| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Departmental Targets
Ms Armstrong: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is the published recommended response times within which his Department is expected to reply to letters from the public. [3004]
Mr. Lang: The published targets for letters for ministerial reply are as follows:
Substantive reply sent within 10 working days: 77 per cent.
Substantive reply sent within one calendar month: 98 per cent.
More detailed information about individual management units, performance measures, including timeliness targets for responding to correspondence from the public are published annually in the Department's MINIS documents. Copies of MINIS 94 and MINIS 95 are available in the Library of the House. Agencies' targets are also published in their annual reports.
Investors in People
Mr. Byers: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what steps his Department is taking to achieve investor in people status; when it started the process; when it expects to achieve investor in people status; and if he will make a statement. [2984]
Mr. Lang: The Department announced its formal commitment to working towards investor in people accreditation in May 1994. This was followed by a full diagnosis of the relevant procedures and attitudes within the Department. A draft action plan was produced which is now being extended to cover staff who joined the DTI from the Cabinet Office and the former Employment Department in the latest machinery of Government changes. The revised plan will be submitted to Central London training and enterprise council for approval within the next few weeks, although the key changes in procedures are already being put in place. A trial IIP
30 Nov 1995 : Column: 825
assessment is planned for the summer of 1996. The timing of the final assessment will be decided in the light of the results of the trial.
"Realising our Potential" Awards
Mrs. Anne Campbell: To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many applications were received for responsive mode (non-ROPAS) grants by the (a) the Medical Research Council, (b) the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council, (c) the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council, (d) the Particle
30 Nov 1995 : Column: 826
Physics and Astronomy Research Council and (e) the Economic and Social Research Council in 1994-95; how many were turned down because of ineligibility; how many were x-rated; and how many were (i) accepted and (ii) rejected. [2991]
Mr. Ian Taylor: The information requested is set out in the following tables. Because of the differing ways the research councils organise their grant schemes it is not possible to provide all the information precisely as requested.
Particular attention should be paid to the explanatory notes.
| Research Council | Number of applications | Number x- rated | Number of awards | Number of ineligible | Number rejected |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| BBSRC | 1,107 | 775 | 313 | -- | 794 |
| EPSRC(1) | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- |
| ESRC | 925 | 562 | 178 | 47 | 747 |
| MRC | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- |
| NERC | 486 | 275 | 115 | -- | 371 |
| PPARC(1) | 412 | 353 | 294 | 0 | 118 |
| Research Council | Number of applications | Number x-rated | Number of awards | Number of ineligible | Number rejected |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| BBSRC | 1,121 | 879 | 253 | -- | 868 |
| EPSRC(1) | 1,036 | -- | 417 | -- | 619 |
| ESRC | 834 | 522 | 225 | 18 | 609 |
| MRC | 987 | 790 | 217 | -- | 770 |
| NERC | 524 | 346 | 101 | -- | 423 |
| PPARC(1) | 259 | 221 | 181 | 0 | 78 |
30 Nov 1995 : Column: 825
30 Nov 1995 : Column: 825
30 Nov 1995 : Column: 826
1 For EPSRC and PPARC readily available grants data does not distinguish responsive and non-responsive proposals. The figures shown are therefore for all non-ROPA grants.
BBSRC: the council does not record the number of ineligible applications received.
ESRC: 'ineligible' applications include those rejected by the office as unsuitable for processing on technical grounds (outside Council's remit or insufficiently specified). Also includes applications withdrawn by candidates, the ESRC have supplied two sets of figures for the 'rejected' category;
the figures shown are for all applications not funded which includes unfunded alphas;
the alternative figures are 363 (1994) and 312 (1995) for all non-alpha applications not funded which is the category which ESRC regards as 'reject'.
EPSRC: the new EPSRC grants system began on 1 January 1995. The period 1 April 1994 to September 1994 was spent dealing with applications made to SERC and Phase 1 ROPAs. This was followed by what was essentially an inter-regnum during which responsive applications received and grants awarded were insignificant and mainly related to maintaining support for existing groups;
the EPSRC does not have closing dates for its grant scheme;
readily available grants data does not distinguish responsive and non-responsive proposals;
the data relates to responsive mode proposals (excluding ROPAs) received and fully considered between 1 January and 31 July 1995.
MRC: the figures relate to the 1 August 1994-31 July 1995 grant round;
MRC do not keep statistics on ineligible applications.
NERC: figures are for academic years 1993-94 and 1994-95; ineligible applications are sifted out at an early stage and are therefore not sent for peer review or considered by the Research Grants Training and Awards Committee. As a consequence no applications fall into the ineligible category.
PPARC: PPARC have been unable to identify responsive and non-responsive grants separately; figures therefore reflect the whole of the grants portfolio;
it is not yet possible to provide a full picture for '1995' because PPARC is part way through a grants round.
Royal Cornish Consols United Tin Mines Cost Book Co.
Mr. Harris: To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on factors leading to the Department of Trade and Industry discharging the receiver appointed to investigate the activities of the Royal Cornish Consols United Tin Mines Cost Book Co.; and if he will publish the receiver's report. [2580]
Mr. John M. Taylor: The receiver was appointed by the High Court as part of injunctive proceedings designed principally to bring an end to a misconceived tax avoidance scheme. That receiver has obtained his release from the court, and has not produced any report for this Department.
30 Nov 1995 : Column: 827
Mr. Hardy:
To ask the President of the Board of Trade what action has been taken during the last six months to reduce state aid for steel production within the EC. [2962]
Mr. Eggar:
The Commission ordered the repayment of illegal state aid to a steel producer in Germany. Formerly, state-aided companies in Spain, Portugal and Italy have been privatised. At the November 1995 Industry Council, the Commission, while proposing an exceptional derogation for Irish steel, reaffirmed its commitment to avoid putting forward any future requests for derogation from the steel aid rules. The UK Steel Subsidies Monitoring Committee has played a part in maintaining the pressure to end steel subsidies in Europe.
Mr. Hardy:
To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is the current order book of the British steel industry; and what it was in each of the last three years. [2964]
Mr. Eggar:
Information on orders outstanding is not available. Figures of total orders booked in each of the last four years are in the table.
| 12 months ending September | Million tonnes |
|---|---|
| 1992(1) | 13.8 |
| 1993 | 14.0 |
| 1994 | 14.9 |
| 1995 | 14.5 |
Note:
(1)53 week period.
Source: ISSB Ltd.
Life Funds
Mr. Hinchliffe: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what approaches have been received from Australian Mutual Providence regarding the proposed release of surplus moneys from the life funds; and what reasons have been given for such a proposal. [3354]
Mr. John M. Taylor: The Department does not comment on its contacts with individual companies.
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |