---

Chinese President (State Visit)

Mr. Hope: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the report of the review of policing arrangements for the state visit of the President of China will be published. [115544]

Mr. Straw: The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis will publish the report later today and I will place a copy in the Library.

Global Cultural Diversity Congress

Mr. Lidington: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 9 March 2000, Official Report, column 818W, on the Global Cultural Diversity Congress, what were the issues that led to his decision that substantial public funds could not be justified to support the Global Cultural Diversity Congress which he became aware of after 7 February. [115054]

Mr. Mike O'Brien: The issues that related to my and my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary's decisions were value for money and whether it was appropriate to inject public funds into a private company in serious difficulties.

Mr. Lidington: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 9 March 2000, Official Report, column 817W, on the Global Cultural Diversity Congress, what undertaking that additional funding would be provided to Global Cultural Diversity Congress 2000 Ltd. by his Department was

17 Mar 2000 : Column: 376W

given by his Department before the Commission for Racial Equality's meeting on 7 February; and if he will make a statement. [115056]

Mr. Mike O'Brien: I do not accept that an undertaking was made that additional funding would be provided.

Mr. Lidington: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 1 March 2000, Official Report, column 288W, on the Global Cultural Diversity Congress, (a) for what reasons he will not place the accountants' report into Global Cultural Diversity Congress 2000 Ltd. in the Library and (b) what was the cost to public funds of the accountants' report into Global Cultural Diversity Congress 2000 Ltd.; and if he will make a statement. [115058]

Mr. Mike O'Brien: The accountant's report was requested to inform consideration by Ministers of the policy issues and never intended for publication.

The final invoice was £31,824.72.

Mr. Lidington: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 9 March 2000, Official Report, column 818W, on the Global Cultural Diversity Congress, from what source he understood the additional funding for the Global Cultural Diversity Congress which was to be discussed at the Commission for Racial Equality's meeting on 7 February would be provided; and if he will make a statement. [115065]

Mr. Mike O'Brien: I understand the potential sources discussed were from the Commission for Racial Equality and Government funds.

Mr. Lidington: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 9 March 2000, Official Report, column 818W, on the Global Cultural Diversity Congress (a) when Mr. Gurbux Singh will take up his duties as Chairman of the Commission for Racial Equality; (b) if the discussions with Mr. Gurbux Singh on the timetable for the review which was announced on 22 February have been completed; and (c) if the review will commence before Mr. Gurbux Singh formally takes up his duties as the Chairman of the Commission for Racial Equality; and if he will make a statement. [115055]

Mr. Mike O'Brien: Mr. Singh officially takes up his position as Chairman in mid May 2000.

The discussions with Mr. Gurbux Singh on the timetable for the review which was announced on 22 February have not been completed.

The review will commence before Mr. Gurbux Singh formally takes up his duties as the Chairman of the Commission for Racial Equality.

Mr. Lidington: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore) of 6 March 2000, Official Report, column 548W, on the Global Cultural Diversity Congress, if the full text of the review conducted by Mr. Gurbux Singh will be placed in the Library; and if he will make a statement. [115057]

Mr. Mike O'Brien: We are assured that the review by Mr. Gurbux Singh will be thorough. He shall review the events that led to the cancellation of the Global Cultural

17 Mar 2000 : Column: 377W

Diversity Congress, including possible implications for the corporate governance of the Commission for Racial Equality and to make recommendations.

The text of the review will be placed in the Library.

Jury Trial

Mr. Lidington: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will estimate (a) the cost to public funds and (b) the amount of Crown court time taken up if (i) 25 per cent., (ii) 50 per cent., (iii) 75 per cent. and (iv) 100 per cent. of defendants electing Crown court trial but refused it by the magistrates under the provisions of the Criminal Justice (Mode of Trial) (No. 2) Bill appealed to the Crown court against the magistrates' decision, assuming that an oral hearing was granted in (1) 25 per cent., (2) 50 per cent., (3) 75 per cent. and (4) 100 per cent. of appeals for each proportion of appeals in (i) to (iv); [115212]

(2) pursuant to his answer of 9 March 2000, Official Report, column 820W, on jury trial, what research he has undertaken into the likelihood of a defendant appealing against magistrates' decision as to mode of trial under the provisions of the Criminal Justice (Mode of Trial) (No. 2) Bill; if he will place a copy of the research in the Library; and if he will make a statement. [115061]

Mr. Charles Clarke: No research has been conducted on this issue. It is assumed that the magistrates will decide to try about 13,940 cases. There is no cost to public funds but the implications of appeals on the estimated savings from the Bill are contained in the table.

	Appeal rate
Oral hearing rate	25 per cent.	50 per cent.	75 per cent.	100 per cent.
25 per cent.
£ million savings	128	122	116	110
Number of hours	799	1,597	2,396	3,196
50 per cent.
£ million savings	126	119	112	104
Number of hours	1,017	2,035	3,051	4,066
75 per cent.
£ million savings	125	116	107	99
Number of hours	1,235	2,470	3,703	4,398
100 per cent.
£ million savings	124	113	103	93
Number of hours	1,454	2,904	4,358	5,808

Mr. Lidington: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, (1) pursuant to his answer of 9 March 2000, Official Report, column 820W, on jury trial, what discussions he has had with (a) resident judges, (b) other circuit judges and (c) the Crown Prosecution Service regarding the requirement for resident judges and their nominated deputies to hear appeals from magistrates' decisions as to mode of trial within 48 hours, under the provisions of the Criminal Justice (Mode of Trial) (No. 2) Bill; what was the nature of those discussions; what representations he has received; and if he will make a statement; [115062]

(2) what research he has undertaken into the feasibility of resident judges hearing appeals against magistrates' decisions as to mode of trial within 48 hours under the

17 Mar 2000 : Column: 378W

provisions of the Criminal Justice (Mode of Trial) (No. 2) Bill; if he will place a copy of the research in the Library; and if he will make a statement. [115064]

Mr. Charles Clarke: The proposal that appeals on mode of trial should be subject to a speedy procedure with determination within 48 hours was discussed with the Senior Judiciary and the Crown Prosecution Service. No research has been undertaken on this matter and no representations have been received.

Political Parties (Donations)

Mr. Lidington: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what estimate he has made of the annual cost of a scheme to promote tax relief for donations of £500 or less to political parties; and if he will place in the Library the results of research which he has undertaken into the cost of such a scheme. [115122]

Mr. Mike O'Brien: The cost of a scheme would depend on the number and size of donations (up to a £500 limit) in respect of which qualifying political parties claimed relief. The Government's White Paper on the Funding of Political Parties in the United Kingdom, published in July 1999, estimated the loss of revenue at upwards of £4 million or £5 million a year. This estimate was based on an assumption that the three main parties would claim relief on an average donation of £20 from each of their members.

---