House of Lords
Wednesday, 3rd July 2002.
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Chelmsford.
Customs and Excise
Earl Attlee: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper. In doing so, I remind the House that I am president of the Heavy Transport Association.
-
To ask her Majesty's Government whether Her Majesty's Customs and Excise are under parliamentary control and operate in accordance with the European Convention on Human Rights.
Earl Attlee: My Lords, I am grateful for the Minister's somewhat optimistic reply. I fully accept the need for Customs and Excise to be able to seize a vehicle involved in smuggling. But is the Minister aware that the transport industry is becoming increasingly fed up with Customs and Excise seizing vehicles and then retaining them for considerable lengths of time without any involvement from the courts, except by means of appeal? Would not it be better if there were a requirement for a warrant to be issued by magistrates if Customs and Excise felt it necessary to retain a vehicle beyond, say, five days?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am surprised that my purely factual reply was described as optimistic. Of course, the courts are involved. An individual or company whose vehicle is seized can challenge that seizure within one month of the date of the seizure. If there is a challenge, Customs is obliged to begin magistrates' court proceedings to declare the vehicle forfeit so that it can continue to retain the vehicle. If the magistrates agree with applicant companies or individuals, they get the vehicle back. If not, then exactly what the noble Earl asks for has been achieved. In any case, there can be an appeal to the Crown Court.
Lord Campbell-Savours: My Lords, my noble friend will be aware of the case of Orchard v. Customs and Excise which was held last year before the VAT and Duties Tribunal about the confiscation of a motor vehicle and contents in Dover. Does he know what has
been the Government's response to the letter of formal notice that initiated an infringement procedure under Article 226 of the EC treaty issued by the Taxation Commissioner, Frits Bolkestein, on behalf of the Commission, and whether that has led to any reform of the practices at Dover?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, Customs and Excise replied to the letter last December, but no formal response has been received. The Commission recently decided to defer any decision on whether to act until the autumn. We are disappointed by that, because the Commission should understand that our view is fair and balanced. The provisions are aimed not at the ordinary shopper but at highly organised smugglers.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I believe that the Minister mentioned an appeal to the magistrates' court after a month. That is all very well for vehicles, but what about their perishable contents?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I understand that those who have perishable contents in their vehicles are invited to take them away when the vehicle is seized.
Lord Saatchi: My Lords, have not the Government achieved the worst of all worlds with their policies in this area? They appear to have offended the hauliers represented by my noble friend Lord Attlee, the European Union and human rights groups by being too heavy handed. Yet on the other hand, they are somehow managing still to allow 17 billion cigarettes to be smuggled into the country every year.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I was not aware that the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, claimed that the Freight Transport Association was offended by Customs procedures. Surely, the important consideration is that we should protect legitimate business. I should have thought that that would be the priority for the Conservative Party, just as I should have thought that it would be a priority for it not to be encouraging tax harmonisation within the European Union.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, how many single-vehicle companies and individual owners have been put out of business by their vehicles being impounded by Customs and Excise when they ought not to have been?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I do not know how many such single-vehicle companies there are, but as only 700 commercial vehicles were impounded between June last year, when the policy was introduced, and January, clearly not many of those can involve single-vehicle companies.
Lord Newby: My Lords, does the Minister accept that we have levels of smuggling into this country that we have not had since the 18th century? Does he
further accept that, whatever one's views about tax harmonisation within the EU, such levels of smuggling are likely to continue whatever the level of seizures by Customs as long as excise duty rates differ so strongly between Britain and our continental neighbours?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am interested to hear that the Liberal Democrats are in favour of greater tax harmonisation. I should have thought that both Opposition parties would have taken account of the fact that our levels of duty on tobacco and cigarettes are justified by health reasons, quite apart from the fact that, otherwise, the cost that would have to be met by a reduction in expenditure on health, education and other worthy causes would be severe. If, for example, we were to reduce alcohol duties to the level prevailing in France, we would lose over £5 billion. That represents more than two pence on the rate of income tax.
Lord Elton: My Lords, tax harmonisation is the policy of making the taxes on any commodity the same throughout Europe. The difference that my noble friend is complaining about is a large one. Would not a level somewhere between the two be acceptable?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, a level somewhere between the two would be slightly less damaging to health and would take slightly less revenue away from health, education and other worthwhile causes. If the noble Lord wants to see such a compromise, he is welcome to try to persuade his party about it.
Poverty
2.44 p.m.
Earl Russell asked Her Majesty's Government:
- What size of income they believe constitutes a subsistence level for (a) a single person, (b) a couple and (c) a couple with two children.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Baroness Hollis of Heigham): My Lords, we do not believe that it is possible to arrive at such a figure. The measurement of poverty can include not just low income but factors such as how that income is spent, on whom in a family it is spent and for how long that low income persists. That is why we issued a consultation document on measuring child poverty last April. I hope that the noble Earl will feel able to respond to it.
Earl Russell: My Lords, if it is impossible to arrive at such a figure, how come that 10 other major European countries have done so? Will the Minister attempt to put that ignorance right, or should the House regard it as invincible?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, the noble Earl did not, perhaps, listen with his usual care to my Answer. No one doubts that low income is part of the problem of poverty. I shall give the example of a lone parent who has a child of 10 and is on an income of £100 after housing costs. She is divorced, has her own home and is poor because she is training to be a teacher. Her poverty is short term, and the outcomes for her and her child are good. We should also consider the case of another lone parent with a similar child and a similar income who lives in a run-down council flat, has no qualifications and has lived on benefit for 10 years. Her outcomes are likely to be poor. What matters is the persistence of poverty. The poverty that scars children is the poverty that persists. That is what we must capture in our analysis.
Lord Marsh: My Lords, given that the Government do not, on the whole, approve of means-tested benefits, how do they arrive at figures for minimum benefits if they have no figure for minimum need?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, we inherit benefit figures, and the benefits are then targeted at those who need them. Since our Government came into office in 1997, we have seen increases well beyond the retail prices index in many benefits. We recognised that the groups that we wished to help needed our support. For example, the income support rate for those with children under 11 was £16.90 in 1997. If that figure had been RPI-ed, it would now be £18.50. In fact, it will be £37 by October. The figure will have doubled. The carers' premium on income support for those caring for people has doubled since 1997. Pensioner couples are, on average, £25 a week better off in real terms since 1997. The Sure Start maternity grant was £100 in 1997 and is now £500.
We inherit a benefits structure, we judge whether it meets the need, as we see it, and then we target our resources. We have a record of which we are proud.
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page