| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. John Hutton): Has the right hon. Gentleman read the regulatory impact assessment that accompanied the Bill, and which dealt with all those issues?
Mr. Forth: I am grateful to the Minister for being helpful so far into the debate. He might or might not accept a bit of friendly advice from me--if he had done the House the courtesy of rising to move his money resolution and explaining what lay behind it, he might have truncated the proceedings. If he wants to do it back to front, that is entirely up to him. Whether or not I have read any document is neither here nor there. [Interruption.] This is a debate, and it is the occasion on which the House of Commons has an opportunity to consider these matters.
Mr. Keith Bradley (Treasurer of Her Majesty's Household): Idiot.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): Order. The House must listen to the right hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Forth: If the hon. Member for Manchester, Withington (Mr. Bradley) is moved to shout "idiot",
he will not help his colleagues, who are anxious to get home. Each time he says "idiot", he will add a considerable number of minutes to my speech. I invite him to think a little more carefully before he does that again because he will earn no brownie points from his hon. Friends.
I shall now address briefly--albeit not quite as briefly as I had originally intended--the main item in the Bill that is likely to cause extra expenditure. The provisions for the tribunal must surely require considerable extra expenditure, not only because of the requirements set out in the clause, but because of those that are usefully set out in some detail in the schedule to the Bill. It would be helpful if the Minister were to explain in some detail the possible elements of expenditure.
Not only does the schedule contain the usual provisions that one expects in setting up a tribunal--provisions relating to the president, the panels of persons, the process of appointment and so on--but there are provisions relating to meetings and training, which one might have thought would require a considerable amount of on-going bureaucratic commitment, to say nothing of provisions relating to staff and accommodation required by the tribunal and also to remuneration and expenses. The schedule helpfully spells out that:
Mr. Andrew Lansley (South Cambridgeshire):
Ministers believe that the costs of an appeal tribunal can be met within current provision for Departments--the regulatory impact assessment mentions a figure of £500,000 shared between the Department of Health and the Department for Education and Employment. However, my right hon. Friend shares my perception that the fact that costs can be met within current provision does not mean that they should not be subject to scrutiny and explicitly approved by the House.
Mr. Forth:
Like my hon. Friend, I always thought that that was the point of a money resolution. It appears to have escaped Labour Members, but my hon. Friend and I share the view that a money resolution debate is a vital part of the mechanism for the proper scrutiny and consideration of a Bill--especially given that it is a private Member's Bill and none of the matters currently being considered were touched on during Second Reading. The fact that figures may or may not exist in a document is no excuse for them not to be properly considered on the Floor of the House and put on the record. That is why the Minister's contribution should be helpful.
On the matter of attendance allowances, the schedule to the Bill states:
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. John Hutton):
I must correct the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) on one point. He expressed concern that I had not moved the money resolution. It is normal for money resolutions to be moved by Ministers, but I should point out that Government Whips are Ministers.
Much of our time tonight could have been spared if the right hon. Gentleman had read the regulatory impact assessment. It is quite clear from his contribution that, unfortunately, he has not had the opportunity to read the assessment, in which we set out in some detail most of the issues that he raised in the House this evening. He will certainly be aware of the purpose of the Bill and what it seeks to do because he took part in the Second Reading debate only last week. We welcomed his contribution then, as we do tonight.
I shall try to respond to some of the right hon. Gentleman's concerns about the money resolution. The Bill creates an obligation upon the Secretary of State to maintain a list of individuals deemed unsuitable to work with children and allows other organisations to refer names to the Department of Health list in certain circumstances. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, there is presently no statutory requirement on child care organisations to refer to the list or to check names against the present Department of Health consultancy index. The Bill will change that arrangement. Once included on the list, the individual concerned will be prevented from obtaining employment in certain positions.
Additional costs associated with the establishment and operation of the appeals tribunal will fall on the Department of Health and the Department for Education and Employment. The tribunal will hear all appeals from people in the child care and health service fields against inclusion on the Department of Health list. It will deal also with appeals from List 99, which is a similar list operated by the Department for Education and Employment.
The right hon. Gentleman was correct in identifying that extra costs will fall on the Department of Health in operating a scheme which, due to the expansion that we envisage, will process an increasing number of checks. I assure the right hon. Gentleman and the House that those additional costs will be met by the Department from within existing budgets, and therefore are not affected by the terms of the money resolution.
However, costs will be incurred by the creation and administration of the tribunal system, to which the right hon. Gentleman referred. The estimated costs associated with the appeals tribunal, which we have identified, are set out fully in the regulatory impact assessment, and we estimate that they will be in the region of £500,000.
The purpose of the Bill is clear and simple: it introduces the mechanism of an appeals tribunal and widens accessibility and scope. Both of those aims have been broadly welcomed by all child care organisations and by the House, which gave the Bill an unopposed Second Reading. In simple terms, the money resolution that we are debating will authorise the necessary expenditure relating to the establishment of this new appeals tribunal, and I urge the House to accept it.
Question put and agreed to.
Mr. Jeremy Corbyn (Islington, North):
I have the honour of presenting a petition in support of the right conscientiously to object to the military portion of taxes.
The petition states:
"The Secretary of State may pay to the President, and to any other person in respect of his service as a member of the Tribunal, such remuneration and allowances as the Secretary of State may, with the consent of the Treasury, determine."
I accept that that is clearly a provisional arrangement, but even at this stage the Government should be able to give us some idea of the scale of remuneration and expenses for the tribunal that they have in mind. I doubt whether even the Government would want to embark on such a project without any idea of the costs it entails.
"The Secretary of State may pay such allowances for the purpose of or in connection with the attendance of persons at the Tribunal".
That could become a substantial item of expenditure, depending on the view taken by the Government of the volume of business that the Tribunal might attract and the
number of persons who might attend the tribunal and be paid attendance allowances. Past experience of tribunals supports the assertion that such allowances will become a substantial sum.
11.43 pm
"To the Honourable the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in Parliament assembled.
This petition is presented on behalf of Mr. Jon Nott and supported by 612 other people from all parts of the country. I welcome and strongly support it. I ask the Government and the House to consider it because the greatest form of security in the world is gained not through military presence, but through the elimination of conflict and poverty and the causes of conflict.
The Humble Petition of residents of the United Kingdom,
Sheweth that at present though Parliament recognises the right of individuals to conscientiously object to personally fighting in combat, there is no right at present for a citizen who, for religious or moral reasons, objects to having the monies they pay in taxes used for military purposes, to pay that money into a separate fund that would be used for the promotion of peace. We believe that at the beginning of a new millennium Britain should both recognise the right to conscientiously object to taxation for military purposes and take a pivotal role in order to promote peaceful conflict resolution worldwide.
Wherefore your Petitioners pray that your honourable House inquire through its committees into the establishment of a Non-Military Security Fund, to which the military portion of people's taxes could be diverted, if they so desired. The fund's central aim would be to fund non-violent conflict prevention, resolution and management.
And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray, &c.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |