| Previous Section | Home Page |
Mr. Mitchell: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many retrospective claims against how many firms, for what total sums of money and for what period are being made by his Department against importers of prawns or shrimps in respect of (a) Iceland, (b) Norway and (c) the Faroe Islands and at whose behest. [37946]
Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: The information requested is as follows:
|Number of claims |Number of firms |Total (£) |Period
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
a-i) Iceland (mission) |15 |12 |435,000 |October 1990 to August 1992
a-ii) Iceland (disclosure) |11 |9 |23,000 |1993
c) Faroes (mission) |13 |13 |1,900,000 |May 1989 to October 1991
a i) and c) were the result of EC missions, while a ii) was a disclosure by Icelandic customs in respect of one of their exporters.
Column 525
No claims have been made against importers in respect of Norway.Mr. Mitchell: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what proposals he has made to the EEC Commission for compensation for British importers of prawns or shrimps innocently imported from (a) Iceland, (b) Norway and (c) the Faroe Islands on EUR1 certificates now considered by the European Commission to be invalid, what scale of compensation has been proposed; when it will be payable; and what response has been forthcoming from the Commission. [37955]
Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: No such proposals have been made because duty recovery has been suspended pending completion of the legal process. Therefore, compensation is not appropriate in the circumstances. The Commission and member states are being urged to produce a lasting solution which properly balances safeguarding the Community budget and the interests of European business. Such a solution will need to address the future as well as the past.
Mr. Mitchell: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what advice was and is now given by his Department to importers of fish products from (a) Iceland, (b) Norway and (c) the Faroe Islands coming in duty free under EUR1 certificates about their liability if the certificates issued in the country of origin prove to be invalid, about how they can safeguard themselves against such retrospective charges and about how they can test the validity of EUR1 certificates. [37948]
Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: Advice is set out in Customs notice No. 826. This recognises the difficulties that importers may experience in trying to establish whether a certificate is valid or whether goods shown on it are eligible for preferential tariff treatment. For very many years the notice has warned of the potential further duty liability and since July 1990 has advised importers to consider the advantages of including a clause in contracts allowing them to recover any duty charge from the supplier. In addition, Customs have regularly contributed articles for trade journals and participated in trade seminars and the consequences of invalid documentation has been covered on each occasion.
Mr. Mitchell: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in levying retrospective duty on prawns or shrimps imported from (a) Iceland, (b) Norway and (c) the Faroe Islands with valid EUR1 certificates, he makes any allowance for the fact that a proportion of those prawn/shrimps will in fact have been caught in that country; what proportion he estimates this to be; and whether this is estimated as being constant or can be specifically assessed for each consignment. [37952]
Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: The mission to Iceland found that most processing plants kept sophisticated records which identified the source of raw materials through to consignments of finished product. Duty demands were
Column 526
issued only for consignments where there was a clear audit trail from the non-originating prawns through to deliveries to specific companies in the EC. Where part of a consignment qualified, typical because it comprised prawns of different sizes and origin, then the duty demand was restricted to the non-originating element. No duty demands have been issued for prawns or shrimps imported from Norway.Mr. Mitchell: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will publish the evidence provided to him by the European Commission that prawns or shrimps imported from (a) Iceland, (b) Norway and (c) the Faroe Islands in fact originated elsewhere; and indicate what proportion of the imports from the Faroe Islands this applied to. [37947]
Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: EC mission team reports, which contain sensitive commercial information, are protected by EC agreements which restrict their issue or publication.
The proportion of imports from the Faroe Islands established as non- originating was 66 per cent. for 1989, 81 per cent. for 1990 and 53 per cent. for 1991.
Mr. Mitchell: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, what representations he has made to his customs counterpart in (a) Iceland, (b) Norway and (c) the Faroe Islands about their acceptance of EUR1 certificates for the export of fish products to Britain which subsequently proved to have originated elsewhere than in Iceland; what compensation he has requested from them for British importers trusting these certificates; and what procedures his Department has put in place to check the validity of EUR1 certificates for Iceland. [37951]
Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: No such representations have been made to third country customs authorities.
The UK has, however, made strong representations concerning these difficulties at recent EC meetings and gained considerable support from other member states. A number of different proposals have been put forward to alleviate the burdens on importers and these now have to be considered carefully. It will be for the European Commission to write to third country authorities if this is considered appropriate.
In accordance with normal practice, EUR1 certificates are from time to time returned to exporting countries for verification by their customs authorities.
Mr. Mitchell: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will give the outcome of all court cases pursued by his Department against importers of prawns or shrimps from (a) Iceland, (b) Norway and (c) the Faroe Islands on the basis of EUR1 certificates now considered by him to be invalid; what costs have been awarded and to whom; how much retrospective duty has actually been paid; and by how many firms. [37956]
Column 527
Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: Two of the companies who received duty demands in respect of imports from the Faroe Islands submitted an application for a judicial review on the grounds that the demands were incorrect in law. The High Court referred a number of questions to the European Court of Justice and awarded costs against Customs. No reason was given for the award and Customs are still in correspondence on the matter. The judgment of the European Court of Justice is expected by early December.
There have been no other relevant court cases, although several importers have appealed to the VAT and duties tribunal. These cases are being stood over by the tribunal pending the European Court of Justice judgment. Payment of duty will not be pursued until the legal process is completed.
Mr. Mitchell: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many claims for duty have been made in each year since 1980 for duty not paid on fish products imported from (a) Iceland, (b) Norway and (c) the Faroe Islands on EUR1 certificates which subsequently proved to be invalid. [37949]
Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: The information requested is as follows:
|1992|1993|1994|1995
---------------------------------------
Iceland |- |12 |- |9
Norway |- |- |- |2
Faroe Islands |13 |- |- |-
Figures are not available for imports of fish products prior to 1992.
Mr. Mitchell: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what burden of proof about the origin of fish products imported on EUR1 certificates falls on (a) his Department (b) the British importer, (c) the customs of the originating country and (d) the exporter issuing the EUR1 certificate where such certificates are deemed by his Department to be invalid; on what basis such retrospective claims are made by his Department; and what time limitations apply. [37953]
Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: The responsibilities of the various parties are set out in the preferential trade agreements between the European Community and Iceland, Norway and the Faroe islands. The prime responsibility for determining whether particular goods qualify for preferential status lies with the exporter. Where it is not possible to determine the origin of goods, or where they are
non-originating--that is, they do not come originally from the exporter's country--an EUR1 certificate is inappropriate.
The responsibility for accounting for any import duties due falls on the importer in the country of destination.
The customs authorities in the country of importation are responsible for collecting any duties due, including duties charged retrospectively where EUR1s are found to be invalid.
The customs authorities in the country of export are responsible for issuing EUR1s verifying any certificates returned by foreign import authorities and considering sanctions against exporters who abuse the system.
Column 528
Customs and Excise have issued retrospective duty demands only where either the customs authorities for the exporter have advised that certificates were invalid or where an EC mission has provided firm evidence that goods did not meet the rules of origin. The time limitation for retrospective duty demands is three years from importation.Mr. Mitchell: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what instructions he has had from the European Commission about retrospective duty on prawns or shrimps imported from (a) Iceland, (b) Norway and (c) the Faroe Islands on EUR1 certificates ; how much he has been required to recover; to whom this is payable; what information he has about the levy of such duties in each fish importing member of the EU; and what representations he has made to the Commission about such changes. [37950]
Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: No specific instructions have been received from the European Commission about retrospective duty on prawns or shrimps. However, where checks on EUR1s show that the goods were not entitled to relief, duty at the full rate becomes payable under the terms of the preferential trade agreement with the country concerned, which in the community are implemented in EC law. Customs duty is collected by member states and remitted to the Community as own resources.
In the case of retrospective duty demand on prawns from Iceland, Customs and Excise are aware that duty recovery action has also been taken by Denmark and Germany, the only other countries with a major interest.
Customs have made strong representations at recent EC meetings about the problems associated with duty recovery in respect of invalid documentation, including EUR1s, and have gained considerable support from other member states. Over the next few weeks, Customs will continue to press for urgent attention to be given to this issue with a view to reaching consensus among member states on the best solution.
Value Added Tax
Mr. Grocott: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the total amount collected in value added tax (a) in 1979, (b) in 1985 and (c) in the latest year for which figures are available. [37910]
Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: Net receipts of value added tax for financial years 1979 80, 1985 86 and 1994 95 are as follows:
£ million
Net receipts
1979-80 |1985-86 |1994-95
------------------------------------
8,189.3 |19,331.4|41,817.3
Independent Television (Taxation)
Mr. Grocott: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the total amount of taxation paid by the ITV companies to the Exchequer (a) in 1985, (b) 1990 and (c) in the latest year for which figures are available. [37966]
Column 529
Mr. Jack: Companies licensed by the Independent Television Commission to provide Channel 3 services had an estimated corporation tax liability in 1993 of approximately £50 million. Figures for 1985 and 1990 are only available at disproportionate cost.
Kenya (IMF Facility)
Sir Thomas Arnold: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his policy towards the enhanced structural adjustment facility for Kenya at the International Monetary Fund; and if he will make a statement. [37673]
Mrs. Angela Knight: Discussions between the IMF and the Kenyan Government continue. We hope that there will be sufficient progress in Kenya so as to allow early agreement on an enhanced structural adjustment facility.
Tobacco Smuggling
Mr. Atkins: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what action he proposes to take to reduce tobacco smuggling into the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement. [38040]
Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: Customs and Excise will continue to take vigorous action against those who smuggle tobacco goods. Working closely with the trade and developing intelligence to identify offenders remains the best method of achieving successful detections.
Mr. Atkins: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what numbers of Customs and Excise officers have been involved in pursuing tobacco smuggling into the United Kingdom in each of the last five years. [38041]
Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: The duties of Customs and Excise officers cover a wide range of revenue and prevention functions. Officers are not normally assigned to deal with a single commodity.
The information requested is not available.
Mr. Atkins: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the loss of revenue in each of the last five years caused by the smuggling into the United Kingdom of (a) hand-rolling tobacco, (b) cigarettes, (c) pipe tobacco and (d) cigars. [38082]
Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: It is particularly difficult to make meaningful estimates of smuggled tobacco goods. What can be relied upon however is the number of detections made by Customs and Excise. In the period from 1 January 1993 to 31 August 1995 there were 4,124 detections of smuggled tobacco goods representing a revenue value of some £7.05 million.
The information requested for the last five years is not available. However following recent discussions with the trade, Customs are actively considering methods of deriving credible estimates of smuggling of tobacco goods.
Government Debt
Mr. William Powell: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his latest estimate of general Government gross debt for each country within the EU; and what were the figures for 1991, 1987 and 1983. [38335]
Column 530
Mrs. Angela Knight: The Government do not produce estimates for general Government gross debt for countries in the EU other than the UK. The most recent figures for the UK are available in the Summer Economic Forecast. Historical data are available in the Financial Statement and Budget Report. Forecasts and historical figures for the rest of the EU can be found in the "OECD Outlook" of June 1995. All three publications are available in the House of Commons Library.
Tourism
Mr. Jim Cunningham: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the effect of British competitiveness of the level of VAT on tourism products; and what conclusions he has reached. [38454]
Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: There is no compelling evidence that the fiscal and regulatory environment in the United Kingdom places tourism at a disadvantage. We have a lower standard rate than most EU member states and our zero rate is applied to a wide range of consumer expenditure.
Mr. Waterson: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what progress has been made in the consultations between Customs and Excise and the travel industry about the effects of the Value Added Tax (Tour Operators) (Amendment) Order 1995; and if he will make a statement. [39727]
Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: There have been extensive and very productive talks over the summer between Customs, the travel industry and its representatives. These talks have produced a package of options to be publicised today which should allow most tour operators to organise their business so as to minimise any potential for distortion of competition while still fully respecting the provisions of the order. Unlike earlier proposals put forward by some in the industry, this package will not increase taxation for four operators' products. The major trade associations have confirmed that the options adequately address the industry's immediate concerns. Customs' review of the tour operators' margin scheme will now proceed to its second phase which will involve an examination of longer-term issues, including possible simplification of the scheme.
Social Security (Liaison)
Mr. Jim Cunningham: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how often he liaises with the Secretary of State for Social Security. [38815]
Mr. Kenneth Clarke: Frequently.
Share Option Schemes
Mr. David Shaw: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment the Inland Revenue has made of the percentage of option holders who cash in their options or shares as soon as possible; and if he will publish the assumptions made and the basis of calculation. [37963]
Mr. Jack: Two independent surveys indicate that up to 90 per cent. of option holders sell all or most of their shares on exercise.
Column 531
Mr. David Shaw: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what information he has from internal or external sources of the average income of all employees granted share options under approved discretionary share options schemes in each of the last three years. [37902]
Mr. Jack: A provisional estimate of the average relevant emoluments of those granted share options under approved discretionary share option schemes in 1994 95 is approximately £45, 000. Estimates for the earlier years are not readily available.
Mr. David Shaw: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) if he will publish the results of all research conducted by the Treasury or Inland Revenue since 1984 on the use of share option schemes by small and medium-sized enterprises; [37960]
(2) if he will publish the results of all research conducted by the Treasury or Inland Revenue since 1984 on the use of share option schemes for the benefit of low and middle income employees; [37961] (3) if he will publish the results of all research carried on by the Treasury or the Inland Revenue since 1984 on the tax revenue gains resulting from increased payment of corporation tax and other taxes in companies whose shares increased in value and which operated successful approved discretionary share option schemes; and if he will publish the research. [37962]
Mr. Jack: A report by KPMG Management Consulting on employee share schemes, prepared for the Inland Revenue, Treasury and Department of Employment, was published by the Inland Revenue in 1991. This report addressed a wide range of issues, including an analysis of employee share schemes by company size. It did not consider the income of employees or any possible impact on corporation tax receipts. In addition regular monitoring is published in "Inland Revenue Statistics".
Mr. David Shaw: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much corporation tax was paid in the last three tax years; and what proportion of the total corporation tax paid was by companies operating approved discretionary share option schemes. [37882]
Mr. Jack: The figures for corporation tax receipts are as follows:
|Corporation
|tax
Year |£ million
------------------------------------
1992-93 |15,783
1993-94 |14,887
1994-95 |19,390
Estimates of the proportion of total corporation tax paid by companies operating approved discretionary share option schemes are not available.
Mr. David Shaw: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many companies started (a) save-as-you-earn share option schemes and (b) profit sharing schemes in each of the last three tax years and the current year to date. [37901]
Column 532
Mr. Jack: Available information is given in the table.
|Savings-related
|Profit-sharing |share option
Year |schemes |schemes
----------------------------------------------------------------
1992-93 |61 |95
1993-94 |35 |104
1994-95 |47 |144
1995-96<1> |17 |77
<1> Year to date.
Mr. David Shaw: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment the Inland Revenue has made of the value of revenue savings to be made by the proposed changes in taxation of share options; and if he will publish the assumptions made and the basis of the calculation. [37964]
Mr. Jack: There will be no effect on tax receipts for the next three financial years and the full-year level will not be reached until approximately 2002 03 as a result of transitional arrangements for options granted before 17 July 1995. A provisional estimate of the full-year revenue yield is about £80 million each year based on current levels of exercise, size of gains and the 1995 96 income tax and capital gains tax systems.
An outline of the methodology and underlying assumptions for the estimated cost of tax relief for approved discretionary share option schemes was published in chapter 6 of "Inland Revenue Statistics 1991." It has been assumed that the bulk of schemes will continue after the tax relief is withdrawn, and that the gains made on the exercise of options will generate income tax.
Mr. David Shaw: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what percentage of companies which floated on the Stock Exchange during the last year had approved discretionary share option schemes in operation; [37879]
(2) how many United Kingdom subsidiaries of United States parent companies operate approved discretionary share option schemes involving options being granted over shares in the United States parent companies; [37900]
(3) how many of the 100 largest corporation tax paying United Kingdom-- registered companies in the last year operated share option schemes; [37885]
(4) what assessment he has made of the relationship between changes in the value of share options normally and over the longer term and the profitability of companies; [37972]
(5) how many of the companies which have set up approved discretionary share options schemes since 1984 (a) had turnover below £50 million, (b) has pre-tax profits below £10 million and (c) did not have occupational pension schemes in the year the option schemes were approved by the Inland Revenue. [37903]
Mr. Jack: This information in the form requested can be provided only at disproportionate cost. However, discretionary share option schemes have been monitored since the scheme began in 1984 and statistics published each year in "Inland Revenue Statistics", copies of which are in the Library.
Column 533
Loans to Business
Mr. Hain: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what proportion of loans to business are for (a) under three years, (b) under four years, (c) under five years and (d) over 10 years. [38829]
Mrs. Angela Knight: This information is not collected by the Government. Figures on major British banking groups' advances to non- personal customers resident in the UK, analysed by residual maturity, are set out in table 1.10 of the British Bankers Association "Annual Abstract of Banking Statistics" which is in the Library.
Import Duty on Wine
Sir Teddy Taylor: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer on what grounds Customs and Excise are now expressing the import duty on wines in terms of ecu per hectolitre, details of which have been sent to the Minister in charge of Customs and Excise; and on what legal basis this description of duty is used. [37629]
Mr. Heathcoat-Amory [holding answer 19 October 1995]: The legal basis for customs duties on goods imported into the European Union is an EC agreement on a common tariff which is then incorporated into the UK tariff. To ensure equity, duties are expressed in the same units in all language versions of the common tariff. In the case of wine imports, one element of the duty is defined in monetary terms. In order that the same rate of duty is levied throughout the community, this is expressed in ecu, but is of course converted to national currency for payment.
NATIONAL HERITAGE
Church Repair Grants
Mr. Redmond: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if she will list those churches which (a) have received, (b) are currently receiving and (c) have been granted but have not yet received, grant aid from English Heritage towards repairs necessitated by atmospheric pollution together with the amounts in each case. [38635]
Mr. Sproat: English Heritage does not categorise its grants according to the causes which have necessitated structural repairs. Therefore, it is not possible to provide a breakdown of English Heritage's grant expenditure for work resulting from atmospheric pollution to churches. During 1994 95, English Heritage offered £14 million in grants for repairs to historic churches.
Imperial War Museum
Mr. Redmond: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what plans she has to construct or assist with the construction of an imperial war museum for the north of England; and if she will make a statement. [39037]
Mr. Sproat: It is for the trustees of the imperial war museum to decide on whether there should be a branch of the museum in the north of England.
Reviewing Committee on the Export of Works of Art
Mr. Garnier: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage when the report of the reviewing
Column 534
committee on the export of works of art 1994 95 will be published. [39780]Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: The reviewing committee's annual report 1994 95 has been published today, and copies have been placed in the Libraries of the House.
Film Industry (Financial Support)
Mr. Llwyd: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if she will publish details of the total financial support for the film industry during each of the last three years for which figures are available; and if she will make a statement. [38134]
Mr. Sproat: My Department's total expenditure on film over the past three years is as follows:
1993 94: £24.34 million (out-turn)
1994 95: £26.16 million (out-turn)
1995 96: £26.07 million (planned expenditure)
Funds are provided to two non-departmental public bodies, the British Film Institute and the National Film and Television School; three private-sector companies: British Screen Finance, the European Co-production Fund and the British Film Commission, and a number of European initiatives.
| Next Section
| Home Page |