§ 5. Colonel WEDGWOODasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, seeing that the German Government have refused to consider any kind of control in the Rhineland after 1935, he will say whether this refusal, or the French demand for such control, has the support of His Majesty's Government?
§ Sir A. CHAMBERLAINI would refer the right hon. and gallant Member to the terms of the third section of the communiqué issued to the Press at Geneva on the 16th September last, which stated that an agreement had been reached between the representatives of Belgium, France, Germany, Great Britain, Italy and Japan regarding the acceptance of the principle of the constitution of a Commission of Verification of Conciliation, the composition, operation, object and duration of which would form the subject of negotiations between the Governments concerned; and to the terms of the communiqué issued to the Press at Lugano on the 15th December whereby His Majesty's Government and the Governments of France and Germany declared their faithful attachment to the policy of conciliation and rapprochement and their intention to continue in the spirit of that policy the negotiations begun in virtue of the Geneva agreement of the 16th September. I would especially direct attention to the last paragraph of the Lugano communiqué which reads as follows:
We are determined to do everything in our power to arrive as soon as possible at a final settlement of the difficulties arising out of the War, and thus assure upon the basis of mutual confidence the happy development of relations between our respective countries.
§ Colonel WEDGWOODThat answer is long, but it is not directed to my question. In these negotiations, which are 2984 now coming on in connection with the duration of this Committee of Control, are we standing out for the French proposition that it shall continue after 1935 or for the German proposition that it shall close in 1935, or, alternatively, have we not made up our minds on the question at all?
§ Sir A. CHAMBERLAINThere is another question relating to the Lugano conversations on the Paper to which I shall give a reply in a few moments. When I have given that reply, I think I shall have said all that can be usefully or properly said at present.
§ 9. Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he proposes to make a statement about his conversations at Lugano, especially with regard to reparations and the evacuation of the Rhineland?
§ 10. Mr. THURTLEasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if, as a, result of his conversations at Lugano, he has any fresh statement to make regarding the British attitude towards the evacuation of the Rhineland?
§ Sir A. CHAMBERLAINI have little to add to the communique issued at Lugano by Monsieur Briand, Dr. Stresemann and myself. This was the first occasion on which we had met since March. It afforded us an opportunity for the removal of some misconception and for a very friendly interchange of views such as has become customary whenever we meet. No new decisions were either taken or sought. The reparations question is being dealt with through the ordinary channels, and we did not attempt to duplicate the negotiations on that subject, which centre in Paris. We are agreed that the first thing to do is to secure the appointment of the Committee of Experts, and we hope that they may get to work very early in the new year. Our discussion of the other problems dealt with in the resolution come to by the six Powers at Geneva last September was of a purely exploratory and preparatory character, but I derived from it the impression that circumstances are favourable for a solution if fresh polemics can be avoided while the experts are performing their task. That is the answer to which I 2985 alluded a moment ago, and it says all that I think it is in the public interests and in the interests of peace to say at the present time.
§ Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYCan the right hon. Gentleman say, first, whether any definite progress has been made towards obtaining the evacuation of the Rhineland, and, secondly, whether it is the fact that the question of evacuation is now being linked up with what is known as the Polish Lugano?
§ Sir A. CHAMBERLAINI have said already that in the answer which I have given I have said all that it is necessary and advisable in the public interests of this country and in the interests of peace to say at the present time, and I must respectfully decline to say anything further.
§ Colonel WEDGWOODWould it not be in the public interests—
§ Mr. SPEAKERThe right hon. Gentleman has already answered.
§ Mr. THURTLEMay we not put supplementary questions to the right hon. Gentleman?
§ Mr. SPEAKERThe right hon. Gentleman has said that he has no further information to give, and that he can snake no further statement.
§ Colonel WEDGWOODis the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs to be in a position in this House that he refuses information on questions legitimately put to him by hon. Members? I desire to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he does not think that it is in the public interests that he should change his policy or that we should change his Government?
§ Mr. SPEAKERA Minister can give as much or as little information as he pleases. I cannot extract information from him.
§ Mr. THURTLEMay I ask whether in the course of his conversation at Lugano the right hon. Gentleman learned—
§ Mr. SPEAKERWe have come to an end of that question.
§ Mr. KIRKWOODOn a point of Order. Is it possible that we, who love our country, can sit still and see men being retained in the Rhineland? How can it 2986 be possible to expect that the Germans will remain at peace, so long as there are British troops in the Rhineland, when we promised—
§ Mr. SPEAKERThe hon. Member is arguing. That is not a point of Order.
§ Mr. THURTLEMay I submit that I put upon the Order Paper a question to the Foreign Secretary, and I was not allowed to put even one supplementary question in respect of it.
§ Mr. SPEAKERThe right hon. Gentleman answered the question of the hon. Member which is on the Order Paper.
§ Mr. KIRKWOODHe did not.
§ Mr. THURTLEOn that point. Surely it is traditional in this House that when an hon. Member puts a question upon the Order Paper, if the official reply is not satisfactory, he can put a supplementary question.
§ Mr. SPEAKERAs to the putting of supplementary questions, they certainly have not been curtailed in any way, but we must get on with the questions on the Paper.
§ Colonel WEDGWOODOn a point of Order. I should like your Ruling, Mr. Speaker, as to whether to-morrow, on the Debate on the Adjournment, we shall be entitled to put questions to the Foreign Secretary which we are not allowed, apparently, to put at Question Time to-day. Can I have an answer?
§ Sir A. CHAMBERLAINMay I make an appeal to the House? [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"]. Very Well!
§ Mr. MACPHERSONOn a point of Order. Is it not the custom and practice of this House that, while hon. Members are invariably allowed to rise and to put questions to a Minister, the Minister can refuse to reply to a question if it is against the public interests?
§ Mr. SPEAKERThat certainly is the case. I have said already that the Minister can say as little or as much as he pleases.
§ Colonel WEDGWOODThe Minister may refuse to answer questions, I agree, but that does not prevent hon. Members from being permitted to ask questions. How about to-morrow?
§ Mr. SPEAKERStrictly speaking, the Rule with regard to supplementary questions is that they must be put in order to elucidate the reply that has been given. If the right hon. Gentleman says that he has no further reply to give, then there is nothing more to elucidate.
§ Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYOn a point of Order.
§ Mr. SPEAKERThere can be no further point of Order.
§ Mr. KIRKWOODOn a point of Order. It is evident that the House, Liberal and Labour Members, are not satisfied with the treatment which they are getting from the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. Is there no way in which we can raise this matter in order that we may get right with the right hon. Gentleman? This cannot go on. He cannot continue to treat us in this manner. [HON. MEMBERS: "Sit down!"] I will not sit down.
§ Colonel WEDGWOODOn a point of Order. Will it be permissible to put these questions to the right hon. Gentleman on the Adjournment to-morrow?
§ Mr. SPEAKERAll matters of administration can be discussed on the Adjournment, but I would not like to say what will be in order until the actual question is before me.