House of Commons
Monday 26 June 2000
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[Madam Speaker in the Chair]
GLOBAL CULTURAL DIVERSITY CONGRESS
- That an humble address be presented to Her Majesty, That she will be graciously pleased to give directions that there shall be laid before this House a Return of the Review of events leading up to the cancellation of the Global Cultural Diversity Congress, including possible implications for corporate governance of the Commission for Racial Equality, by Gurbux Singh.--[Mr. Straw.]
Oral Answers to Questions
HOME DEPARTMENT
The Secretary of State was asked--
Global Cultural Diversity Congress
1. Mr. James Gray (North Wiltshire): If he will make a statement about the cancellation of the global cultural diversity congress. [126117]
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Mike O'Brien): My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has today published Gurbux Singh's report of his review of the events leading up to the cancellation of the global cultural diversity congress, and has placed copies of the report in the Library.
My right hon. Friend and I are grateful to Gurbux Singh for his thorough review. We accept his findings. The review shows that there were plainly serious failings in the preparation for the congress. However, there is no evidence of impropriety. No single event or individual caused the cancellation of the congress. The decision by Ministers not to invest further public funds in the congress was not taken lightly, but it was the correct decision.
We still await the report of the liquidators of GCDC 2000 Ltd., the company set up by the Commission for Racial Equality to run the congress. In the meantime, we welcome the 10 recommendations made by Gurbux Singh about structure, procedure and training. We will ensure that they are implemented, improving financial and risk management within the CRE and clarifying roles, responsibilities and delegated responsibilities within the CRE and between the CRE and the Home Office. There are clearly lessons to be learned from GCDC 2000, and they will be applied to the management of other non-departmental public bodies.
Mr. Gray: I am grateful to the Minister for that statement, as I think it could be called, in reply to my
question. Call me cynical, but I suspect that the placing of the report in the Library may not be unconnected with the fact that I was due to ask this question today. We will consult with some care the report to which the Minister referred, but I hope that the hon. Gentleman will answer one straightforward, factual question. Is it true, as one commissioner for racial equality claims, that the shambles over GCDC 2000 will cost the Government a total of £1 million--£600,000 of which will go to reimbursing the CRE, and £400,000 of which will be made up of Home Office expenses? If so, will the Minister take responsibility?
Mr. O'Brien: I assure the hon. Gentleman that the placing of the report in the Library was directly related to his question, which provided a good opportunity for publication.
Some losses will of course be incurred. We must await the liquidator's report before we know how great they are, although we estimate that they will be quite a bit less than the hon. Gentleman suggests. However, the immediate liability will lie with GCDC 2000 Ltd., the limited liability company set up by the CRE. We will have to wait and see whether any liability extends to the CRE. I do not anticipate that any funding will have to be made available by the Home Office for that. In July 1998, we made it clear that we would not put extra public funding into the project, and we stuck by that decision in February.
Mr. David Davis (Haltemprice and Howden): The Minister will be aware that the problem and its associated irregularities have delayed this year's National Audit Office report on the CRE. Will he give the House an undertaking that the Comptroller and Auditor General will have access to all relevant information--including information about the limited liability company, to which he would not normally be able to refer?
Mr. O'Brien: Obviously, we will give as much information as we have in our possession to the Public Accounts Committee so that it can conduct its proper inquiries. There is no problem with that. When the right hon. Gentleman studies the report by Gurbux Singh he will see that it is very thorough, but we must of course await what the liquidators have to say about the outcome of their review of the matter. I gather that their report may be a few weeks, or even months, away.
Mr. David Lidington (Aylesbury): I thank the Minister for his courtesy in letting me have an early copy of Mr. Gurbux Singh's report. Would he not agree that it represents a devastating catalogue of incompetence and mismanagement in the CRE, its holding company and the Home Office? Will he confirm that, among other charges, Mr. Singh says that the original budget for the conference was over-optimistic, that its costings were never assessed independently, that the accounting officer was kept in the dark, and that the process for approving funding was
- not as independent as it could have been?
Mr. O'Brien: I ensured that the hon. Gentleman would receive a copy of the report before questions today, and I accept that that report discloses that there were failings, especially in GCDC 2000 Ltd., the company set up by the CRE. However, I do not think that that justifies a general attack on all the good work that the CRE has often done in the past. The hon. Gentleman needs to be careful not to get involved in that.
The CRE has protected its statutory independence from the Home Office and the Home Office has, to some extent, respected that over many years. However, we welcome Gurbux Singh's advice that in future there needs to be a closer working relationship between the Home Office and the CRE. In particular, the Home Office will want to be sure that it monitors carefully the financial issues in the CRE, and Gurbux Singh will be content with that, I know.
We think that many issues will emerge from the report. However, many of the recommendations in Gurbux Singh's report have already been implemented or will be implemented, and they will address the issues that came out of GCDC.
Licensing Laws
2. Mrs. Diana Organ (Forest of Dean): What response he has received from the police about his proposals to amend licensing laws. [126118]
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Mike O'Brien): As my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary said when publishing our White Paper on the reform of the licensing laws on 10 April, it would be helpful to receive responses by the end of July. I look forward to receiving comments from the Association of Chief Police Officers and other police bodies by then.
Mrs. Organ: I thank the Minister for his reply. I know that the Government's proposals are warmly welcomed by industry and by alcohol abuse organisations. However, what representations has he had from magistrates and local authorities? The magistrates bench in Coleford in Forest of Dean is particularly concerned about the issue, as the magistrates there do not believe that the local authority has the expertise to deal with the matter. Moreover, my local authority in Forest of Dean is concerned about the costs that it may incur should such a modernisation take place.
Mr. O'Brien: I agree with my hon. Friend that the new measures will be good for the police, business, consumers, families and local residents. We have had representations from magistrates and local authorities, and we will obviously take them into full and proper consideration. Magistrates will be involved in the process because the magistrates court will be the court of appeal for many of the issues and will also deal with matters relating to penalties which may need to be imposed on rogue landlords. So in those circumstances, they will retain a role.
Local authorities have expressed some concern about costs, but the White Paper contains provision for the administrative costs that fall on local authorities to be met from fees.
Mr. Michael Fabricant (Lichfield): The Minister will know from living in the area that Lichfield is sensibly and efficiently run by a Conservative council. I have no hesitation in recommending that local authorities, when they are Conservative, should be in charge of licensing laws. However, does the Minister accept that dour, dank, possibly even corrupt, councils run by Labour may take the view that they do not want licensing laws to be extended? In those circumstances, at certain times of the evening, people will drift from those rather dour authorities into the happy, sunlit hidden uplands of areas such as Lichfield, which are sensibly run by a Conservative council.
Mr. O'Brien: There was a Labour administration in Lichfield until very recently, and I am sure that it was responsible for anything good that has been done in Lichfield.
Local residents need some say in the way in which the licensing scheme operates. After due consideration, we took the view that the best way of ensuring that local residents had a say was for their elected representatives to play a key part in making decisions. It would be regrettable if the hon. Gentleman believed that local councillors in Lichfield or elsewhere were unqualified as elected representatives to make decisions affecting local people.
Mr. Bill O'Brien (Normanton): I thank my hon. Friend for his response to that question. There must be a review of the licensing laws, for planning and other issues. Given the expertise and material that magistrates and magistrates clerks have obtained over a period of time, I consider that magistrates should be on the licensing committees. It would be wrong to ignore the expertise in the clerks' offices and on the magistrates bench. I appeal to my hon. Friend to ensure that magistrates are included on the committees that will issue licenses following the change.
Mr. Mike O'Brien: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his contribution. I shall certainly take his views to the review that we are carrying out of the consultation on the White Paper. No doubt, many different organisations and individuals, including many hon. Members, will wish to make representations on the subject, and we shall consider them all. As I said, magistrates will continue to have an important role in the administration of licensing law and, particularly, in imposing penalties and as part of the appeals process. They will still have a role, but we wanted to ensure that we brought local authorities into the process as well. My hon. Friend's suggestion that local authorities and magistrates might work together is certainly well worth considering.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |