|Previous Section||Index||Home Page|
12 Feb 2004 : Column 1552Wcontinued
Mr. Hawkins: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps he is taking in relation to Customs and Excise following the most recent developments in the London City Bond and Operation Puma cases, with particular reference to its prosecution function; what steps he is taking in relation to the disclosure of information by HM Customs and Excise to the Butterfield Inquiry into this matter; and if he will make a statement. 
John Healey: As I announced in written statements of 15 July 2003, Official Report, column 18WS, and 8 December 2003, Official Report, column 72WS, the Government have accepted the recommendations contained in Mr. Justice Butterfield's report on his review of criminal investigations and prosecutions
12 Feb 2004 : Column 1553W
conducted by HM Customs and Excise, which was published in full on 15 July 2003 and is available in the Library of the House. His recommendations on the future conduct of prosecutions of cases investigated by HM Customs and Excise, including the separation of the prosecuting function from Customs (begun in April 2001 in line with the recommendations of the Gower-Hammond review in 200001), are being implemented with the creation of an independent Customs and Excise Prosecutions Office reporting to the Attorney-General.
Mr. Justice Butterfield received total co-operation from Customs officers, as he recognised in his report. In the course of its review of London City Bond-related convictions last year Customs continued to trawl all areas of the Department for any material of potential relevance both to ongoing appeals against conviction and to the issues examined by Mr. Justice Butterfield. Further disclosable material that was uncovered was passed directly to the Metropolitan Police to assist their investigation into the circumstances of the collapse of the London City Bond cases and to Mr. Justice Butterfield for his consideration. Although Customs had already indicated that it would not be contesting their appeals, Customs also disclosed that material to all the appellants in the Operation Puma case on 28 January 2004.
Mr. Laws: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much his Department spent on branding the Department, broken down by (a) consultancy fees, (b) design and orders for new stationery between 199798 and 200304, (c) website design and (d) other material featuring new logos. 
Ruth Kelly: The Treasury's branding was reviewed between 2000 and 2002. The work was undertaken by the in-house publications team, with limited assistance from freelance designers at a cost of less than £5,000.
Mr. Cousins: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the (a) duties and (b) immediate work programme of each Lamfalussy committee are; and what the United Kingdom representation on each committee is. 
Ruth Kelly: The seven Lamfalussy committees are the European Banking Committee (EBC), the European Securities Committee (ESC), the European Insurance and Occupational Pensions Committee (EIOPC), the Financial Conglomerates Committee (FCC), the Committee of European Banking Supervisors (CEBS), the Committee of European Securities Regulators (CESR) and the Committee of European Insurance and Occupational Pensions Supervisors (CEIOPS). The duties of the FCC can be found in Article 21 of the Financial Conglomerates Directive (2002/87/EC, published in the Official Journal of the European Union (OJ) on 11 February 2003, L35/1). The duties of the six other committees can be found in the respective
12 Feb 2004 : Column 1554W
Commission Decisions establishing them, published in the Official Journal of the European Union on the 7 January 2004, L3, volume 47.
The immediate work programmes of the EBC, ESC and FCC have not been published. The work programme of the EIOPC can be found at http://europa.eu.int/comm/internal market/insurance/docs/markt-253503-rev1/253503-rev1 en.pdf. HM Treasury represents the UK on each of these committees.
Ruth Kelly: Details of the United Kingdom's gross contribution to the EC Budget and contribution to the reserves and capital of the EIB for the financial years 199798 to 200203 can be found at Table 3.1 (page 14) of the 2003 European Community Finances White Paper (Cm 5800).
Ann Winterton: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the gross EU funding to the UK for (a) the Common Agricultural Policy, (b) regional funding and (c) other allocations was in each of the last five years. 
Ruth Kelly: Details of the United Kingdom's public sector receipts from the EC Budget for the financial years 199798 to 200203 can be found at Table 3.2 (page 14) of the 2003 European Community Finances White Paper (Cm 5800).
Mr. Carmichael: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the terms of reference of the independent review of excise duty fraud levels; and when the review will be concluded. 
John Healey: Following interest from the Public Accounts Committee, I have welcomed the Comptroller and Auditor General, Sir John Bourn's commitment to carry out a review of the estimates of spirits duty fraud. The scope and timing of that review are a matter for him. I have ensured that he has been offered the full assistance of my officials.
Mr. Boateng: The Invest to Save Budget (ISB) has allocated £385 million to 401 organisations. A table showing the list of successful bidders and the amounts they each received has been placed in the Library of the House.
12 Feb 2004 : Column 1555W
Norman Baker: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer pursuant to the answer to the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe), of 6 February 2004, Official Report, columns 108283W, on ivory seizures, for what reasons no prosecutions have been initiated by Her Majesty's Customs and Excise. 
John Healey: Customs will normally prosecute in those cases where a deliberate or organised attempt has been made to evade or breach for commercial gain the controls on ivory. Customs would look carefully at the circumstances of any case where seized ivory is either antique or harvested legitimately prior to the ban imposed on commercial trade in ivory from African elephants in 1990. Such ivory can be lawfully traded provided that it is accompanied by the appropriate documentation issued by the competent authorities.
Many seizures of ivory involve a small quantity found in the possession of members of the travelling public who are shown after inquiries to have breached the controls unwittinglyfor example by importing items which were on open sale and were bought in good faith, or by exporting items that have been held in the UK legitimately for some time.
Two detections in 2001 involved commercial quantities of ivory which had been deliberately concealed. Both cases involved ivory in transit through the UK to another country of destination. Customs agreed with the law enforcement authorities in the countries of destination to allow these consignments to go forward for further investigation there. Customs have no information on the outcome of those investigations.
Mr. Gray: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer pursuant to his answer of 4 February 2004, Official Report, columns 93435W, on future tax yield, what design methodology was used to produce the automated system introduced in April 1998 to calculate the compliance performance of the Inland Revenue's Large Business Office; at which stage in the methodology the design faults occurred and who authorised the faulty design to proceed to the next stage of development; whether the Large Business Office's compliance performance for the year 199899 has been correctly recorded in Inland Revenue Annual Reports to date; whether the new reporting system was tested prior to introduction against base data from recent years to ensure that the results produced by the new automated system matched those produced by the previous unautomated system; who signed for acceptance of the new system in 1998; when the integrity of the results produced by the automated system introduced in 1998 was first questioned, and by whom; upon what dates the
12 Feb 2004 : Column 1556W
errors were first detected; upon what dates the matter was brought to the attention of (a) the Director Large Business Office, Internal Audit (b) the Inland Revenue Fraud Champion, (c) the Commissioner responsible for the Large Business Office, (d) the Board of Inland Revenue, (e) the Paymaster General, (f) the National Audit Office and (g) himself; whether the automated system had a purpose other than to produce a single number recording the Large Business Office's total compliance performance; how many man days of effort were required to produce the automated system as introduced in April 1998; for how long it was under development; what programming language or software package was employed; and what the cost of the system to the point of introduction was. 
Dawn Primarolo: The Large Business Office (LBO) IT system was developed by a partnership of EDS and the LBO between October 1996 and November 1997 with a commercial software package, 'Composer'. The system cost £1.92 million including equipment and software licenses. The number of staff days of development is not now known. The system enabled the LBO to support and monitor their casework; it was formally accepted in 1998 by senior management of the LBO.
There was a credibility check of the data provided early in the use of the system, and in 2000, LBO senior management asked questions about data on some individual cases. The Director asked the Inland Revenue's internal auditors to review the accuracy of data for 200102. Their interim report enabled some adjustment to be made to the reported figures for that year and errors in reporting future years' tax effects were eliminated for 200102 onwards. A follow up review of processes commissioned in 2003 revealed that some LBO caseworkers were not reporting yield in line with departmental guidance.
The relevant Commissioner was kept fully informed throughout. The Board received a report on the issues raised by the 2003 review. Ministers were informed on 12 November 2003 of the need to correct yield figures. The NAO have discussed LBO yield as part of their current work on corporation tax. There is no information available for 199899.
|Next Section||Index||Home Page|