---

24 Mar 2004 : Column 845W—continued

Pre-Budget Report

Mr. Lansley: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the cost was of the (a) preparation and (b) distribution of the "What the Pre-Budget Report Means For" series of documents specific to each English region. [162816]

Ruth Kelly: The total cost of the preparation and distribution of the regional 2003 Pre-Budget Report leaflets was £2,100. This covered the production of 1,500 leaflets for each of the nine Government Office English regions, as well as for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. The total cost included distribution of the leaflets to the Government Offices and the Devolved Administrations.

Same-sex Couples

Mr. Leigh: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many same-sex couple households there are in England and Wales according to the 2001 Census; and how many same-sex couple households there are in Great Britain according to the Labour Force Survey. [163070]

Ruth Kelly: The information requested falls within the responsibility of the National Statistician. I have asked him to reply.

24 Mar 2004 : Column 846W

Letter from Len Cook to Mr. Edward Leigh, dated 24 March 2004:

As National Statistician and Registrar General for England and Wales I have been asked to reply to your recent question asking how many same-sex couple households there are in England and Wales according to the 2001 Census; and how many same-sex couple households there are in Great Britain according to the Labour Force Survey. (163070).
The 2001 Census defines a same-sex couple as two people of the same sex, both resident in the same household, who report themselves as partners on the Census form. Figures published in table UV93 in the 2001 Census National Report for England and Wales Part 2 on the number of people with same-sex partners indicate that there were 39,261 co-residential same-sex couples in England and Wales identified by the 2001 Census. However, same-sex couples can only be identified if they choose to declare themselves as partners on the Census form. Thus the count of co-residential same-sex couples would be an underestimate of the true number. It is not known to what extent there was an undercount because, for example, same-sex couples may have ticked some other box in the relationship field such as 'Unrelated'. Furthermore, a household may contain more than one couple and there is no exact count of the number of same-sex households from the 2001 Census.
The Labour Force Survey (LFS) gives information about same-sex couple households for each three-month period. It collects information on residents in private households. Questions are designed to establish whether each resident is cohabiting or not, and, if so, with which other household member. However, same-sex partnership can only be distinguished if the respondent volunteers the fact; it is not asked. In the LFS, a same-sex couple is defined as two respondents who are living together as a couple in the household and who are the same sex.
In the three-month period ending November 2003, 50,887 same-sex couple households in Great Britain were identified on this basis. The LFS is a sample survey covering over 57,000 households in the United Kingdom in each three-month period. As with any statistical sample survey, estimates from the Labour Force Survey are subject to sampling error.
It is not possible to derive an estimate of the number of co-residential same-sex couples in Scotland by taking the difference of the two estimates provided in this answer, since data were provided at different times and in different contexts, and each figure is subject to estimation error.
There will be a more comprehensive analysis of how to interpret information on same sex couples later this year.

Science Strategy

Dr. Iddon: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps he has taken to enhance science in his Department since the publication of the Government's science strategy, Investing in Innovation. [162246]

Ruth Kelly: HM Treasury works with the Office of Science and Technology, the DTI and the DfES on the implementation of the Government's science strategy, Investing in Innovation. HM Treasury's own direct expenditure on science and research is relatively small and is limited to economic advice, analysis and statistics: for example, during 2002–03, around £250,000 was spent on some 15 projects funded from the Macroeconomic Research Budget.

A 10-year investment framework for science and innovation, on which a consultation document was published recently ¹ , will be published alongside the 2004 spending review. This is also a joint project between HM Treasury, the Office of Science and Technology, the DTI and the DfES, and will look at a number of areas of Government policy in relation to science and innovation, including ensuring that Government Departments

24 Mar 2004 : Column 847W

remain well placed to exploit the opportunities that science and research have to offer. In particular, it will build on the 2002 Cross-Cutting Review of Science and Research, which fed into Investing in Innovation and set out recommendations to improve the management of Government Departments' research strategies and budgets.

¹ Science and innovation: working towards a ten-year investment framework, HMT, DfES & DTI, 16 March 2004.

Stamp Duty

Mr. Flight: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what forecast he has made of the tax take for stamp duty on residential property for each band at which it is charged for 2004–05; and how much was raised in this way in each tax year since 1997–98. [163597]

Ruth Kelly: Estimates of receipts from stamp duty on residential property at each of the tax bands, from 1997–98 to 2002–03, are given at http://www.inlandrevenue. gov.uk/stats/stamp duty703IR153.pdf. Estimates of receipts at each tax band for 2003–04, and projections for 2004–05, are not available.

Strip Stamps

Mr. David Stewart: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many representations he has received in support of his proposal to introduce strip stamps. [161484]

John Healey: Since the Chancellor's announcement in the Pre-Budget Report that the Government were considering introducing tax stamps for spirits, Treasury Ministers and Officials have received a wide range of representations on this and on the spirits industry's alternative package of measures. Those representations acknowledge that spirits fraud is a serious problem and needs to be addressed but differ in their views on how to tackle this effectively. The main concerns highlighted related to the impact and compliance costs of tax stamps. In making his decision that tax stamps are necessary to tackle spirits fraud, the Chancellor took account of concerns raised and announced on Budget Day that he will help the trade financially with the cash-flow costs and capital investment associated with the introduction of tax stamps. He also announced that there would be a further freeze on spirits duty—for the seventh Budget in a row and, indeed, that spirits duty will be frozen for the remainder of this Parliament.

Officials are working with the industry to consider how the offsetting measures can be effectively targeted and applied and to develop the detailed arrangements for tax stamps in a way that minimises additional burdens on business and causes minimal disruption to the trade's operations.

Mr. David Stewart: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of options for the elimination of spirits duty evasion other than the introduction of strip stamps. [161485]

John Healey: This Government have given exhaustive consideration over recent years, in close consultation with the alcohol industry, to finding ways to tackle the serious problem of spirits duty fraud.

24 Mar 2004 : Column 848W

HM Customs and Excise held a formal consultation on tax stamps in late 2001 and early 2002. They conducted a further formal consultation in the summer of 2003 on regulatory options for reducing opportunities for fraud in the alcohol holding and movement system.

Partly as a result of those earlier discussions, a number of measures have already been put in place or are planned to tackle spirits fraud. These include the creation of a Joint Spirits Fraud Task Force in 2002 and the development of draft Memoranda of Understanding between Customs and key spirits trade associations. Customs have also strengthened their operational response to fraud, including the creation of a National Discreditation Team to detect illicit loads which were destined to be diverted after arrival in the UK.

Despite these ongoing efforts, Customs' estimates, published alongside the Pre-Budget Report in December 2003, showed that around £600 million of revenue was lost through spirits fraud in 2001–2002. The Government therefore announced that tax stamps for spirits would be introduced from 2006 unless the industry put forward alternative measures that would be as effective as tax stamps in combating fraud.

There has been a further intensive period of discussions with the industry since December on all aspects of tax stamps and alternative options. The industry put forward an alternative package of 17 proposals. However, as announced in the Budget, the Government's assessment is that the anti-fraud impact of the alternative package falls significantly short of that estimated for tax stamps. The package contains inherent weaknesses: it leaves the door open for displacement to other types of fraud, most notably inward diversion; it stands to be undermined by a complicit party; and unlike tax stamps it does not tackle the problem of identification—the ability for consumers, retailers and Customs officers to distinguish readily between licit and illicit products.

A full assessment of the industry's package of alternative proposals to tax stamps will form part of a Regulatory Impact Assessment, to be published alongside this year's Finance Bill.

Mr. David Stewart: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what research he has conducted on fraudulent production of strip stamps in other countries; and what security measures he proposes to guard against the fraudulent production of strip stamps in the UK. [161486]

John Healey: Officials from HM Customs and Excise have contacted forty countries which operate tax stamps to discuss their regimes and experience of fraudulent strip stamps. From the twenty-five detailed responses received it is clear that fraudulent production can be limited by the use of anti-counterfeiting measures.

In addition, Customs have conducted a series of discussions with security printers and other experts in anti-counterfeiting technology. This has revealed a wide range of overt, covert and forensic features which could be used to protect UK tax stamps from counterfeiting.

Customs will continue detailed discussion's with the industry and continue to draw on a wide range of expert opinion's in their work on implementation of tax stamps for spirits in the UK.

24 Mar 2004 : Column 849W

Mr. David Stewart: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many (a) UK distilled and (b) imported products will be affected by the introduction of strip stamps. [161637]

John Healey: Subject to certain exceptions, to be determined following further discussions with the industry, tax stamps will apply to retail containers of spirits, and to wine and made wine with a strength exceeding 22 per cent. alcohol by volume.

The requirement for UK retail containers of spirits to bear a tax stamp will, however, apply equally both to imported and to home produced goods.

---