Ms Josephine Feehily:

I could not argue that if I could devote more resources to these tiers of debt management, I am quite confident we would get a return on that investment. I could not disagree with this and it would not be fair to ourselves if I did. However, we receive mixed messages. If we went after aged debt ruthlessly, there is no doubt that we would be in a situation involving business closures and job losses. Therefore, as I discussed with Deputy Simon Harris, we try to strike a balance in getting the money. As I said, 98% of the charges raised is disposed of the following year. The appeals process is entirely different, as it is completely outside our control. We are a protagonist in the appeals system. We do not run it. People think that because they are known as the appeal commissioners that somehow we have control.

We have no control over the timelines and the money is simply not accessible to us. For example, a very long-running case that went to the Supreme Court in relation to our general anti-avoidance rule took 15 years to go right through the various appeal stages up, down, over and back, so that money was just not there for 15 years. The average length of time for appeals that do not go to the multiple courts is about 2.5 years. We cannot improve the efficiency of the appeals system. That one third is out of our reach. Certainly in relation to the others, I cannot disagree that different application of resources might lead to a different outcome in terms of the disposal of the debt, but it might not lead to collection if we are too ruthless. It might lead to a ballooning write-off, a ballooning closure of businesses and then the consequences. Earlier Deputy Harris asked me if we took into account future income streams. It will certainly impact on future income streams so I do not think it is that simple, but, at the same time, the Chairman's basic premise that if I had bodies I could collect money-----