|Previous Section||Index||Home Page|
Mr. Spring: To ask the Minister of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills how many people in (a) England and (b) Suffolk aged 60 or more years have declared themselves bankrupt in each year since 1997. 
Ian Lucas: The available information on the number of bankruptcies in England and in Suffolk, aged 60 or more years, may be seen in Table 1 as follows. Information prior to 2000 is not available on this basis.
|Table 1: Bankrupts aged 60 and over( 1, 2)|
|(1 )Where the bankrupt has provided a valid date of birth (between 90-93 per cent. of cases over the period covered).|
(2 )Where the bankrupt has provided a valid postcode (increasing from 88 per cent. of cases in 2000 to 97 per cent. in 2008).
Mr. Oaten: To ask the Minister of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills pursuant to the answer of 29 June 2009, Official Report, column 97W, on insolvency, how many reports from insolvency practitioners alleging misconduct have been received by the Insolvency Service in each of the last three years; and how many such reports have been pursued to investigation stage. 
Mr. Oaten: To ask the Minister of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills how many company directors have been disqualified from the Insolvency Service following an investigation in each of the last three years; and what the average disqualification period was in each such year. 
Ian Lucas [holding answer 13 July 2009]: The Insolvency Service obtains disqualifications under sections 6 and 8 of the Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986 (CDDA). Some disqualifications are obtained under section 2 of the CDDA following criminal proceedings that have resulted in directors being convicted of an indictable offence in connection with the promotion, formation, management, liquidation or striking off of a company.
Mr. Oaten: To ask the Minister of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills pursuant to the answer of 29 June 2009, Official Report, column 97W, on insolvency, what estimate he has made of the cost of regulating compliance with Statement of Insolvency Practice 16; and from which budget such costs will be met. 
Ian Lucas [holding answer 13 July 2009]: The cost of the Insolvency Service's monitoring of Statement of Insolvency Practice (SIP) 16, relating to pre-packaged administrations, has been estimated at £100,000 for the current financial year. The monitoring is undertaken on a cost recovery basis, and will therefore be recovered from the recognised professional bodies that regulate insolvency practitioners by way of levy.
The cost of regulating insolvency practitioners' compliance with SIP 16 in terms of considering and implementing appropriate regulatory and disciplinary actions remains with the relevant recognised professional bodies.
Daniel Kawczynski: To ask the Minister of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills if he will restrict or prohibit the supply to Zimbabwe by UK companies of technologies capable of use to monitor, inspect or filter internet content. 
Ian Lucas: There are currently no plans to restrict further or prohibit the supply to Zimbabwe by UK companies of technologies capable of use to monitor, inspect or filter internet content. The export of these technologies would already be controlled if they employed cryptography or were specially designed for military use. European Union sanctions against Zimbabwe, outlined in Council Regulation (EC) No 314/2004, also allow Communications Intercept Devices to be controlled where they might be used for internal repression.
In such cases, all export licence applications are rigorously assessed on a case-by-case basis against the Consolidated EU and National Arms Export Licensing Criteria and a licence would not be issued if to do so was inconsistent with the criteria.
Richard Burden: To ask the Minister of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills what progress has been made in discussions between his Department and Jaguar Land Rover in respect of loan guarantees; and when he expects the discussions to be completed. 
Mr. Rob Wilson: To ask the Minister of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (1) when he was first informed of the inaccuracies relating to student data and funding at London Metropolitan University; 
(3) what reasons representatives of the London Metropolitan University provided to the Higher Education Funding Council for England for its return of incorrect data on completion rates for the academic years (a) 2005-06, (b) 2006-07 and (c) 2007-08; 
(5) if he will commission an independent investigation into the recent submission of data on non-completion rates by London Metropolitan University to the Higher Education Funding Council for England. 
Mr. Lammy: I will answer these questions on the current situation at London Metropolitan university (LMU) together. In doing so it should be borne in mind that responsibility for resolving these issues falls to the funding council and the university. Ministers are precluded in legislation from decisions on the funding of individual institutions. In answer to the specific questions:
Fourth, the funding council already has a number of processes in place to ensure the accuracy of the data institutions provide which inform their funding. It was these processes that identified the problems at LMU.
Fifth, it is for the funding council to account for the funds it distributes. It has itself decided to commission an independent report into its handling of the situation at LMU. It will report to its board in July and will be made public. In addition the National Audit Office will be undertaking a study of the financial health of the HE sector later this year. It is likely to include LMU in that study. As such I will not be commissioning a separate investigation.
Mr. Sanders: To ask the Minister of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills what recent assessment his Department has made of the level of skills shortage in each (a) industrial sector and (b) region. 
|Vacancies( 1)||SSVs( 1)||Percentage of vacancies that are SSVs||SSVs per 1,000 employees|
|(1) Denote base sizes of 25 to 49 and should be treated with caution.|
(2) Indicates particularly high values
(3) Indicates particularly low values.
Figures rounded to the nearest 25.
'*' Used where the base size was less than 25.
|Next Section||Index||Home Page|