§ Lynne JonesTo ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to the answer to the hon. Member for Thurrock (Andrew Mackinlay) of 21 May 2002,Official Report, column 261W, on the OPCW, if he will make a statement on the financial and administrative management differences referred to. [62196]
§ Mr. Mike O'BrienWe understood the main financial and administrative differences to be:
(a) The failure of the OPCW Secretariat to implement the Financial Regulations in 2000, leading to expenditure exceeding income by £2.5 million.
(b) Presentation by the Secretariat of incomplete and occasionally inaccurate information on the financial situation in 2001.
(c) The drastic cuts in the operational programme intended to resolve the 2001 financial situation, before the scale of the problem was clear and the options evaluated.
294W(d) Presentation of unrealistic budgetary proposals, over a number of years, that required extensive revision.
(e) The handling of a staff grading review which led to legal action at the ILO Administrative Tribunal, and the handling of action subsequent to the ILO judgment.
§ Lynne JonesTo ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to the answer to the hon. Member for Thurrock (Andrew Mackinlay) of 21 May 2002,Official Report, columns 261–62W, on the OPCW, if he will list the evident shortcomings referred to. [62197]
§ Mr. Mike O'BrienThe shortcomings relate to the failure to comply with the OPCW financial regulations. These regulations require the irector-General to "prudently manage appropriations…to ensure that expenditures can be kept within funds available". Expenditure in 2000 exceeded income by £2.5 million. The OPCW external auditor's report on the 2000 financial statements confirmed that these provisions had not been complied with and recommended corrective action. The external auditor also drew attention to the failure to comply with regulations governing transfers of funds between appropriations, and recommended action to minimise excessive use of transfers.
§ Lynne JonesTo ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 24 May 2002,Official Report, column 603W, if he will make a statement on (a) the views expressed by the members of the OPCW represented on the Executive Council, and (b) the views expressed by the UK at that time. [61989]
§ Mr. Mike O'BrienA significant number of the members of the Executive Council expressed the view that they had lost confidence in the Director-General. As a result, the UK concluded that it would be in the best interests of the OPCW and the Chemical Weapons Convention if the Director-General were to step down voluntarily to make way for someone who could enjoy the full confidence of all the members of the organisation. The Director-General was informed of the UK's position prior to the vote of no confidence at the Executive Council meeting in March.