asked the Prime Minister whether the statement made by the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs at Liverpool University on 28th February, to the effect that he saw no difference between a war fought with conventional weapons and a war fought with nuclear weapons, represented the policy of the Government.

I can find no trace of a statement by my right hon. and learned Friend at Liverpool University on 28th February. He did, however, speak there on 28th November last year, when his argument was that the problem was not peace or nuclear war. It was peace or war. With modern means of delivery of so-called conventional explosives, a global war fought with such weapons would destroy our society almost as certainly as a nuclear war. This seems to me entirely correct.

While regretting the slip of the pen about the date, is it not a fact that the Foreign Secretary then said that he saw no difference between a global war fought with conventional weapons and a global war fought with nuclear weapons? Is not the whole point that a war cannot be fought with nuclear weapons without destroying the human race? Will not the Prime Minister make it clear that the Government appreciate this difference between war today and war yesterday?

The hon. Member has taken one passage from the speech. I could read the whole of it, but will quote just one other passage: The evil is war, not the weapon. Do not be led away into the belief that a conventional world war is something to be tolerated. Having seen two world wars in my lifetime, I thoroughly agree with that.