Previous Section Back to Table of Contents Lords Hansard Home Page


Armed Forces:Recruitment and Retention Measures

Baroness Cox asked Her Majesty's Government:

Earl Howe: A number of measures are being taken to encourage recruiting and retention in the Armed Forces. These include targeted recruitment advertising campaigns; payment of a recruitment bounty to marines and soldiers who persuade others to enlist; and payment of a retention bonus to those who serve beyond the three year commitment in the Royal Marines and the Army, where most shortages occur.

There was a much improved level of recruitment in the final quarter of 1995-96 and that has continued into the current year. In the first quarter of this year there was a 53 per cent. increase in Army enlistments compared to the same period last year; enlistments into the infantry have almost doubled. In addition, over a similar period, there has been a 35 per cent. increase in applications for Royal Marines, General Duties.

25 Jul 1996 : Column WA168

The Government has also been considering the proposals made by Sir Michael Bett's Independent Review of the Services' manpower, career and remuneration structure.

Our guiding principle is to seek to develop terms and conditions that will enable the Services to recruit and retain people of the right calibre and with the mix of skills required for our Armed Forces in the future.

More work is still required on detailed options. It is likely that those will be set out in a report later this year which would provide the basis for an information exercise within the Forces.

Healthcare in Prisons

Baroness Hayman asked Her Majesty's Government:

    Whether they will place in the Library of the House a copy of Her Majesty's Inspector of Prisons' recent report on healthcare in prisons.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Blatch): Responsibility for this matter has been delegated to the Director General of the Prison Service, who has been asked to arrange for a reply to be given.

Letter to Baroness Hayman from the Director of Personnel of the Prison Service, Mr. David Scott, dated 25th July 1996.

Lady Blatch has asked me, in the absence of the Director General from the office, to reply to your recent Question about Her Majesty's Inspector of Prisons' recent report on healthcare in prisons.

A report on prison healthcare by Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Prisons will be published in due course and a copy placed in the Library.

Asylum Claim Requirement: Information to Passengers

Lord Donaldson of Lymington asked Her Majesty's Government:

    What measures they have adopted and intend hereafter to adopt with a view to ensuring that every intending entrant to the United Kingdom, not having a right of abode, knows of the need to make any claim for asylum at the port of entry and of the penalties, in terms of loss of financial assistance and credibility, if the claim is made "in country".

Baroness Blatch: During the debate on the Asylum and Immigration Bill on 22nd July, suggestions were made that notices to that effect should be placed on landing cards or in airports. We have undertaken to consider that suggestion and will do so. However all passengers seeking entry are examined on arrival by an immigration officer. Anyone who has a fear of persecution can therefore express that fear immediately and genuine refugees should have no reason to answer questions otherwise than truthfully.

25 Jul 1996 : Column WA169

Police Officers and Party Political Broadcasts

Lord Kennet asked Her Majesty's Government:

    Whether permission was given by the Home Secretary (or anyone else) for a police officer, or someone impersonating a police officer, to take part in a party political television broadcast; whether this was lawful; and if not, what steps they are taking regarding this matter.

Baroness Blatch: Paragraph 1 of Schedule 2 to the Police Regulations 1995 specifies that a member of a police force shall not take any active part in politics. It would be for the chief officer of the force concerned to decide whether any member of his force appeared to be in breach of that condition, and what steps to take in the event of any such breach.

Human Rights Findings by European Commission

Lord Lester of Herne Hill asked Her Majesty's Government:

    Further to the Answer given by Baroness Blatch on 15th July 1996 (WA 42), what they consider to be the reason that 24 allegations of violations of the European Convention on Human Rights were declared admissible by the European Commission on Human Rights against the United Kingdom during a period in which only three allegations of violation were declared admissible against the German Government; and whether they consider that comparisons of this kind are significant.

Baroness Blatch: There are many reasons for the difference in numbers of applications declared admissible by the Commission in respect of any State Party to the Convention, including the number of applications received by the Commission from within the state concerned. As regards the significance of such comparisons, I would refer the noble Lord to my statement on 3rd July (H.L. Deb., cols. 1567-68): the wider range of figures cited there makes clear that incorporation of the Convention by a State Party has no demonstrable effect upon the number of applications declared admissible by the European Commission on Human Rights.

Refugee Status

Earl Russell asked Her Majesty's Government:

    Whether they accept that in matters involving the UN Convention, the word "refugee" applies to asylum seekers from the moment they make their claim, and if not, how they reconcile their view with Article 31.1 of the Convention.

Baroness Blatch: In the Government's opinion the Convention does not entitle asylum seekers to be treated as refugees until their refugee status has been recognised. The Government's view is entirely consistent with Article 31.1.

25 Jul 1996 : Column WA170

Asylum Applicants:Removal to Safe Third Countries

Earl Russell asked Her Majesty's Government:

    Further to the Secretary of State for Social Security's remarks on 15th July (H.C. Deb., col. 849), which clause of the Geneva Convention allows the return of asylum applicants to safe third countries.

Baroness Blatch: Article 33.1 provides that no contracting state shall expel or return a refugee to the frontiers of territories where his life or freedom would be threatened on account of his race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion. Removing asylum applicants to safe third countries is entirely compatible with that requirement.

Refugees and Benefit Removal

The Viscount of Falkland asked Her Majesty's Government:

    Whether the Secretary of State for Social Security's claim on 15th July (H.C. Deb., col. 854) that "we are taking away benefit only from illegal immigrants" is compatible with Article 31.1 of the UN Convention on Refugees, and if so, how.

Baroness Blatch: My right honourable friend said: "We are taking away benefit only from illegal immigrants, from people who change their story after they have arrived in Britain claiming to be something other than asylum seekers, and from people found not to be genuine refugees". The Government are satisfied that their policy is entirely compatible with the UN Convention.

Asylum Applications: Success Rates

The Viscount of Falkland asked Her Majesty's Government:

    Whether they accept the view of Lord Justice Simon Brown that there is no significant difference between the success rates of asylum applicants claiming in-country and of those claiming at the ports.

Baroness Blatch: In 1995 79.6 per cent. of in-country applicants were refused asylum and exceptional leave, compared with 77.6 per cent. of port applicants. However, the important issue, in the Government's opinion, is that those granted leave to enter on the basis that they will support themselves during their stay without recourse to public funds should be held to that requirement, whether or not they claim asylum. The previous regulations were an open invitation to people who have entered illegally, or for a different purpose, to gain access to the benefit system by making an abusive asylum application.

25 Jul 1996 : Column WA171

Asylum Seekers Lacking Documentation

The Viscount of Falkland asked Her Majesty's Government:

    Further to the Secretary of State for Social Security's remarks on 15th July (H.C. Deb., col. 850), whether his claim that the amendment passed in the House of Lords on 1st July would mean that "anyone who entered this country some time ago could destroy their documentation and claim to have arrived recently" implies that the Immigration Service would be bound by an irrefutable presumption that such a claim was true and if so, whether this would be a unique case in immigration law.

Baroness Blatch: While there would not be an irrefutable presumption that those without documents had arrived recently, if they said they had it would in practice be very difficult to refuse benefits to such a person on the grounds that they had not arrived recently when there was no documentary evidence as to the date of their arrival. Often there would be no evidence with which to refute their claim.


Next Section Back to Table of Contents Lords Hansard Home Page