HC Deb 18 December 1984 vol 70 cc122-3W
Mr. John Carlisle

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what response he is making to the claim by the Customs and Excise Council of Civil Service Unions for 500 additional staff for the operation of customs controls.

Mr. Hayhoe

I have written to the secretary of the council as followsWhen you and your Trade Union Side colleagues came to see me on 21 November, and I am grateful for the constructive points you made, I promised to report our discussion to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, which I have done, and then to let you have a written reply to your claim. Government policy is that Civil Service manpower should match the needs of the work to be done. This means that staffing levels are decided only after careful consideration of the number of staff required to do the necessary work and to achieve the required results. This approach is applied to Customs and Excise work as it is to the generality of Government Departments. The approach does not, of course, work in one direction only. The Chancellor of the Exchequer and I have been concerned to ensure that, taking full account of the scope for efficiency and other savings, Customs and Excise are allocated the appropriate level of resources to undertake their essential functions. For 1985–86 the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced on 10 October that Customs and Excise manpower would be increased by 185 posts above previous planning levels. This included 160 extra staff for customs preventive controls: the making permanent of 60 temporary posts allocated to enhance controls of both passengers and freight in 1984–85 and 100 new posts for the fight against drugs smuggling in 1985–86. These posts will be used in areas where they are most likely to yield results, for example, in increased intelligence gathering and targeted operations and in improving selective controls. Their deployment will be the subject of formal management proposals in due course, so that there will be a proper opportunity for the Trade Union Side to make any detailed points in the context of the Civil Service Whitley machinery. I believe your claim underrates the very considerable successes achieved by Customs and Excise against drugs smuggling in recent years. For example, in the first 10 months of this year Customs and Excise seized over 250 kilos of heroin which is a considerable increase over the 212 kilos seized in the whole of 1983 and the 40 kilos seized in 1979. Over 200 persons have been arrested in relation to heroin offences so far this year, of whom more than 60 were principals or organisers rather than mere carriers. On 4 October Customs, assisted by police, seized almost five tonnes of cannabis from a ship in the River Crouch — one of the largest-ever seizures in Britain. These achievements reflect favourably on the Customs and Excise service and on the success of the intelligence-based approach to targeted operations which account for most of the larger seizures. I do not accept the implication in your claim that increased Customs seizures derive from no more than a pro rata increase in the rate of drugs smuggling. To sum up, the new allocation of resources reflects our determination, as part of the Government's co-ordinated strategy against drugs abuse, to reinforce Customs' efforts and to build on their successes. I assure you that I shall continue to take a close interest in Customs' assessment of the drugs smuggling situation and the results achieved. Equally, the adequacy of Customs' resources will be carefully watched and will be reviewed as part of the 1985 public expenditure survey.