HC Deb 07 October 2003 vol 411 cc11-3W
Mr. Gray:

To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer pursuant to his answer of 8 September 2003, Official Report,column 96W, on the ASPIRE programme, if he will list the potential suppliers with whom the Inland Revenue had engaged in a market-making exercise as part of its plan for the ASPIRE project, indicating in each case whether Inland Revenue or the supplier approached the other first in this matter; when the market-making exercise was (a)conceived by Inland Revenue, (b)launched with these potential suppliers and (c)completed; and how much (i) tax, (ii) interest and (iii) in penalties had been recovered from the suppliers as a whole as a consequence of Inland Revenue compliance activities in the 36 months leading up to the launch with these potential suppliers of the market-making exercise. [131370]

Dawn Primarolo:

The potential suppliers the Inland Revenue engaged with as part of the market making exercise for the ASPIRE project were:

  • Accenture
  • American Management Systems (AMS)
  • Capita
  • Cap Gemini Ernst and Young (CGEY)
  • Computer Science Corporation (CSC)
  • Electronic Data Services (EDS)
  • Hewlett Packard (HP)
  • International Business Machines Corporation (IBM)
  • Fujitsu Services
  • CMG Logica
  • Microsoft
  • PWC Consulting
  • Science Application International Corporation (SAIC)
  • Schlumberger Sema

In all cases, the Inland Revenue made the first approach.

The Market Making exercise was conceived by the Inland Revenue between August and October 2001, and was launched on 31 October 2001. The exercise continued until 10 May 2002—the closing date for responding to the OJEC notice for the competition. Not all of the potential suppliers responded to the OJEC notice. In addition, an open meeting was held for all interested suppliers on 7 March 2002, which was attended by 42 potential suppliers.

It is a long-standing principle that information provided to the Inland Revenue for tax purposes is treated as confidential and not disclosed to anyone else without the taxpayer's consent. Exceptions to the principle arise only in very restricted circumstances, such as orders by the court to provide information or where Parliament has sanctioned disclosure by specific statutory provisions. There are statutory provisions to ensure confidentiality of taxpayer information and any unauthorised disclosure is a criminal offence. It is for these reasons that I am unable to provide the hon. Member with the information that the hon. Member seeks on these companies.

Mr. Gray:

To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer pursuant to his Answer of 8th September, Official Report, column 103W, what criteria were set for the payment of performance related pay in the years 1999–2000 to 2002–03 to the Commissioners of Inland Revenue or their officers, in support of Project ASPIRE or its antecedents. [132187]

Dawn Primarolo:

For staff in departmental (grades) pay bands payment of performance pay was dependent upon satisfactory performance measured against an individual's performance agreement. Each performance agreement sets out an individual's key responsibilities and objectives relative to ASPIRE and any other key business objectives they may have had for the years in question. The performance and contribution of the commissioners and other staff in the Senior Civil Service is additionally assessed in relation to that of others in the same pay band.

Forward to