§ 2.36 p.m.
§ LORD BEAUMONT OF WHITLEYMy 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 subscribe to the doctrine expressed in Resolution 337 (1967) of the Consultative Committee of the Assembly of Europe that:
§ " 1. Persons liable to conscription for military service who, for reasons of conscience or profound conviction arising from religious, ethical, moral, humanitarian, philosophical or similar motives, refuse to perform armed service shall enjoy a personal right to be released from the obligation to perform such service.
§ 2. This right shall be regarded as deriving logically from the fundamental rights of the individual in democratic Rule of Law States which are guaranteed in Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights."]
§ THE MINISTER OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (LORD CHALFONT)My Lords, as my right honourable friend the Minister of State for Foreign Affairs said in another place on April 13, 1967, the principles set out in Resolution 337 are already reflected in 932 United Kingdom law and practice relating to conscientious objection.
§ LORD BEAUMONT OF WHITLEYMy Lords, in thanking the noble Lord for his Answer, may I ask the Government why, if they regard this right as deriving logically from a fundamental right of the individual, they are not prepared to allow political asylum to people who are denied this right in other countries?
§ LORD CHALFONTMy Lords, I am not sure that I have entirely understood the implication of the noble Lord's question. As he knows, this derives from Article 9 of the Convention on Human Rights. Resolution 337 merely sets this out in a more specific form. We have ratified the European Convention and so subscribe to its principles. I am not clear whether there is any further implication in the noble Lord's question. Perhaps he will put it more specifically.
§ LORD BEAUMONT OF WHITLEYMy Lords, I thank the noble Lord for giving me this opportunity. If the Government acknowledge that a right to object to military service on conscientious grounds stems from a human right, then surely the Government are not in a position—
§ SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Question!
§ LORD BEAUMONT OF WHITLEYMy Lords, I am putting a question. If the Government acknowledge that right, should they not be prepared, in regard to people who are seeking asylum in this country because they are being dented these rights in other countries, to grant them asylum as a human right and not merely as offenders against a law in their own country? I hope that that is a little clearer to the noble Lord.
§ LORD CHALFONTYes, my Lords, the question is clear. The answer regarding the granting of political asylum is well outside the framework of Resolution 337 or the European Convention on Human Rights. There is a clear doctrine about the granting of political asylum. I believe the noble Lord must be aware of that and of the principles which we adopt in regard to it. I do not see that it is relevant to the question of Resolution 337, which was the subject of the noble Lord's Question.
§ LORD BROCKWAYMy Lords, may I ask my noble friend whether, in view of the fact that this country recognises conscientious objection even on political grounds and extends it to members of the Forces, it is not therefore logical that we should grant asylum to those who on those grounds come to this country from countries where they are being conscripted for such service to which they have a conscientious objection?
§ LORD CHALFONTMy Lords, I am afraid that I cannot accept the logic of this argument. We accept the principles of Resolution 337 and of Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights. I believe that the action of Her Majesty's Government in the area to which my noble friend and the noble Lord have referred is irrelevant to this Convention and to the resolution.
§ LORD BROCKWAYMy Lords, may I further ask my noble friend whether this matter does not derive from an understanding by the NATO Powers in 1951, whether it was not given expression in the Visiting Forces Act adopted by our Government, and whether both these are not inconsistent with Resolution 337 of the European Convention on Human Rights?
§ LORD CHALFONTMy Lords, I cannot agree with that, and I can only repeat that the practice in British law is consistent with Resolution 337 and with the European Convention on Human Rights.
§ LORD BLYTONMy Lords, is my noble friend aware that, since we have been liberal in our opinions in regard to conscientious objection from the time of the First World War, we should like to see this principle world-wide, but that does not mean to say that we should be the receivers of people from all over the world who hold these views but who cannot get their countries to accept this principle?
§ LORD CHALFONTMy Lords, I sympathise with the point of view of my noble friend. I agree that we should like to see a recognition of these human rights, as we recognise them, adopted all over the world.