Examination of Witnesses (Questions 1-19)
RT HON
SHAUN WOODWARD
MP, MR NICK
PERRY AND
MS HILARY
JACKSON
30 JANUARY 2008
Q1 Chairman: Secretary of State, you
are very welcome. We are being broadcast this afternoon and the
clerk has just advised me that we ought to start promptly at three
because of the fact that so many will be hanging on your words
in Northern Ireland and elsewhere. Before I welcome you formally
at three, perhaps you would just like to introduce your two officials.
We do of course know Nick Perry well.
Mr Woodward: Chairman, thank you
very much indeed. In the spirit of openness and transparency,
I think I will introduce my two colleagues by name and then I
will allow them to describe briefly to the Committee what they
do for themselves. Nick Perry and Hilary Jackson.
Mr Perry: Chairman, I am Director
General of the Policing and Security Directorate and I look after
policing and related matters.
Ms Jackson: I am Director General
for the Political Directorate.
Q2 Chairman: You are both very welcome.
Secretary of State, could I now formally welcome you and say how
grateful we are to you for coming. Welcome, Nick Perry and Hilary
Jackson. This is the first time that you have appeared before
the Committee formally although you very kindly met us when we
were in Northern Ireland in October, and we had a good discussion
then. It is the first time you have given formal evidence to the
Committee and we look forward to seeing you at regular, if not
too frequent intervals during the course of the year. Is there
anything that you yourself would like to say by way of introduction
before I begin the questioning?
Mr Woodward: First of all, Chairman,
can I thank you very much indeed for asking me to be before the
Committee. It is a pleasure to be here this afternoon and it is
a pleasure to have the opportunity to talk about what I imagine
will be quite a wide range of issues. I think it might be helpful
to signal to the Committee that obviously, we are now on our way
to it being 12 months from the restoration of the institutions
in Northern Ireland. Of course, there are critics but, by and
large, it is my perception, and I believe it is the perception
of the public in Northern Ireland by and large that this has been
an extremely successful period. Whilst this is very much a process
and not an event, it would be true to say that I think we are
really seeing the opportunity for people in Northern Ireland to
embrace a very different kind of shared future, and that the work
of the Executive and of the Assembly of course is difficult—governing
is difficult; everybody in this room knows that governing is difficult—and
there are disagreements but this is truly a different Northern
Ireland. It is certainly a Northern Ireland which, if I remember
as a BBC reporter back in the 1980s, it is a completely different
atmosphere. As I am sure this Committee will have found, it is
perhaps indicative most of all that the kind of issues that are
being discussed by people in Northern Ireland today, whether it
is in the pub or in the Assembly or in the Executive, are issues
that really make a difference to ordinary people's lives, ordinary
people's work, and those are the issues of jobs, the issues of
the Health Service, of education and of course, the last remaining
part of the jigsaw is the devolution of policing and criminal
justice, and I am sure you will want to touch on that this afternoon.
Of course, it is not straightforward but, nonetheless, huge progress
has been made, huge confidence is being achieved and I think again
significantly, yes, there have been a small number of incidents
that have taken place in the last six or eight months that of
course have rightly attracted the interest and scrutiny of the
public and the politicians, but what we have to see, I think,
and the critical question to ask ourselves is when those incidents
have taken place—and I am referring here specifically to
the appalling murder, condemned by everybody, of Paul Quinn; I
am talking of, for example, the attacks on the two police officers
at the end of last year; I have in mind, for example, the attacks
on the Orange Halls that have taken place. What is significant
is that it has been universally condemned and that we are seeing
a level of co-operation from the public with the police which,
in the words of the Chief Constable, he has not seen before. We
are not yet there. We in this room all know that but the fact
that we are not there should never be allowed for us to obscure
the progress that everybody in this room and everybody in Northern
Ireland has made. Yes, it is difficult but the progress is significant
and the benefits for the people living and working in Northern
Ireland are absolutely huge.
Q3 Chairman: I think we would all
in varying degrees endorse all of that and we ourselves have noticed
these differences. When we were in Northern Ireland less than
a fortnight ago, and indeed in the Republic, we were particularly
encouraged by the ever-increasing co-operation between the two
police forces and so on. We welcome what you say. We know it to
be true but we also know that some of the very unfortunate and
some of the appalling incidents to which you have referred are
of continuing concern. What I would like to do is just to ask
you a couple of questions myself, and then bring in colleagues
for a whole range of issues. As you move towards complete devolution,
and you are a long way along that path, how do you envisage the
relations between the Northern Ireland Office and the departments
of the Northern Ireland Executive developing?
Mr Woodward: I described in my
opening remarks, I think, devolution very much as a process and
not an event, and I think the work being conducted by the Northern
Ireland Office, both in the run-up to the St Andrews Agreement
itself and subsequently, has been very much part of that process.
For our part, the British Government will have prepared the institutions
of policing and criminal justice for devolution for May, as set
out in the timetable. Colleagues from the DUP I know will readily
point out to me that of course, whilst they absolutely in principle
signed up to the Agreement, the timetable contained within the
Agreement, which envisages stage two taking place in May of this
year, was not something which they were readily obliged to sign
up to. Nonetheless, I have noted, and I think everyone would acknowledge,
that whatever differences there may be, people are certainly working
within the spirit of wanting to achieve that. Institutionally,
therefore, we will be ready once the Assembly, First Deputy, First
Minister, indicate that there is cross-community support, to make
that transfer in May of this year but it would be foolish for
me in any shape or form not to recognise that this has to be something
that the parties have to want and agree to.
Q4 Chairman: Absolutely, yes.
Mr Woodward: So this is not something
which will be imposed by us on the Assembly, on the Executive,
not least because it would be unworkable. Equally, I am still
continuing to work within the spirit of the St Andrews Agreement
and the timetable to make sure that we can meet the requirements
if the Assembly and the political parties reach such an agreement
within that timescale. Of course, we are encouraging the parties
to want to meet that timescale because we believe that actually
there is an appetite amongst the institutions and amongst the
public to complete that process of devolution. I can perhaps best
highlight this by talking about the outstanding work that is being
done by the Executive and the Assembly in the preparations for
the Investment Conference in May of this year. The work that Nigel
Dodds and his colleagues have done has been exemplary. They have
attracted considerable interest in the United States in wanting
to come to a major conference that will take place in May of this
year. However, in support of their work what I find again and
again—and it has been readily endorsed by the White House
and elsewhere—is of course everybody who wants to make an
investment in Northern Ireland believes that law and order is
a secured issue. I do genuinely think that if we find ourselves
in May of this year unable to proceed to stage two, we will very
carefully need to work together to provide the reassurances to
those who wish to make substantial investment—
Q5 Chairman: I sure that you will
do that and I am sure that can be done. I do not want to foreclose
on you now because this is a crucial area and we will further
down the line come on to it, with one or two specific questions.
I was concerned about the relationship between the NIO and the
departments as and when—and do not let us go into the details
as to precisely when—full devolution occurs, what will the
relationship be? What will the presence be within Northern Ireland?
The Northern Ireland Office will continue. Will there be a shedding
of many people? What is going to happen?
Mr Woodward: Of course the presence
of the Northern Ireland Office will continue, as indeed there
is a Scotland Office. What I think we have to envisage here is,
we obviously have to give the public value for money. It is our
intention not to try and run any kind of parallel department.
We will reduce our functions to those functions which are not
transferred. I would envisage that being a few hundred people.
Of course we are engaged with all those members of staff in the
Northern Ireland Office at the moment and with the trade unions
to make sure that that transfer is achieved in a way that is satisfactory
to all the parties concerned. We are, after all, talking about
changing people's lives in terms of their working practices. I
believe that is being very much embraced. The issues which are
still the ones that have to be firmly addressed are the ones that
the Donaldson Committee on working on. Those are issues around
the nature and structure of the model of a new Department of Justice
but again, Chairman, if I can just remind you, it is not that
we are in a space whereby in practice there are very clear delineations
between those remaining areas with the British Government and
those that have been transferred. If you take, for example, the
inquiry you have done yourselves into the Prison Service, you
immediately see the way in which the Prison Service and the Health
Department in Northern Ireland are working together. In fact,
you could almost move through every single department—
Q6 Chairman: Or not, as the case
may be.
Mr Woodward: Exactly, and you
will see levels of co-operation, and indeed, if you take policing
itself, the fact that Sinn Fein have joined the Policing Board
means that this is not some single event that we are approaching.
It is a process, and much of the co-operation is already taking
place.
Chairman: Of course it is. I do not want
to be rude but I would like to ask for reasonably crisp questions
and answers because there is a lot of ground to cover. I would
like to move towards the background to the devolution of policing,
et cetera and to bring in Dr McDonnell at this point.
Q7 Dr McDonnell: Thank you, Secretary
of State, for your answers. I want to pick up on a couple of points,
particularly on the activities of former paramilitaries and the
growing confidence in policing that you referred to earlier. Could
you give us some information or some idea as to how much of a
threat you see the former paramilitaries, or dissidents, let us
call them, posing at the moment.
Mr Woodward: I think first of
all I absolutely stand behind the last IMC report and previous
reports to that and the distinction they make between the activities
of PIRA and other paramilitary groups. I think we have absolutely
no reason to question the judgement the IMC have reached on that
issue. There are outstanding issues, however: the conduct of those
individuals in PIRA is an obvious case in point, the activities
that took place with two attempted murders of police officers
at the end of last year, very, very serious crimes and the resurgence
of the kind of thing that many of us in this room had hoped had
gone away but it very clearly has not. It is not wishful thinking
to want it to go away because it is a normal society precondition
that actually police officers are not murdered by criminals masquerading
as paramilitary organisations. So yes, there is a threat out there.
The murder of Paul Quinn—that is an issue, but again, I
do not think that should be allowed to obscure the progress that
has been made. Again, I think, as some of your own Parliamentary
colleagues have said, Alasdair, one of the best ways we can really
put a lid—and I am not trying to be unrealistic; I am trying
to be realistic—in revealing just how these paramilitary
individuals or so-called paramilitary individuals are really isolated
in their community is to move forward to stage two of devolution
of policing and criminal justice. They have no support in their
community. We know that. Undoubtedly, if you take the case of
Paul Quinn, there is, regrettably, an atmosphere of intimidation
which still operates. We should put that on the table now and
recognise it but it is an atmosphere which we will be better able
to deal with by completing devolution than by resisting devolution
and to some extent giving ammunition to those criminals who wish
to disrupt the process. What they are trying to do is upset the
confidence that is being built in the community. What they are
trying to do is to make people afraid of taking responsibility.
Q8 Chairman: Secretary of State,
just a minute. I do not want you to go on too long because there
is a real perception in Northern Ireland that there are those
who are sharing power who are also sharing knowledge of some pretty
terrible things, and one of the things that came across in the
informal meetings and the more formal ones we had, both in Dublin
and in Belfast, a couple of weeks ago was yes, of course there
must be devolution but the timing must be right and, if it is
pushed too quickly, the whole thing could blow up in your face.
There has to be an absolute certainty in the minds of those who
are sharing power with the other parties and of the public that
nobody is giving succour to those who have committed terrible
deeds. This is the underlying agenda. I think one has to recognise
that.
Mr Woodward: Then let us immediately
pick that up and let us remind everybody that every single member
of the Executive has taken a pledge of office. There are those
out there, regrettably, who will try and use murky perception
to prevent this from happening. I regret that because I actually
think that if we look fairly and with clarity at this issue, and
it is up to this Committee and others to provide clarity in what
might be a murky background in some areas, to recognise that not
only has every member of the Executive taken the pledge of office
but when the murder of Paul Quinn happened there was condemnation
across the political spectrum, and this is a very, very different
position from a few years ago.
Chairman: Of course it is.
Q9 Dr McDonnell: We seem to have
got on to Paul Quinn now. I was hoping to come to that later.
Secretary of State, are you suggesting, as I have gathered from
you when you were talking there about, as they call themselves,
the Real IRA, that Quinn's murderers came from that background?
Mr Woodward: No, what I am drawing
on here—and again, I am very careful not to provide a running
commentary on the police investigation, obviously specifically
by the Garda, obviously they are doing that in conjunction with
the PSNI and yes, I am in constant contact with the Justice Minister
in the Republic about this, and it would not be helpful for me
to provide a running commentary on the police investigation, although
I know that some people have been tempted to do so. What I will
say is that the Chief Constable has made it perfectly clear that
it is conceivable that either former or low-level members of PIRA
may have been involved—may have been involved—but
equally, the Chief Constable has made equally clear that there
is absolutely no basis whatsoever for believing that this had
any authorisation, which is exactly the kind of issue that would
have worried this Committee very seriously a few years ago. I
do not want to prejudge this investigation but what I do want
to do is to make sure that we keep a very clear sense of fact
and fiction, and when it comes to, hopefully, the police making
arrests, that we find ourselves in a position by which we have
not obscured our judgement by providing a running commentary to
the investigation as it proceeds. It is a difficult investigation
but the police do have very substantial numbers of leads and they
do have a very large number of people who they are talking to.
Again, I think we have to recognise that that is substantial progress
on what we would have seen just two years ago.
Q10 Dr McDonnell: Secretary of State,
I do not dispute the progress but one of the things I am trying
to establish here is that I am not aware, and I do not think a
lot of others will be aware, of the South Armagh brigade of the
Provisional IRA ever requiring authorisation or clearance over
30 years. Probably what a lot of people are seeing out there is
that that is still the case and they are still relatively freelance.
I do not want to drag it out and I do not want to compromise any
court cases but there are fairly reliable reports that the young
man Nugent, who was a material witness to Paul Quinn's murder
in that he was lured with Paul Quinn to the scene of Paul Quinn's
death, has been threatened.
Mr Woodward: I was aware of those
press reports and the stories that were circulating before they
were published in the newspapers over the weekend. The Chief Constable
takes those things very seriously and, again, let me remind you
of the Chief Constable's words in relation to this, which is that
we will do everything we can to help bring Paul Quinn's killers
to justice. That means we are conscious of the need to ourselves
make sure that there is adequate protection for those people who
may wish to be not only people who help the police with their
inquiries but actually may be prepared to go into the witness
box. We will do everything we can to build that climate of confidence
so that people who are brave enough to come forward and actually
reveal the killers of Paul Quinn can do so.
Q11 Sammy Wilson: Can I take the
Secretary of State back to a point which he made at the very start
of his submission. I know, Secretary of State, that you are keen
to have devolution of policing and justice on the timetable which
presumably the Government had agreed with Sinn Fein but I do not
think that people in Northern Ireland and those involved in the
Assembly can work to a particular government timetable. We have
to think of the stability of the Assembly. You mentioned that
first of all there was huge public demand for this. Perhaps you
would just clarify on what you base that. Secondly, that there
would be an expectation from those who would be coming to the
Investment Conference in May that it may even compromise the Investment
Conference in May if there had not been devolution of policing
and justice. I am not aware that those who have done preliminary
work on this received any such indications from those they spoke
to in America. I wonder if you would just clarify for the Committee
on what you base your claim that there is a public outcry for
devolution of policing and justice in Northern Ireland and that
secondly, somehow or other, those who would come to this Investment
Conference may be less than willing to attend, or indeed to invest
money in Northern Ireland, if devolution of policing and justice
did not occur. Is it not more important for them simply to know
that there are no bombs going off and people being killed?
Mr Woodward: There is quite a
lot wrapped up in that question, Chairman. Let me just try and
deal with some of the statements that were made in the preamble
which, if they were allowed to rest, I think would be somewhat
dangerous. It is not that I am keen on devolution; it is actually
that the public are keen on devolution. They voted for it last
year. They voted for it when the Assembly was restored. Of course,
everybody in this room wants stability. That does not mean that
I want it any less than you want it, Sammy. The fact of the matter
is that actually, opinion polls, which you will be as aware of
as I am, show that in excess of 60% of the public actually think
we can get on with devolution of policing and criminal justice.
That is not an unstable position if 60% of the public want it.
Do I want to see that as 90% or 100%? Of course I do, and so do
you. I do not think we are divided in any shape or form on the
issue of wanting stability in Northern Ireland. To pick up what
the Chairman said earlier, there is no wish on our part to unnaturally
drive this forward but the fact of the matter is co-operation
is taking place, Sinn Fein are part of the Policing Board. The
reconstituted DPP has embraced those who have not been on it this
time last year. Huge progress is being made and when I report
to you that this is what I am being told in America in relation
to the Investment Conference, it is just that. Most of the people
who are coming to the Investment Conference this May, who we all
welcome, I can tell you do not even think that there is an issue
about stage two devolution. They think, quite rightly, as Sammy
interprets it, it is about the bombs not going off any longer
but what we all know in this room, I think, is that actually,
it is essential that politicians in Northern Ireland can take
responsibility for policing and criminal justice as the best way
of preserving a peace which means that bombs will not go off.
Q12 Chairman: These people coming
over want a stable environment. That is what they want. They want
to feel they can go out at night, have a meal, wander the streets
of Belfast, go to the trade fair the next day, have their conference.
That is what they want.
Mr Woodward: They want a bit more
than that, Chairman. They actually want to know that if they are
going to invest 10, 20, 30, 100 million dollars, that actually
this is not philanthropy but it is investment, and that is what
fundamentally distinguishes the money that may be about to be
invested in Northern Ireland from much of the money that has been
invested in the past. Those in the past—and we should thank
every single one of them—have often tended to be as much
philanthropic as investors. What distinguishes the people coming
this May is that the investment is investment, precisely because
of the shared future and the commitments that every single politician
in Northern Ireland has made to this new Assembly.
Q13 Chairman: Of course, and we would
all agree with that. The future must be assured and the transition
must be smooth. I do not think there is any difference between
any of us on that but I think there are just worries about the
pace of this latest, last bit of devolution and my colleagues
are merely seeking to ask questions on that.
Mr Woodward: I recognise the pace
but you said earlier, Chairman, 100% certainty. I do not think
any of the moves that have been made in Northern Ireland, very
bravely, by people have ever been in truth on 100% certainty.
They have always been about an assessment of the risks and being
prepared as an article of faith to move to the next stage. We
will not ask people to do something that we would not do ourselves.
Q14 Chairman: Of course not. I would
like to move on a little because one of the things that has constantly
come up with our investigations has been this issue of fuel smuggling.
It is a crime—and it is a crime -that does have victims.
There is a good deal of intimidation in the background to get
people involved in it. Let me choose my words with great care
and then bring in Rosie Cooper. There is a real perception that
people are not caught often enough, are not pursued vigorously
enough, and when they are punished, they are not punished heavily
enough. I think that is the perception that this Committee has
found some evidence to support. There have recently been articles
in the press in Belfast following investigations through Freedom
of Information and so on which would seem to bear that out to
a degree. Would you like to comment on that?
Mr Woodward: Would you like to
ask your question first?
Q15 Rosie Cooper: Sir Patrick has
fundamentally asked quite a lot on the statements I was going
to make. When we did the organised crime inquiry, there was some
real fear on behalf of some of the people who gave evidence to
us—and they were very brave but the overriding impression
I was left with were people who were faced with smuggling, be
it of petrol and cigarettes or whatever, and the inability or
the acceptability of the powers that be to ignore that. In some
of the press statements six years ago when there was a Customs
crackdown, 15 people were convicted of fuel frauds; last year
it was only four. So it goes on. If the Revenue just wishes to
get some of their money back and does not treat it as seriously
and does not want those people convicted and going to jail, what
we are doing is we are condoning it; it is obvious to everybody
in Northern Ireland that that is the case; and it makes it look
as if it is a victimless crime. Criminals getting away with it
is just not acceptable. There is a second part to that, which
is, how does cross-border co-operation helped to reduce the amount
of fuel going across the border? That does not take away one jot
from the bit which is there is fuel in Northern Ireland and, by
whatever means, the Revenue is not getting the money, those people
are not being prosecuted, it is open crime season and it is not
acceptable.
Mr Woodward: I of course share
the view of this Committee, as you said in your report, that there
is no such thing as a victimless crime, and we too easily make
this distinction that somehow there is a group of crimes for which
there are victims—those who are raped or mugged—and
those for which there are no victims because this is a financial
crime of sorts. The loss to the Exchequer and the loss to public
services in Northern Ireland is huge, so I entirely share the
views of the Committee that this is a problem because it does
have a victim. I also share the view of the Committee, again highlighted
in your report, that it may seem astonishing that only 1% of those
who are actually involved in this end up being convicted. I think
it is probably worth remarking, as when you were doing your work
on the Committee, that there is a way of judging this other than
simply the numbers of convictions: the interruption of the business
of fuel laundering, the closing down of the operation—that
process of disruption to the criminal is equally important. There
are two dimensions. One is that you want the laundering to stop
and secondly, you want the people who are doing it put away. I
would therefore say to you that this is a really difficult issue
for us to address. It is particularly difficult in the context
of Northern Ireland because of the border. I think of the proposals
that the Committee put forward, the Danish example is an interesting
one, as we said in our response to the Organised Crime Task Force
investigation. It is something we should again review, and we
plan to do it later on this year, because we should leave no stone
unturned. We may have said some months ago that the Danish model
would not be the right model for us and we have said we should
continue to look at it, and we will look at it but I think it
is important to balance convictions with disruption. I think it
is important for us to constantly renew our efforts to try and
tackle this and again, the Organised Crime Task Force is doing
work on that and the work that the Minister of State, Paul Goggins
is doing is extremely important but it would be a shame if we
only judge it on the number of convictions. I think there is significant
interruption and disruption to the criminals doing it but I do
not for one moment sit here complacently saying that I think we
are sufficiently on top of the issue. We clearly are not.
Q16 Rosie Cooper: Can I ask you,
Secretary of State, is there any political dividend for not prosecuting
this as hard as you might?
Mr Woodward: No, there is no political
dividend in allowing any crime to happen. Condoning crime should
never happen and it would be irresponsible in the extreme if anybody
took a message from this that we in any shape or form condone
it. We have to stop it and we have to do everything we can to
stop it.
Chairman: That is reassuring.
Q17 Mr Anderson: Secretary of State,
you said in response to Rosie Cooper that what we want to see
is people put away. Our information is that actually, nobody has
been put away for fuel laundering and fuel smuggling charges.
There have been convictions but nobody has served any time whatsoever.
Can you confirm that and is that not showing that there is no
real disincentive for these people? Yes, you might disrupt them
but it is not really a disincentive in what we have heard in evidence
is a £380 million business.
Mr Woodward: David, I share your
view about this entirely and one of the issues I am looking at—and
I cannot promise the Committee that there will in the end be such
an offence—but one of the things I am very keen for us to
look at is whether or not we might be able to create a specific
offence of fuel laundering. That is going to involve quite a lot
of work over the coming months and it may come to nothing. One
of the problems, as you know, about seeking a conviction is that
sometimes it is what you are trying to get a conviction for. One
of the areas that I am anxious that we pursue while we have responsibility
and continue to have responsibility for policing and criminal
justice is to see whether or not we actually have all the means,
both for the police and the criminal justice system, at their
disposal to secure convictions of people involved in this. If
it were the case that we could find a definition of fuel laundering
as an offence which might allow us to actually secure more successful
convictions—and I will say this all too readily—if
I could replace the number of people who are serving sentences
in prisons in Northern Ireland for fine defaulting with people
who are fuel laundering, I think we would all be a lot happier.
Q18 Mr Hepburn: If the Home Secretary
were to turn round and say to all the burglars in the country
"If you are caught, all you've got to do is give your stuff
back", there would be anarchy. The impression that we get
from our investigations in Northern Ireland on fuel smuggling
is that Customs, once they catch somebody, after an in-depth investigation
costing a lot of money and a lot of man hours, all they do is
say, "Just give us some money back and you can go free."
What sort of incentive is that to actually stop offending?
Mr Woodward: I cannot really disagree
with anything that you have just said, Stephen. I just remind
you again that I am asking officials to look at whether or not
we may be able to increase the means at the disposal of the police
and the criminal justice system to actually put these people away.
Chairman: I think we are to some degree
encouraged by that and we would encourage you to be, to use the
jargon, even more robust on this, because it is something that
has troubled us all over a long period.
Q19 Sammy Wilson: I hear the Secretary
of State's assurances but over the last three years—these
are your own figures that you have just given us—a 1% conviction
rate. I would imagine for any other crime in the United Kingdom
a 1% conviction rate would be regarded as fairly deplorable. I
think Stephen Hepburn was wrong when he said that all they ever
ask for is the money back. Only in a small minority of cases do
they ask for money back and in three years, although it is reckoned
smugglers may have netted £30 million, less than £500,000
has been asked for back when seizures have been made. There is
a feeling within Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs by those officers
who want to do something about it that you are happy enough to
get a lorry but all of the names are known, the big players are
known, the people who own petrol stations, and even the petrol
stations which are owned by them which become the outlets are
known. What I want to know, Secretary of State, is if you know
the names of the big suppliers, if HMRC even know the names of
the garages which they own and which they use to distribute this
fuel from, if they know the lorries they use and the fact that
they probably have 20,000 lorry journeys per year, why do we get
such a paltry amount and why are the Mr Bigs immune from prosecution?
Mr Woodward: Again, as you will
know from your investigation, there has been, and indeed among
some in HMRC, a view that 1% somehow represents a figure which
is what are believed to be in the public interest in terms of
the volume of prosecutions. I suspect there is not a single Member
of this Committee would agree with that view and I think this
Committee is very clearly suggesting this afternoon, as indeed
it has done before, that you would like to see significantly more
than 1% being successfully prosecuted.
|
