§ Dr. CableTo ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what the cost was of specialist asset recovery teams in Customs and Excise used for the recovery of assets from directors involved in fraudulent companies in(a) 2001–02 and (b) 2002–03; how many staff were deployed in these teams in (i) 2001–02 and (ii) 2002–03; and what assets were realised by these teams in (A) 2001–02 and (B) 2002–03; [140183]
(2) how many staff were employed in Customs and Excise debt management units in (a) 2001–02 and (b) 2002–03; and how many new staff were recruited in (i) 2001–02 and (ii) 2002–03; [140184]
(3) if he will set out the Customs and Excise National Standards time limits for handling recoverable debt cases; and what the outturn against target was of debt management units in (a) 2001–02 and (b) 2002–03; [140185]
1325W(4) how much debt was owed to Her Majesty's Customs and Excise on 31 March (a) in total and (b) broken down by type of debt; how much debt was owed as a percentage of the total amount of taxes and duties collected by Her Majesty's Customs and Excise; and what the change was in the number of unresolved debts between 31 March 2002 and 31 March 2003; [140269]
(5) what the value of new debt owed to Her Majesty's Customs and Excise notified to the debt management units in 2002–03 is; and how much of that new debt was represented by VAT missing trader fraud; [140270]
(6) how much missing trader fraud debt owed to Her Majesty's Customs and Excise was outstanding at the end of 2002–03. [140271]
§ John Healey20 staff were employed in Customs' asset recovery teams in 2001–02 and 25 in 2002–03. They secured £23.5 million in assets in 2001–02 and £17.8 million in 2002–03. It is not possible to identify the overall cost of operating these teams. 929 staff were employed in debt management in Customs in 2001–02 and 892 in 2002–03. This includes staff involved in security, insolvency, civil recovery and other debt management work outside the debt management units. There was turnover of staff within these figures, with individuals moving into and out of the function, but it is not possible to identify the number of new staff recruited in those years.
The National Standards for debt management did not include timescales for handling recoverable debt in either 2001–02 or 2002–03. Current standards require a positive outcome on recoverable debt within three months for first time and occasional defaulters, or six months for persistent defaulters recruited in those years.
Total debt owed to Customs at the end of the 2002–03 accounting period was £2,311 million. This was 1.5 per cent. of the total amount of taxes and duties collected by Customs, and included £1,159 million suspended debt and £1,152 million recoverable debt. The number of unresolved debts was not measured in 2001–02, but Customs had 344,983 cases on hand at the end of the 2002–03 accounting period.
During 2002–03 £4,974 million in new debt was advised to debt management units. Of this £824 million resulted from MTIC fraud, although some of this figure related to cases opened in previous years.
At the end of 2002–03 £546 million in missing trader fraud debt was still owed to Customs.
§ Dr. CableTo ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many staff were deployed by Her Majesty's Customs and Excise to tackle VAT missing trader fraud in(a) 2001–02 and (b) 2002–03; what the cost of deploying such staff was in each case; and what other costs there were in pursuing the VAT missing trader fraud strategy in each case. [140272]
§ John HealeyThe number of staff deployed to tackle VAT missing trader fraud can be found in "Tackling Indirect Tax Fraud" (November 2001), a copy of which is available in the Library of the House.
The figure for 2002–03 will be published later this year.
1326WCustoms does not maintain information about the costs in the format requested and it could be produced only at disproportionate cost.
§ Mr. GrayTo ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer of 6 November 2003,Official Report, column. 800W, with regard to Customs, whether the prohibited firearm was (a) produced to Customs from (i) the person and (ii) baggage, (b) loaded with ammunition and (c) ready to fire; for how long Customs exercised their control over the firearm; and by what means it left the United Kingdom. [140446]
§ John HealeyThe records still available show that the importation referred to in my earlier answer was correctly declared in accordance with established regulations and procedures, and that there were no irregularities.
Some of Customs' records relating to regulatory controls on importations of firearms at Farnborough in 1999 have been destroyed under Customs' obligations in relation to the Data Protection Act 1998 and the Public Records Acts, as they relate to legitimate movements and are no longer required for administrative purposes. Following further investigation of the remaining records, I have now been informed that the single importation referred to in my previous answer related to four firearms and a quantity of ammunition, rather than a single firearm, and I regret that inadvertently this was not made clear to the hon. Gentleman. These firearms were surrendered by one or more passengers on a flight which arrived at Farnborough in March 1999.
The additional information requested is no longer available, and Customs cannot say with certainty how the items were taken into control, how long the firearms were in Customs' control or how and when they were re-exported from the United Kingdom.