| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord Greaves: My Lords, it is reported that yesterday the Home Secretary made a decision that asylum seekers will no longer be allowed to apply for work after they have been in this country for six months. Is that not a mean and unfortunate decision—made at the behest of the French Interior Minister, M. Sarkozy, who is one of the more hard-line right-wing populists in European government? The increase
in the speed of decision-making that the Government have been able to bring about is very welcome; but there will always be some asylum seekers whose cases are complex and difficult and in regard to whom a decision will take considerably longer. Is it not good for those people that they should be allowed the experience of working here, good for the country, and good in terms of staying in contact with asylum seekers, so that, whatever the end decision, we know where they are?
Lord Filkin: My Lords, I do not think that the noble Lord's original suggestion is right. The employment concession was introduced in 1986 when asylum claims were rocketing upwards and the backlog of claims on which the Government could give initial decisions was becoming lengthy. The decision to withdraw it has been taken because of our success in reducing the backlog. New applicants now have their claims dealt with in far less than six months. Therefore, the employment concession is no longer necessary. A person who is accepted for asylum or granted exceptional leave to remain is entitled to work in this country.
Viscount Bridgeman: My Lords, in evidence to the Home Affairs Select Committee in March 2001, the Government's target for removal of failed asylum seekers, as the Minister said, was given as 30,000 for 2001–02, rising in 2002–03 to 33,000. Does the Minister agree that the current rate for the first quarter of 2002 of approximately 1,000 a month is most disappointing? Since the Minister still adheres to the target of 30,000, can he give any indication as to when that can be achieved?
Lord Filkin: My Lords, I should be in danger of repeating myself. I have said why I believe that the target is still appropriate as a goal. If one looks at the ratio of non-accepted cases, over time we should get to that level. It will depend on how rapidly we can get return agreements with the countries concerned; on increasing the number of detentions; and on managing more tightly the detection of people who have been rejected for asylum. I am confident that we are making good progress, but it will no doubt take several years to get there.
Lord Corbett of Castle Vale: My Lords, will my noble friend remind the House where we are in discussions with our partners in the European Union on agreeing and implementing a common asylum policy, and on making it possible for people to claim asylum in the first safe country in which they arrive?
Lord Filkin: My Lords, essentially the Dublin agreement was based on the expectation that asylum claims should be processed in the first country in which asylum seekers arrive; therefore, that should be the point at which asylum cases are heard. For reasons with which I shall not bore the House, that arrangement has not worked as well as Members on these Benches or the other side had hoped. That is why
we are negotiating Dublin 2. Active discussions are taking place within the European Union to seek to increase intergovernmental co-operation to get to grips with this issue.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, can the noble Lord—
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords—
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Williams of Mostyn): My Lords, I think that it is time for the next Question.
Alcopops
3 p.m.
Lord Dubs asked Her Majesty's Government:
- How they assess the part played by alcopops in contributing to the problem of drinking by young persons.
Baroness Andrews: My Lords, the Government are aware of the need to take action to combat alcohol misuse among young people. This issue will be examined as part of the Government's alcohol harm reduction strategy. The department monitors the consumption of alcopops and other drinks by young people on an annual basis.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that Answer. Does she agree that the majority of parents wish to encourage their teenage children to drink in moderation and safely, and that the existence of alcopops—designed to appear like lemonade; sweet, syrupy, and perhaps seductive to children—undermines the intention of parents, encourages young children to drink to excess, and therefore weakens the Government's whole policy?
Baroness Andrews: My Lords, I recognise that there have been concerns about alcopops for some time and I have every sympathy for parents who are struggling with the issue in relation to their children. However, we should recognise that teenage drinking levels have been increasing over the past decade and are not actually linked to alcopops. I think that the most effective action that we can take is to ensure that young people have all the available information on the harm that alcohol can cause, and have and enforce the laws that we need to stop the underage purchasing of alcohol.
Baroness Sharples: My Lords, although we may not be described as young persons, I wonder whether alcopops are sold in the House?
Baroness Andrews: My Lords, I am very pleased to say that I have no idea.
Viscount Falkland: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that, not so very long ago, a presentation was made by the doctors and young patients at a Liverpool
hospital which outlined a very alarming increase in underage drinking particularly in that area, for which they laid the blame at the feet of manufacturers making and marketing what are known as alcopops? The industry, quite naturally, has always denied that alcopops are aimed specifically at children. However, it has lately been noticeable that they have changed and toned down the labelling and packaging of alcopops. Is it not revealing that a company such as Cadbury Schweppes—which has a very high moral attitude in the manufacturing and marketing of its products—will have nothing whatever to do with them?
Baroness Andrews: Yes, my Lords, that is extremely interesting. The advertising of alcopops, like that of alcohol generally, is bound by the general rules for advertising and the specific rules relating to alcohol. We are grateful for the efforts of the Portman Group in promoting responsible advertising. The fact is that we have received very few complaints about alcohol advertising overall, which I think indicates that some responsibility is being exercised. I also do not think that young people are influenced entirely by advertising. There is a cultural issue here. We have to address that, and it is very difficult.
Baroness Massey of Darwen: My Lords, can the Minister confirm that the national alcohol strategy will be out for consultation this summer? Does she agree that the issue of young people's drinking, including alcopops, is a matter for interdepartmental awareness and action involving the departments responsible for education, health, social services and sales? Can she also confirm that the Government will develop an interdepartmental approach to the issue?
Baroness Andrews: My Lords, the strategy is out for consultation and will include a very strong element of intelligence about young people's drinking. We also have an interdepartmental policy in terms of the work being done by the Department for Education and Skills and the Department of Health to promote health standards in schools. They will use the extra money that we are allocating to provide information on substance misuse, in the most effective way possible, to both schools and the community.
Lord Astor of Hever: My Lords, in 1997, the Government established a ministerial group on alcopops. How many times has this group met? What advice has it given on the availability of alcopops and the consequent effect on alcohol consumption?
Baroness Andrews: My Lords, I have no information on the group, but I should be pleased to write to the noble Lord to give him the available information.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, has the Minister taken note of the experience in Scotland, where the alcohol strategy has been out for some time, and where
particular emphasis is placed on trying to discourage drinking among young people? Could not England and Wales learn from the experience of Scotland?
Baroness Andrews: My Lords, we are on track to deliver the alcohol strategy by 2004. This week the Prime Minister announced that the Cabinet Office strategy unit would look specifically at the question of the harm done by alcohol and will report in April 2003. I am sure that there are always things that we can learn from Scotland.
Business
Lord Grocott: My Lords, with the leave of the House, at a convenient time after 3.30 p.m., my noble and learned friend the Leader of the House will repeat a Statement being made in another place on Northern Ireland.
Procedure of the House: Select Committee Report
3.5 p.m.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, who first proposed this method of proceeding. I hope that it allows the flexibility that your Lordships would wish so that all views may reasonably be heard. It does give us the advantage of flexibility. If I may, I shall trespass on your Lordships time for just a moment or two.
On 21st May, we debated the package of recommendations of the group that I chaired on the working practices of this House. On that day, the House agreed without a vote that the report should be remitted to the Procedure Committee with the instruction to that committee to make recommendations on how to implement each proposal. I am very grateful to those who served on the Procedure Committee. Our debates were lengthy and full. I am grateful to support the report which has been produced.
I should like, if I may, to mention one or two other matters. I would suggest to your Lordships that this is a very appropriate time for us to be putting our minds to these questions. In the past year, we have agreed to and introduced a code of conduct which is more transparent and more rigorous than that to be discovered at the other end of the building. We have agreed that it is critically important that the Opposition and Cross-Benchers should be properly resourced in this House. The Chancellor has been extremely generous in agreeing that the Conservative Front-Bench allocation should increase from about £227,000 per year to rather more than £390,000 per year; the Liberal Democrat allocation from about £68,000 to £195,000; and the Cross-Bencher allocation from £21,000 to £35,000—the latter, and the latter alone, to be backdated to April 2001. That is
important because, as I have said in this Chamber before, I believe that we do need properly resourced and funded opposition. We lacked it when we were in opposition, but we have not held that against anyone. I hope that your Lordships think that that is a proper and indeed a generous approach.We have acquired Millbank House and Fielden House. Consequently, we are in sight of being able to provide proper accommodation and desk space for all Members. Of course, we have now also introduced the free first-class postage.
Our fundamental work, I would suggest, is to scrutinise the executive as effectively as we can and to revise legislation as scrupulously as we can. I repeat, if I may, what I offered to the House when we discussed the group report on 21st May. It is intended to be a package. Some of the amendments today will undoubtedly, if carried, destroy the balance of the package and its fundamental integrity. I beg to move.
Moved, That the 5th Report from the Select Committee on Procedure of the House, together with any amendments relating thereto, be considered in a Committee of the Whole House.—(Lord Williams of Mostyn.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page