedge? If that kind of missile is now being permitted, how long will it be before other kinds of missiles are permitted? Is it not true that there is a proposal for the removal of the restrictions on warships of over 3.000 tons and submarines of over 350 tons?

That question is entirely hypothetical, and I am not prepared to answer it.

If Western Germany, through the Western European Union, is now to have permission to build missiles, are they to provide their own warheads, or are these missiles to be without warheads? If Germany is not to provide the warheads for these missiles which they are to be permitted to build, who is to provide the warheads?

The weapons to which I referred in the answer to the Question are not nuclear weapons.

Is it not a fact that the participation of Western Germany in Western defence is absolutely necessary to Western defence, and is it not desirable that this belated courageous sniping against Germany from hon. Members opposite should now cease?

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, in view of the fact that official statements by General de Gaulle and Mr. Khrushchev have made it clear that the French and Soviet Governments will agree to unifying Germany only on the basis of recognition of Germany's existing frontiers, including her frontiers with Poland and Czechoslovakia, whether, in order to facilitate agreement at a Summit Conference, he will now extend such recognition on behalf on Her Majesty's Government.

The final delimitation of the frontier between Germany and Poland cannot be formalised until there is a peace settlement. As regards the frontier between Germany and Czechoslovakia, Her Majesty's Government take the view that no consideration should be given to any changes effected in 1938 or subsequently.

In thanking the hon. Gentleman for that reply, may I ask whether it means that in the view of the Government it is merely a matter of delimiting the frontier between Poland and Germany, of marking out the frontier posts with any small changes to prevent a farm being divided or something of that sort? Is that the position of the Government, that they rule out any major changes of that frontier?

I did inform the House of the attitude of Her Majesty's Government and I have nothing to add to what I said.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the recognition by Germany of the present frontiers of Germany could be a main contribution to peace in Europe? That being so, will his Government do what they can to impress that on our German allies?

Is not the view of Her Majesty's Government that it would be a mistake to try to settle a final peace treaty with Germany from one side by a public declaration and Answers in Parliament? Is it not the case that this could be easily settled by the other side agreeing to a peace treaty where the whole matter could be finally discussed and disposed of?