§ 2.36 p.m.
§ LORD BROCKWAYMy Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
§ [The Question was as follows:
§ To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will treat as political refugees young Americans in this country who for conscientious reasons decline military service in the Vietnam war, and refrain from requiring them to return to America.]
§ THE MINISTER OF STATE, HOME OFFICE (LORD STONHAM)My Lords, 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. Each case is considered in the light of the normal requirements of immigration policy.
§ LORD BROCKWAYMy Lords, while thanking my noble friend for that reply, may I ask, in view of the torment which many young Americans now feel about service in the Vietnam war, the restrictions on conscientious objectors in America and our own liberal facilities, whether the Minister will sympathetically treat young Americans who are in this country—surely, the most profound of refugees, because they are refugees on the ground of consicence—and not, in these circumstances, provide that they are returned to America?
§ LORD STONHAMMy Lords, I understand that under the Act of the United States no one is liable to combatant service who by reason of religious training and belief is conscientiously opposed to participation in war in any form. There is a right of appeal to a 698 tribunal, and eventually to the President. I understand what my noble friend says about our provisions being more liberal than that, but I do not think it would be generally accepted that objection to participation in a particular war was conscientious objection to all war. Of course, these cases are being looked at sympathetically. One case which had the maximum publicity was a case in which in dramatic terms a young man handed in his draft papers to a prominent clergy man. He came here as a visitor, was here for two months and was granted a four months' extension. The point I want to make is that these young men are treated here according to our immigration laws. They come as visitors, and can support themselves or be supported. They will remain here, and while they are here we will certainly look sympathetically at anything put forward. But we cannot treat them differently from other immigrants.
§ LORD DERWENTMy Lords, in view of the difficulties that we are having about immigration at the moment, is it not absolutely essential that the rules should be strictly adhered to, and that no one person should have an unfair advantage over somebody else who wants to come to this country?
§ LORD STONHAMMy Lords, nobody knows better than the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, that we do not "play favourites" at the Home Office. We are, to the best of our ability, humanly administering the immigration laws without fear or favour, and the record of any individual case is proof of that.
§ LORD BROCKWAYMy Lords, may I ask my noble friend—and. I appreciate his liberal attitude on these issues—whether he has not stated incorrectly the British view on conscientious objection? Is he aware that I myself represented conscientious objections in the last war which were not based on religious convictions but on deep moral, and sometimes political, views, and they were accepted? Is he aware that that is not the case in the United States of America? May I ask whether, at least, he will allow these boys who are not a danger to immigration—there are only about half a dozen of them—to go to other countries like Sweden and France which would give them the liberty for which I am asking?
§ LORD STONHAMMy Lords, I am well aware of my noble friend's record in this matter and that he spent three years in prison for the sake of his conscientious beliefs. I made it clear that our provisions with regard to conscientious objection in this country are wider or, if you like, more liberal than those in the United States. With regard to these boys, I repeat that they are being treated with every consideration, and, as I have already said, so far as we are concerned there is nothing whatever in the fact that they have conscientious objection to prevent their departure to other countries or to prevent their returning home. I am not quite clear about the difficulty. If they do not want to go back home, that is their business; but we are not stopping them from going back to America or from going to any other country.