§ 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 on what grounds the Home Office has authorised the arrest of, and proceedings for deportation against, Jeremy Tupper, an American citizen.]
§ THE MINISTER OF STATE, HOME OFFICE (LORD STONHAM)My Lords, this is not a deportation. Private Tupper is a deserter from the United States Army, and the United States Service authorities in this country requested his arrest under the Visiting Forces Act 1952. The application was in accordance with the provisions of the Act and my right honourable friend the Home Secretary found no reason why it should not be complied with. Private Tupper was accordingly arrested by the Metropolitan Police and brought before the West London Magistrates' Court, which, on being satisfied that he was a deserter, directed that he should be returned to the jurisdiction of the United States Service authorities.
§ LORD BROCKWAYMy Lords, while thanking my noble friend for that Answer, may I ask whether, in view of the fact that the Visiting Forces Act confirming an agreement of the NATO powers was related to desertion from forces engaged in NATO commitments, it should be applied to a man who has deserted from service in Vietnam which is not a NATO exercise?
§ LORD STONHAMMy Lords, I think my noble friend's question is misconceived. The Visiting Forces Act 1952 applies to countries which are members of NATO and also to Commonwealth countries. It does not apply only to those whose forces are part of the NATO force.
§ LORD BROCKWAYYes, my Lords. But was not the Visiting Forces Act a confirmation of an agreement which had been reached by the NATO Powers in relation to NATO activities? And should it be extended to those who on conscientious grounds are refusing to fight in Vietnam, because they regard it as an unjustifiable war?
§ LORD STONHAMMy Lords, the 1952 Act applies the relevant provisions of our Army Act 1955. That is the position, apart from the first Answer I gave. I have no comment to make on the question of conscientious objection, on which I have answered my noble friend on a number of occasions.
§ LORD BROCKWAYMy Lords, I am sorry to press this matter, but a great principle is involved. Is it not the case that in matters of this kind we Co not act unless the offender has been guilty of an offence which would be liable in a British court? So in view of the fact that our exemption for conscientious objectors applies to a particular war and the American exemption does not, ought we to hand over this man to the American authorities?
§ LORD STONHAMMy Lords, the Act in this country applies to members of visiting forces in this country who have deserted. It provides that the police may arrest a deserter from the forces of a country to which the Act applies and bring him before a court of summary jurisdiction, and if the court is satisfied that the man is a deserter it will hand him over to the appropriate Service authorities. That is what has been done. So far as my information goes, this young man was not a conscientious objector in any general sense of the word, as I understand it. He does not object to war as such, or to joining the forces. He was 10 months in the forces before he deserted, and then left the forces apparently because he did not wish to serve in Vietnam.
§ LORD GIFFORDMy Lords, may I follow my noble friend's question? Is it not a fact, as I think my noble friend confirmed, that the authorities in this country have a discretion in the matter, and will my noble friend confirm whether discretion was exercised against Private Tupper? Are there not circumstances, and is this not one, where that discretion might be exercised in accordance with humanity?
§ LORD STONHAMMy Lords, the Visiting Forces Act 1952 is an Act of the British Parliament, and the Home Secretary is the Minister called on by Parliament to apply it. He fully considered all the facts in this case and, as I said, could find no reason why the American request, which was made under Section 13 of the Act, should not be applied under Section 13.