asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what new proposals have been put forward by Her Majesty's Government at the current session of the 18-Nation Disarmament Conference in Geneva.

Her Majesty's Government are contributing to the discussions on disarmament as they develop at the 18-Nation Disarmament Committee. In particular, we are determined to do all we can to forward agreement on the question of a non-proliferation treaty to which we attach the highest priority and to which the Committee has now turned its attention.

Is it not a fact that the Government have not put forward a single new proposal in the whole field of disarmament since they assumed office? What has happened to their election promises?

I think that, with the way the Disarmament Conference is now going at Geneva, it is more sensible and more productive to make an extensive study of existing proposals.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what progress has been made by the arbitration court set up by the British Government to settle the frontier dispute between Chile and Argentia; and if he will make a statement.

The Court of Arbitration held preliminary hearings from 29th to 31st December, 1965. Early this year a Field Mission, consisting of two members of the Court, visited the disputed area. Air and land reconnaissances were carried out. In line with their general policy aimed at the settlement of disputes by peaceful means, Her Majesty's Government have welcomed this opportunity to be or service to two countries with which they have the friendliest relations.

Does not my hon. Friend agree that this is an exemplary way of dealing with frontier disputes and that the two Governments concerned, as well as the British Government, are to be congratulated? When does my hon. Friend expect the next stage to be reached in the negotiations?

Since the dispute is sub judice, it would be improper for me to say any more than I have said.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will make a statement on the visit of the official Rumanian delegation to Great Britain at the beginning of February.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will make a statement regarding the recent visit of the Vice-President of Rumania.

This was an official visit, made at our invitation. Mr. Birlandeanu, First Deputy Prime Minister of Rumania, was accompanied by the Rumanian Minister of Foreign Trade, the First Deputy Foreign Minister and a number of senior advisers. The high level of the delegation shows that the Rumanian Government share our view of the importance of developing Anglo-Rumanian relations, and we were able to have useful discussions on many questions of common interest.

Can my hon. Friend tell me whether we are making any progress with the consular agreement? Secondly, are we likely to get speedy talks about compensation for the claims of British subjects?

Of course, we would like a consular agreement. The claims arise from bonds, which have been in default since the beginning of the war and which were held by British pre-war investors in the Rumanian oil industry, and other miscellaneous claims. These will be discussed in future.

If my hon. Friend studies the Stock Exchange quotations, he will find that Rumanian shares have appreciated in value since his official visit. Will he greet this as a happy omen for increased commercial activity, which could do nothing but good to our two nations?

As my hon. Friend knows, it is the Government's policy to expand trade with all countries.

Will the hon. Gentleman say what specific assurances were given by the Rumanian delegation to rectify the adverse trade balance which this country suffers with Rumania? Secondly, did any discussions take place about the proposal for a nuclear-free zone in Europe, which was a prominent part of the Labour Party's last election manifesto?

As the noble Lady knows, the conversations were confidential, but certainly they ranged over the whole of East-West relations and, of course, dealt with the desirability of expanding trade between Britain and Rumania.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will take up the United Arab Republic Government's failure to implement the terms of the Anglo-United Arab Republic Financial Agreement of 1959 with the World Bank, in view of their policy that no loans would be granted to countries whose finances were not conducted in accordance with generally accepted standards.

Her Majesty's Government are always prepared to discuss matters of this nature with the Bank's management, but I think our ends will best be served if decisions on whether and when to make representations in specific instances remain confidential.

Would not the hon. Gentleman agree that the U.A.R. Government are in breach of the agreement by their refusal to allow repatriation of private property? Would he not also agree that Governments which behave like this and which seize property without compensation should not receive international loans to which we contribute?

The World Bank has made its position on this matter clear, and some 18 months ago Mr. Woods, on behalf of the Bank, cited among others the U.A.R. as a country which at that time the Bank would not consider for loans because of the absence of tangible evidence that it intended to pay reasonable compensation within a reasonable time for national assets nationalised or sequestrated.

This is one of the matters which we understood the hon. Gentleman was to take up on his visit to Cairo fairly recently. Has there been any improvement in the situation since his visit?

The negotiations are another matter. There has been no substantial progress since my visit.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, following his recent visit to a number of South American countries, including the Argentine, what efforts Her Majesty's Government has made to obtain satisfactory compensation for British assets nationalised by successive administrations in that country.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what discussions he had when in Buenos Aires with the Argentine Foreign Secretary on the implementation of the Argentine Supreme Court's decision concerning compensation for the holders of Anglo-Argentine Tramways Debentures; and whether he will make a statement.

I assume that the hon. Member for Westbury (Mr. Walters) is referring to the claims of British Tramways companies. During my recent visit to Buenos Aires I reaffirmed Her Majesty's Government's interest in a satisfactory settlement of the claim of the Anglo-Argentine Tramways Company. I do not think it would be helpful to make a statement at the present moment.

Would not the Secretary of State agree that this nationalisation of valuable British assets has caused severe hardship to many investors, many of whom with only a small amount of capital have still to see any return on their funds after a great deal of very patient waiting?

Yes, I would agree with that, but negotiations for a settlement are now proceeding.

Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us whether he has any information from the Argentine about how long these negotiations will take? Secondly, is he aware that over the last 15 to 20 years our Government and the Government of the Argentine have always said that if the Supreme Court gave a judgment one way or the other the two Governments would get cracking to help these wretched people who have been waiting for so long?

Yes, Sir. Those points have been made, but as I have said, negotiations are now proceeding and I hope that a settlement will result.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what steps were taken by Her Majesty's Government following the arrest of Mr. and Mrs. Frank Evans, who are British subjects, by the Spanish police in Barcelona on 4th August, 1965, on false allegations of taking photographs for hostile purposes.

The Consul arranged for the release of Mr. and Mrs. Evans immediately he was informed of their arrest. He accompanied them to the police station next day and the film was returned.

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that reply and the consul for his activity. Is not the hon. Gentleman aware that this experience was extremely frightening to Mr. and Mrs. Evans and would he not advise those going to Spain for their holidays, if they must, to leave their cameras behind?

Taking into account the hundreds of thousands of British tourists who go to Spain, we should not magnify individual incidents. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary replied quite recently to Questions by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) and the hon. Member for Dorset, North (Sir Richard Glyn) on the whole subject of tourists in Spain.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs which countries have yet to ratify The Hague Convention of 1961 abolishing the requirement of legalisation of foreign public documents; and what is the policy of Her Majesty's Government in the absence of comprehensive ratification.

Of the fourteen countries which have signed the Convention, Austria, Finland, Greece, Italy, Luxembourg, Portugal, Switzerland, Turkey and Liechtenstein have yet to ratify it. The Government would welcome the wider application of the Convention. They recognise, however, that for various reasons some countries may be unwilling to accept its obligations and that others are not able to do so until their internal law or regulations have been amended.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will make a statement on his recent efforts to pro mote understanding with Indonesia.

As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister told the House on 8th February, we would like to see a steady improvement in relations with Indonesia.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs how many, commercial and technical personnel are attached to Her Majesty's Embassy in Djakarta.

There are at present seven representational officers at Her Majesty's Embassy in Djakarta who between them deal with the main work of the Embassy including the commercial work.

Are these sufficient?

Yes, Sir, they are sufficient. We are considering appointing a full-time commercial secretary as soon as practicable, but it would be premature while the present state of tension and uncertainty persists.

Does not the hon. Gentleman agree that the time is ripe for a major diplomatic initiative to improve the relationship between Indonesia and Malaysia? With this in mind, is it not time that our representation in Djakarta was greatly strengthened?

Our representation in Djakarta is adequate. We are taking every opportunity to assure the Indonesian leaders that to improve relations we are ready to take any steps which are compatible with our obligations to Malaysia and to Singapore. I recently met informally the Indonesia Charge d'Affaires in this country and so informed him.

While fully agreeing that our representation in Djakarta should be sufficient for this purpose, does not the hon. Gentleman agree that the fact that the Government in the Defence White Paper have announced that there is not to be a carrier force in the Far East after the mid '70s—

Order. We must keep to Questions on the Order Paper.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (1) how many British subjects now remain in Southern Sudan;

There are at present three citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies and an estimated 12 Cypriot families living in the Southern Sudan. The Sudanese Government gave an assurance on 27th August, 1964, that all possible protection would be provided for British subjects and British property in the Southern Sudan. Following the Sudanese Government's action in breaking diplomatic relations with Her Majesty's Government, they have given further assurances that they will take all necessary measures to ensure the safety of British lives and property in the Sudan. Consular relations are being maintained.

While thanking the Minister for that reply, may I ask him if it does not show that there is a very small number of British subjects there, in the appalling situation that has developed in Southern Sudan, and would he not make the strongest possible representations to the Sudanese Government and, perhaps, to the United Nations to rectify this state of affairs, bearing in mind our past interest in Sudan?

That is another question. Her Majesty's Government are responsible for the safety of our citizens. The general situation in Southern Sudan is not our responsibility.

Is the hon. Gentleman able to say whether the R.A.F. mission which has been used, in the past, for supply drops in Southern Sudan has been reviewed since the breaking off of diplomatic relations? Are any steps being taken by the Government to try to restore diplomatic relations with the Sudan?

The second point is primarily a matter for the Government of the Sudan, who took the initiative in breaking off diplomatic relations with us. The question of military arrangements with the Sudan is under review as a result of that situation.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what reports he has received from the International Control Commission concerning the invasion of Laos by North Vietnamese regular fighting units; and if he will make a statement.

The last report I received from the International Control Commission on the presence of North Vietnamese troops in Laos was Message No. 35 of 16th September, 1965. A copy of this report was placed in the Library of the House of Commons on 16th December.

Did the Prime Minister make any representations to Mr. Kosygin on his recent visit in his capacity as co-Chairman of the Geneva Conference, and, if so, would the right hon. Gentleman say what effect those representations had?

As the noble Lady knows, the talks are confidential. The whole matter of the Commission and South-East Asia came into those conversations.

While appreciating the confidential nature of the talks, would the right hon. Gentleman say whether he is satisfied with their outcome?

The right hon. Gentleman must try to understand that this is a continuing process; that it is often wise to continue talks even when one knows that the problem under discussion will take a long time to solve.

Would the right hon. Gentleman say whether there was any increase or decrease in the number of troops moving up the Ho Chi Minh trail when the bombing was stopped?

No, Sir.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what action Her Majesty's Government are taking to procure a comprehensive testban treaty proscribing underground tests.

I would refer the hon. Gentleman to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister's reply of 15th February, to the hon. Gentleman, the Member for Barkston Ash (Mr. Alison).

Since the recent Soviet explosion has emphasised the importance of this, why has the Minister for Disarmament been unable to make any progress at all?

The problem about a test-ban treaty proscribing underground tests is that, unlike other aspects of a test-ban treaty, it is not self-policing. The difficult question of inspection arises, but we are still seeking an agreed way of dealing with the problem.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what progress he is making in his policy of negotiating British entry to the Common Market as long as British interests are safeguarded.

I have nothing to add to the Answer I gave to the hon. Gentleman the Member for Richmond, Surrey (Mr. A. Royle) on 7th February.

Is the Foreign Secretary aware that, whenever he or his colleagues come to the Dispatch Box and make encouraging noises about Europe, they are immediately pulled up short by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell), and will he say who is making British policy on Europe—the Chairman of the Parliamentary Labour Party or the Foreign Secretary?

In previous Parliaments I have heard leading members of the party opposite express views about Europe—[HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."]—I am answering—which provoked the most bitter and hostile comments from their colleagues. We all know that this is a question on which there are many differences of view in this country. Those differences of view are not always aligned with ordinary party differences. [Interruption.] I have answered the hon. Gentleman's question as to where the Government stand on this matter.

Does my right hon. Friend really believe that the countries of the Six are concerned about safeguarding British interests? Is not their primary concern to safeguard their own interests? Would my right hon. Friend mind if I ventured to ask him and some of his colleagues to exercise a bit of caution in this matter and recall the decision of the Labour Party?

Oh.

My right hon. Friend will remember that Labour Party policy was not that we should never enter the Common Market but that we should enter it subject to certain conditions. I have had this matter very much in mind, and I know that my right hon. Friend's urging of caution on me is something on this subject which we should all urge on each other.

Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that this country would be safeguarding her own interests if she entered the Common Market?

That is exactly the question at issue. It is a question of the conditions. If I may reply to the second part of the question asked by my right hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) and in reply to the hon. and learned Gentleman, I believe that a good many people on the other side of the Channel in all nations of the Six believe that their own interests would be served by consideration of the special interests which Britain would have to safeguard if she ever became a member of the Six.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that those of us who believe that it is inevitable and essential for economic reasons that we should go into the Common Market one day are greatly alarmed at the reckless and impetuous speeches made by some Conservative speakers, which are highly prejudicial and against British agriculture?

I entirely agree with that.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what steps he is taking to form a South-East Asian security system embracing Asian nations between the Gulf of Tonkin and the Indian Ocean and supported by Great Britain, Australia and the United States of America.

As I informed the hon. Gentleman on 7th February, I see no need to propose changes at present in the existing arrangements.

Since Chinese expansionism constitutes a threat to this whole area, what steps is the Foreign Secretary taking to resuscitate the S.E.A.T.O. Treaty, to align our policies and those of our Asian and American allies in the area, and to persuade the Minister of Defence to provide this country with the means of honouring our commitments in the area?

The S.E.A.T.O. Conference takes place before very long and all the nations there concerned will have in mind the kind of thing about which the hon. Gentleman is worried.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will make a statement about the future of the British Council.

Her Majesty's Government attach great importance to the work of the British Council and will continue to give it their support. As regards the financial arrangements, the hon. Member will have seen the written reply I gave on 7th December, 1965, to my hon. Friend the Member for Dunbartonshire, East (Mr. Bence). The arrangements there described explain the new allocation of financial responsibility for the British Council but do not affect my Department's responsibility for the Council's grant-in-aid.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs why the claims of Group Captain Day, Lieutenant-Colonel John Churchill, Mr. Sydney Dowse and other military personnel for compensation under the Anglo-German Agreement of 1964 as victims of Nazi persecution in Sachsenhausen concentration camp and other camps have been rejected by his Department; and whether he will make a statement.

Under the terms of the Anglo-German Agreement the compensation is reserved for those who suffered the horrors and degradation of concentration camps.

Is not that a most pedantic and unreasonable decision? Is the hon. Gentleman aware that these men were arrested as enemies of Nazi ideology, were imprisoned and ill-treated as such, and will he therefore refer this matter to the Foreign Compensation Commission so that, in spite of the need for rules of guidance, we may have a decision based on the facts in this case and not on other suggestions which have been made?

The men whom the hon. Gentleman is representing were, of course, gallant Service men and very audacious escapers during the Second World War. Their place of imprisonment, although in geographical proximity—[Interruption.]—although next to a concentration camp, had no connection with the main compound, and the conditions and treatment experienced were no worse than those experienced in the average prisoner-of-war camp. I am not in a position to meet the requests of the hon. Gentleman under the terms of the Anglo-German Agreement, to which I referred. To answer his second point about the matter being referred to the Foreign Compensation Commission, this has been dealt with administratively with a view to the making of payments to those who are entitled to payments as quickly as possible.

Would not the hon. Gentleman agree that these persons were inside the main barbed wire perimeter of the concentration camp, that they were in sight of the horrors which were perpetrated in that camp day by day and did not know what fate might befall them? Will not he look at this again? It seems to me to be a case which he should examine again, because there is no doubt that these people were inside the perimeter of a concentration camp.

I assure the right hon. Gentleman that this matter has been very closely looked at. The hon. Member for Abingdon (Mr. Neave) and I have had a number of meetings about it, and he has made, as he was entitled to do, very strong representations about it. The difficulty is that the treatment which these people suffered could not be equated with the concentration camp treatment for which the agreement was designed. I am bound to tell the right hon. Gentleman that I am puzzled that he should take this matter up in the way that he has because what we are trying to do, with great difficulty in connection with a difficult human problem, is to carry out the criteria laid down by Lord Butler when he was Foreign Secretary in July, 1964. I understand that at that time he had private meetings with Conservative bank-bench Members, including the hon. Member for Abingdon, and that no subsequent representations were made about the criteria laid down which we are now trying to administer with the greatest possible humanity.

May I ask my hon. Friend to look at this matter again? Should we allow a technical objection to stand in the way of acting with some humanity? Is it wise for him to rely on a decision taken by Lord Butler?

We are not relying on a technical consideration. We are trying, to the best of our judgment, to exercise this agreement with humanity. There is a sum of £1 million available for the victims of Nazi persecution as I defined it a moment or two ago. We have an obligation to those British citizens who were victims of concentration camp conditions to ensure that their rights under this agreement are protected. If we were to concede the point pressed by the hon. Member for Abingdon and my right hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell), it would simply mean that those who had suffered the concentration camp conditions would enjoy much less than their proper share of the total sum.

May I ask the hon. Gentleman not to allow himself to be influenced by whether a decision was taken by one Government or another in this matter? Will he look at it afresh? These persons were inside the perimeter of a concentration camp and subject to all the nervous tensions to which people were subjected in that situation. I beg the hon. Gentleman—and I believe that the whole House would support me in this—to look at this matter again to see whether he can stretch the rules to include these people.

I should like to do so if I could because there is obviously strong feeling on both sides of the House. But we are bound to stand by the criteria laid down and under which applications have been made. I am bound to tell the right hon. Gentleman that, although the geographical situation of where these people were imprisoned is not in doubt, equally it is not in doubt that they did not suffer from concentration camp conditions. I have before me a letter from one of the most distinguished of the prisoners there, Captain Peter Churchill, who writes:

"I entirely endorse the contents of your courteous letter of 9th September".

rose—

We cannot debate this matter now.

In view of the very unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I will raise this matter on the Adjournment at the earliest opportunity.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what reports he has received from Her Majesty's Ambassador to the Dominican Republic concerning the situation there; what action Her Majesty's Government's delegate to the United Nations has taken; and whether he will make a statement.

As my right hon. Friend will know, general elections are due to be held in the Dominican Republic on 1st June. The President of the Provisional Government, which Her Majesty's Government have recognised, is faced in the interim period with many difficult problems arising out of the divisions within the country which created last year's crisis. I know that it will be the wish of the House that the elections in the Dominican Republic should take place peacefully as planned.

Is my hon. Friend aware that the killing has gone on in recent weeks, that the officers of the military junta are flouting the orders of the provisional President which they promised to obey and that, apparently, they are doing so with the support of the C.I.A.? Is it not time that the competence and obligations of the United Nations were again asserted?

I should like to inform my right hon. Friend that the United Nations Secretary-General is kept continually abreast of developments in the Dominican Republic by means of regular reports from his special representative at Santo Domingo. Our information is that the situation in the Dominican Republic has calmed down again following the end of the general strike on 16th February. I am sure that the best way to make progress with the very difficult problem to which my right hon. Friend has referred is to have general elections in conditions of peace and without violence.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what action he is taking on Recommendation No. 449, on the general and political unity of Europe and European economic integration, of the Council of Europe.

We are considering this recommendation with our Council of Europe partners in the Committee of Minister's Deputies at Strasbourg.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that this recommendation was sponsored by my right hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Mr. Sandys) and was accepted by an overwhelming majority of the Council of Europe? Will the hon. Gentleman get on and try to do something about following up these openings created at the Council of Europe?

As I told the hon. Gentleman a week ago, we are generally in favour of the recommendation, and it is being studied urgently by the Ministers' Deputies.

Will my hon. Friend take into consideration that, while there are many Members on this side of the House who want a wider European unity, we do not necessarily feel that this is the best approach, particularly on the basis of a straightforward acceptance of the Rome Treaty?

The position of Her Majesty's Government on joining the Common Market is, I think, well known, particularly in view of the exchanges earlier today.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs in view of the little progress made by the United Nations Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space and by its Legal Sub-Committee, whether Her Majesty's Government will take an initiative to promote agreements on the principles of international law by which claims can be settled and activities regulated in space and, in particular, on the moon.

At the present time, No, Sir. Her Majesty's Government are anxious that the Legal Sub-Committee should bring its present work to a successful conclusion before taking on any further tasks. This does not, however, exclude the possibility that Her Majesty's Government may at some future date wish to take such an initiative.

Since the situation is not dissimilar from that of the High Seas, and since Britain has been preeminent in promoting international law in that area, will not the Government take an initiative before difficult situations are allowed to arise?

I sympathise with the general objectives outlined by the hon. Member, but so far the Legal Sub-Committee has been occupied with its attempts to formulate two agreements which were specifically referred to it by the General Assembly—one on assistance to and the return of astronauts from space vehicles and the second on liability for damage caused by outer space objects. To take an initiative before these specific references to the General Assembly have been resolved would not, we believe, be useful.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what is the result of his discussion with the Venezuelan Government on the Venezuela-British Guiana boundary; what assistance he has given to the Guiana authorities on this matter; and if he will make a statement.

The Agreement signed by the Venezuelan Foreign Minister, the Prime Minister of British Guiana and myself at Geneva on 17th February will shortly be laid before the House as a White Paper. Her Majesty's Government have been in the closest touch with the Government of British Guiana, both before and during the Geneva Meeting. I believe that this agreement has dispelled the cloud which threatened to overshadow the independence of British Guiana, and I hope that it will pave the way for a friendly relationship between independent Guyana and Venezuela.

I wish to thank the Foreign Secretary for that Answer. But does he realise that this boundary was fixed in 1899? What has given rise to the dispute now? Will he make sure that British Guiana loses no territory at all?

After the talks in Geneva one can hardly fail to be very well aware that this was settled in 1899. The controversy arose from a Venezuelan claim that the award given in 1899 was invalid, a view which we did not accept. However, the agreement has now been made, to the full satisfaction of our friends in British Guiana, of Venezuela and ourselves, and I believe that it augurs well for the future.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what discussions he had on his recent visit to South America particularly concerned with creating new opportunities for promoting British exports.

I had discussions on this subject with the Presidents and Foreign Ministers of the three countries I visited and with the Minister of Economy of Argentina. It was a major theme of the conference of our representatives in the area, over which I presided in Lima. I also had talks with the members of the Anglo-Peruvian Trade Centre in Lima and of the British Chambers of Commerce in Santiago and Buenos Aires.

Will the right hon. Gentleman say what promotional activities will now take place as a follow-up to his visit, in view of the potential trade in this area?

Inter-Departmental discussions are going on to see what action the Government can take in the light of the views which I was able to form from my visit.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will propose at the United Nations the establishment of an international penal tribunal as envisaged in Article VI of the Genocide Convention.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affair whether he will instruct his representative at the United Nations on the Human Rights Commission to raise at its forthcoming session the question of creating an International Penal Tribunal in pursuance of Article VI of the Genocide Convention, to which Her Majesty's Government is now to accede.

Successive Governments have in the past seen great difficulties in this proposal. I sympathise with the purpose behind this suggestion which as the hon. Members know I have been carefully examining. I am bound to say however that I do not yet see how these problems can be overcome in existing conditions.

Is the Minister not satisfied that it would be most unfortunate to have a repetition of the measures taken to kidnap Eichmann in Argentina to bring him to trial in Israel? Temptations to repeat these measures are bound to exist until there is such an international tribunal as that suggested.

This is precisely one of the difficulties in the way of this proposal. If acts of genocide are committed by individuals without the support of their Governments there is no problem about dealing with them in the national courts, but if acts of genocide are committed by individuals or are alleged to be committed in which there is the support of Governments, there are great practical difficulties about arrest, about getting witnesses, about sentencing and so on. These are the practical difficulties.

When my hon. Friend is considering this matter, will he take into that consideration the fact that certain trials have taken place in Austria and in Germany in which there have been acquittals in one place in spite of convictions in another country, and that the verdicts, in some of the cases were quite derisory? Is it not time that some international court was set up which could be free from the Nazi feelings of some of the people who are still in office in those countries?

The first part of my hon. Friend's question is not a responsibility either of myself or of the Government. I have stated my sympathy with the proposal for an international tribunal and I have tried to spell out what I consider to be some of the practical difficulties.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will now press the Japanese Government to make additional finance available to enable compensation to be paid to those who were under the age of 21 years at the time of their internment in Japanese prison camps during the war.

No, Sir. The terms of the Treaty of Peace with Japan preclude any further claim against the Japanese of the kind suggested by the hon. Member.

Is the hon. Member aware that one of my constituents was interned at the age of 15 and that it is very galling for him and others like him to see the booming prosperity of Japan today and yet to know that because of this arbitrary age limit it is quite impossible for them to be compensated for the hardship and suffering which they endured?

I sympathise with the hon. Member in his efforts on behalf of his constituent, but it is unfortunately too late to do anything. I ought to explain, in fairness to the Japanese Government, that the exclusion of the under-21s from the original agreement had nothing to do with the Japanese. The total sum was agreed with the Japanese Government, but it was a British decision, taken by the Government in October, 1952, which decided to exclude the under-21s. I understand that the organisations of Far Eastern prisoners-of-war were associated with that decision at that time.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what arrangements exist between Her Majesty's Government and the United States Government permitting the call-up of British subjects for service in the United States armed forces and United States subjects in the British armed forces.

None, Sir.

Does my hon. Friend not think that it is a gross interference with personal liberty that British subjects should be subject to call-up after a six months stay in the United States, that they should risk being sent to fight an American war in Vietnam and that if they flee from the United States in order to escape the draft they get no help from my hon. Friend's Department?

The United States Government have unilaterally legislated for the call-up of all persons of whatever nationality entering the United States on immigrants' visas. As there is no discrimination against British subjects, there are no grounds on which the Government could protest. Before being granted visas, immigrants are required to sign a statement that they understand and accept an obligation for compulsory military service.

Would the Minister of State support a Private Member's Bill on a later date to make Americans do a bit of service in this country?

That is another question.

Does my hon. Friend realise that these arrangements apply to students from Britain who have gone to America to further their education, and does he not think that when they are called up some attempt might be made from here to allow them to continue their courses in American universities?

In my reply to the first supplementary question I stated quite clearly what the legal position is: no student who does not accept the obligation of being called up—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—need go to the United States. They can stay in Britain.

rose—

Order. I call the Minister of Pensions.