Previous Section Back to Table of Contents Lords Hansard Home Page

Lord Roberts of Llandudno: My Lords, I am relieved by and appreciate the Minister's reply. Bearing in mind the Statement to be made later this afternoon, may we have the Government's wholehearted commitment to upholding our place in the 1951 convention, which was approved at the time by all parties in this House and was introduced and ratified on 11 March 1954 by Sir Winston Churchill's Conservative government?

Lord Rooker: My Lords, bearing in mind the Statement to be made later this afternoon, I have to ask the noble Lord to wait for that Statement. The Home Secretary has a Statement that will be repeated in this House, so we shall have plenty of time to question it.

The broad answer to the noble Lord's question is yes, but I add something that people do not always accept: the 1951 convention is not open-ended, as anyone who reads Articles 1F and 33.2, both debated at length in this House, will see. People get the wrong impression about it. But we have no plans to renegotiate or opt-out.

Baroness Rawlings: My Lords, does the Minister agree that on the eve of the previous general election, weeks before the 50th anniversary of the 1951 United Nations Convention on Refugees, the Prime Minister wrote in the Times that he would make reform of the convention a priority, should the Labour Party win the
 
7 Feb 2005 : Column 541
 
election? Will the Minister set out what aspects of the convention the Government have sought to reform since the 2001 general election?

Lord Rooker: My Lords, we have accepted that there are problems with the convention and the language in which it is written.

Noble Lords: Oh.

Lord Rooker: No, my Lords, we have accepted that. That has nothing to do with the dates. The noble Baroness's party would withdraw from the convention, as has recently been made clear. We have no plans for that. We are seeking to tackle how the convention can be abused. We have a record of legislative change in the past four years, with others possibly to be announced today, to bring that about: to stop the abuse of the convention, not to opt out of it.

Lord Judd: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that, when he gives that immensely reassuring answer on our commitment to the convention, we should all remember that in our serious commitment to spreading democracy and human rights throughout world, how we perform toward the victims of tyranny is one way by which we shall be judged?

Lord Rooker: My Lords, I agree entirely with my noble friend.

Lord Dholakia: My Lords, has the Minister worked out the implications of the Opposition's statement about withdrawal from the UN Convention on Refugees for our European partners and the European Court?

Lord Rooker: No, my Lords, I have not and I do not think that the Government have. It is for the Opposition to work that out.

Lord Tebbit: My Lords, does the Minister recollect that my noble friend asked him a question? He did not give an answer. What exactly did the Prime Minister do to fulfil his undertaking in the article in the Times just before the previous election? He must surely have an answer in his briefing.

Lord Rooker: My Lords, I answered the question perfectly satisfactorily. I made it clear that, although the language of the convention is old, drafted a long time ago for a different period and, as I said, is not open-ended—although when one raises that, one may still be attacked for it—the problem from which we were suffering in this country was abuse of the convention. That is why we have sought, sometimes with the co-operation of our European partners and other countries, to close the loopholes and end the abuse of the convention.

Lord Avebury: My Lords, will the Minister remind the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, that the UNHCR itself initiated a two-year consultation on the interpretation
 
7 Feb 2005 : Column 542
 
of the convention, which was extremely productive and led to widespread agreement among all signatory states?

Lord Rooker: Yes, my Lords, but we have also accepted that the convention itself, in some ways because of its age, cannot cope with all today's problems. We must deal with them in other ways, as we have sought to do. We have developed plans with the UN High Commissioner and our European partners because, by and large, although it is not the case with everybody, in order to arrive in the United Kingdom, people by definition have travelled through safe countries. That issue must be, and is being, addressed.

Earl Attlee: My Lords, will the Minister now answer my noble friend and say what the Prime Minister has done?

Lord Rooker: My Lords, he has promoted, guided and led umpteen legislative changes, which have cut by over a half the number of those reaching this country and claiming asylum.

Committee on Standards in Public Life: 10th Report

2.50 p.m.

Lord Goodhart asked Her Majesty's Government:

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, the committee's 10th report was published on 19 January. We will give it careful and thorough consideration and respond in due course.

Lord Goodhart: My Lords, I am aware that the Government have two months in which to reply to the committee's report. In considering it, are the Government likely to accept the conclusion of the Committee on Standards in Public Life, in paragraph 2.5, that the public appointments system must be reformed,

Having regard to previous reports of the committee, will the Government take on board also the recommendation in the report of the Public Administration Select Committee, published last Thursday, that allegations of misconduct by Ministers should be investigated by the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration, the ombudsman, and not by a person chosen by the Prime Minister or the Government?
 
7 Feb 2005 : Column 543
 

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I am sure that the noble Lord will not be surprised to hear me say that it would be premature for me to comment on those matters. They will obviously be part of the Government's broad consideration of this very important, detailed report. We will make our response fully available and open for debate in due course.

Lord Sheldon: My Lords, the report points out the need for close alignment between the public appointments system as it stands now and the Civil Service appointments system. What action does the Minister propose to take to encourage that closer alignment?

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, we have been looking carefully at the matter. As I am sure the noble Lord will appreciate, it will be among the issues that come up for debate and will be part of our consideration of this report.

Baroness Howe of Idlicote: My Lords, can the Minister assure the House that, when coming to their conclusions on the matter, the Government will take full account of the need to avoid eroding public confidence in the independence of the Commissioner for Public Appointments, which the present holder of that office so successfully achieved?

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, Dame Rennie Fritchie has done a first-class job, as everybody in government acknowledges. We greatly respect her views on all those matters. We will all benefit a great deal if we think long and hard about her record and reputation. Of course we want to ensure the highest possible standards in public appointments.

Lord Borrie: My Lords, has the Minister noticed the statement made in the report that,

who blows the whistle on fraud or corruption? Will the Minister endorse the committee's proposal that there should be a review of whistle-blowing procedures in the various organisations concerned to ensure that best practice, especially that of the Audit Commission, prevails?

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, the noble Lord makes a very good point in drawing attention to that part of the report. We will give it a great deal of thought. The noble Lord is right: much more will need to be done to ensure that people understand the importance of that protection; and, indeed, that much more knowledge about best practice is shared.


Next Section Back to Table of Contents Lords Hansard Home Page