|Previous Section||Index||Home Page|
Mr. Hoban: To ask the Secretary of State for Innovation, Universities and Skills how much was paid under the Union Learning Fund to (a) ASLEF, (b) BECTU, (c) BFAWU, (d) Community, (e) CWU, (f) GMB, (g) MU, (h) NACODS, (i) NUM, (j) TSSA, (k) UCATT, (l) UNISON, (m) UNITE, (n) UNITY and (o) USDAW in each year since 1998. 
Mr. Lammy: Trade unions have a key role to play in promoting the development of learning and skills in the workplace. To help them do this more effectively, we introduced the Union Learning Fund (ULF) in 1998. This funding is helping trade unions use their influence with employees, employers and training providers to encourage greater take-up of learning at work and boost their own capacity as learning organisations. The table sets out how much ULF funding has been awarded to the specific unions in each financial year from 1998/99 up to 2006/07.
The recently formed trade union UNITE has not yet received any ULF funding so details have been included of the funding awarded to those unions which have merged to form UNITEAMICUS, T and G, GPMU, AEEU, MSF and UNIFI.
Mr. MacNeil: To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform what procedures his Department has in place to assess the performance of designated representative bodies under the Enterprise Act 2002. 
Mr. Thomas: In order to become a designated super-complainant, bodies must meet a number of stringent criteria. Designations are reviewed every two years to ensure continued compliance. There are also procedures in place for withdrawal of designation if a body no longer meets the criteria or if they are believed to be abusing the super-complaints process (e.g. for competitive advantage or commercial gain). Any super-complainant must also comply with the Office of Fair Tradings Guidance for designated consumer bodies.
Mr. MacNeil: To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform what best practice guidance his Department has issued to representative bodies designated under the Enterprise Act 2002 on communication with consumers who have sought advice on obtaining redress under the Act. 
Mr. Thomas: In the case of super-complaints, the Secretary of State has responsibility for the designation of super-complaints bodies. Best practice guidance on the making of super-complaints is the responsibility of the Office of Fair Trading.
In the case of consumer group claims, the Secretary of State is responsible for the designation of specified bodies. Guidance on bringing consumer group claims is the responsibility of the Competition Appeal Tribunal.
Mr. Hoban: To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform what items of his Departments (a) revenue and (b) expenditure are uprated using (i) the consumer prices index, (ii) the retail prices index and (iii) other measures of inflation. 
Mr. Thomas: Where relevant, contracts which BERR has entered into will contain a clause to adjust expenditure and revenue in accordance with inflation. Revenue derived from charges or fees will follow appropriate guidance, and is subject to an inflator where this is recommended by the fees and charges guide.
Statutory redundancy payments and guaranteed insolvency payments for employees (paid from the National Insurance Fund), employment tribunal compensatory awards, payments to British Energy relating to contractual historic spent fuel liabilities, and payments in respect of Coal Health provisions are uprated using RPI. Concessionary Fuel payments are uprated using other measures of inflation.
Sarah Teather: To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform what consultancy contracts his Department issued in each year since 2005; what the (a) value, (b) purpose and (c) contractor was in each case; and whether the consultants report is publicly available in each case. 
Susan Kramer: To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform how many (a) male and (b) female members of staff working in his Department were issued with personal digital assistants in each year since 2001; and if he will make a statement. 
Mr. Thomas: The Department does not keep historic records of the number of personal digital assistants (PDAs) that were issued to staff or any information on the gender of the user as PDAs are issued solely on the basis of business need.
Between 2001 and 2006 there were approximately 400 PDAs in use. These were mainly palm devices although a few HP and Compaq PDAs were purchased. The total has reduced as the number of staff in the Department has decreased. At the beginning of 2007 a Blackberry service was implemented. By January 2008 there were 361 PDAs issued to staff. An analysis of this number shows that 235 of these have been issued to male and 126 to female members of staff.
|Next Section||Index||Home Page|