HL Deb 20 February 1968 vol 289 cc315-7

2.47 p.m.

LORD BROCKWAY

My Lords, I beg leave to ask the second Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.

[The Question was as follows:

To ask Her Majesty's Government whether residence and work permits will be given, in accordance with this country's liberal tradition of political asylum, to Marc Floyd Ellington and John James, American citizens and conscientious objectors to military service in Vietnam.]

THE MINISTER OF STATE, HOME OFFICE (LORD STONHAM)

My Lords, as I explained in reply to a Question by my noble friend on January 30, a conscientious objection to military service is not, in general, a ground for political asylum, nor is it, in itself, a ground for refusing admission or enforcing departure. Consideration is given, in the light of normal immigration policy, to proposals, including proposals for employment, submitted by foreign nationals as a basis for stay in this country. This has been explained to Mr. James, who has been granted an extension of stay until March 12, to give him an opportunity to submit such a proposal. Mr. Ellington's present permitted stay as a visitor expires in three weeks' time, but it is open to him to submit a proposal as a basis for extended stay.

LORD BROCKWAY

My Lords, is my noble friend aware that I appreciate that, under the limitations of the decisions, an extension has been granted to these two boys? Is he aware that these boys are sincere conscientious objectors? Further, is he aware that they are both artistes, very sensitive to cruelty in the world? May I ask my noble friend, in view of the fact that we treat those who escape from South Africa and from Communist countries as political refugees, whether he will extend the principle of refugees to boys who, for the deepest conscientious objection, are unprepared to undertake military service?

LORD STONHAM

My Lords, I cannot do what my noble friend has asked. We cannot regard these boys as political refugees. An applicant for political asylum must establish that he has a well-founded apprehension of danger to life or liberty or persecution of such a kind as to render life insupportable on racial, religious, national or political grounds, and the possibility of the imposition of a fine or imprisonment for breach of his country's laws would be regarded as punishment and not persecution.

LORD BROCKWAY

Really, my Lords! Is my noble friend aware that these boys would be liable to a sentence of five years imprisonment for refusing their service in Vietnam on the ground of conscientious objection? In view of our own liberal attitude towards conscientious objectors, cannot the Government take the liberal attitude in international affairs of recognising that they have the right of asylum in this country?

LORD STONHAM

My Lords, I think I have made the position perfectly clear.

SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS

Hear, hear!

LORD BROCKWAY

Very badly.

LORD STONHAM

We cannot interfere with the nationals of another country, or interfere in another country's laws. One of these boys, for example, has had his case heard three times in his own country before he left the country, the third time in the High Court of Justice. It is quite impossible to do as my noble friend suggests. But in every case, including these two cases, we generously apply the rules applicable to all foreigners who apply for permission to enter; and both these boys can have their cases considered for a continued stay if only they will put them forward.

LORD BROCKWAY

My Lords, may I give notice to my noble friend that I will raise this matter again at the earliest opportunity?

LORD DERWENT

My Lords, before the noble Lord replies, may I ask whether he is aware that many of us on this side of the House are very glad to hear that the Home Office continue to make no differentiation between one alien and another who wish to come here?

LORD STONHAM

My Lords, I think that cases of this general kind should be dealt with—and I do not like to deal with individual cases—in the full knowledge of all the facts; and I very much welcome the suggestion of my noble friend that he will raise this matter again so that it can be fully dealt with and the arguments fully explored—not in this way of question and answer, when we can have only a wholly incomplete picture. I would also say that my Department has dealt with all these cases with the utmost sympathy and has leant over backwards to be helpful. But we cannot interfere with the laws of another country.

LORD FARINGDON

My Lords, is not the practice here, in the ordinary course of events, not to exercise against the nationals of a foreign country who have taken refuge here, laws which are repugnant to us in this country?

LORD STONHAM

My Lords, this is another example of how difficult it is to answer part-questions of this kind. If we have a discussion on this subject it will be possible fully to deploy any differences that may exist between this country and another.