|Previous Section||Index||Home Page|
Mrs. Spelman: To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government what recent guidance the Foods Standards Agency has issued on the selling of home-cooked food at village fetes and community events; and what licences or permits are required for its sale. 
For community events or clubs, the most recent guidance regarding food hygiene rules and on good hygiene practice, as well as on the rules regarding labelling of foods is
covered in a question and answer format on the Food Standards Agency's "Eatwell" website at:
Mrs. Spelman: To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government how much in central Government grants, including (a) specific and (b) special grants, was given to local authorities for (i) waste collection and (ii) waste disposal in the latest 12 month period for which figures are available. 
In 2008-09 Defra directly provided £78.2 million in funding to local authorities outside London via the Waste Infrastructure Capital Grant. £60 million will be made available to London authorities through the London Waste and Recycling Fund for the period 2008-09 to 2010-11. These unringfenced capital grants will be paid to upper tier and unitary authorities to enable them to set up the necessary waste infrastructure to help England meet landfill targets.
Defra also provides financial support to local authorities through Private Finance Initiative credits to help accelerate the building of the infrastructure needed to treat residual waste without compromising efforts to minimise waste and increase recycling levels. To date £2.5 billion has been allocated to 37 projects. Further information can be found on Defra's website.
The Waste and Resources Action Programme (WRAP) provided a total of £2.68 million to local authorities during 2008-09. The funds were spent on local communications campaigns specifically to improve communications with householders about local recycling services and to promote the 'Love Food Hate Waste' campaign. WRAP has no remit in relation to waste disposal and has not, therefore, provided any funds to local authorities in relation to it.
Mr. Oaten: To ask the Minister of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills how many companies which have received support from UK Trade and Investment in the last 12 months have also received support from a regional development agency in that period. 
Ian Lucas [holding answer 14 October 2009]: UKTI does not collate these figures. UKTI acts as the trade arm for the regional development agencies (RDAs), providing trade services for companies. Where companies have been helped by both UKTI and the RDAs, it will be on separate forms of business support.
Mr. Oaten: To ask the Minister of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills what information his Department holds on the charitable purposes of (a) First Securitisation Company Limited and (b) Capita IRG Trustees Limited. 
Ian Lucas: The Department does not hold any information concerning charitable purposes of the First Securitisation Company Limited or Capita IRG Trustees Limited. Neither company is a registered charity.
Mr. Oaten: To ask the Minister of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills how many Statements of Insolvency Practice (SIP) 16 reports have not provided sufficient information to creditors on valuation and marketing; and how many insolvency practitioners have been recorded as failing to comply with SIP 16 reporting requirements. 
Ian Lucas [holding answer 14 October 2009]: The Insolvency Service does not record SIP 16 information in a format that is readily able to identify how many SIP 16 reports have not provided sufficient information to creditors on valuation and marketing.
To answer this part of the question would involve examining hundreds of separate reports. To determine which of those reports did not provide sufficient information regarding valuation and/or marketing would require significant staff resources, which would be in excess of the £750 disproportionate cost threshold.
The Insolvency Service published a report on its' first six months monitoring of SIP 16 in July 2009. The report indicated that SIP 16 information provided in relation to 202 out of a total of 572 companies entering administration during the period was deemed to be not fully compliant. The Insolvency Service's monitoring of SIP 16 information is continuing and a further report will be published in the new year.
It should be noted that the number of insolvency practitioners involved in the provision of non-compliant SIP 16 information is not the same as the figure indicated above. This is because the majority of insolvency practitioners undertaking pre-pack administrations, and therefore providing SIP 16 information, are appointed on multiple appointments. In addition, the majority of administration appointments are held by more than one insolvency practitioner on a joint basis.
Mr. Oaten: To ask the Minister of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills how many times officials of (a) his Department and (b) the Insolvency Service have met representatives of recognised professional bodies to discuss Statements of Insolvency Practice (SIP) 16 in the last 12 months; and what representations (i) his Department and (ii) the Insolvency Service has received from the insolvency industry on the implementation and review of SIP 16. 
[holding answer 14 October 2009]: The Insolvency Service carries out the Secretary of State's function with regard to both the direct authorisation of insolvency practitioners and the regulation of the recognised professional bodies that authorise the vast majority of insolvency practitioners. The Department has therefore
not had any direct liaison with the recognised professional bodies on the issue of SIP 16 as this has been undertaken by the Insolvency Service.
There have been three separate meetings during 2009 between the Insolvency Service and representatives from the recognised professional bodies to discuss the implementation and monitoring of SIP 16. The most recent meeting was held in September to discuss issuing guidance to practitioners to improve compliance with SIP 16. As a result of that meeting, the Insolvency Service has drafted guidance for insolvency practitioners, which is currently being reviewed by the recognised professional bodies prior to being issued.
Many of the recognised professional bodies issued their own guidance on SIP 16 immediately following the publication of the report on the first six months operation of the SIP, to improve compliance. The bodies have welcomed further guidance and have agreed to issue the latest guidance at the same time as it is issued by the Insolvency Service. R3, the trade body for insolvency practitioners, has invited the Insolvency Service to take part in training at meetings and conferences to improve compliance with the SIP.
The Insolvency Service is also a member of the Joint Insolvency Committee along with all the recognised professional bodies, which holds quarterly meetings to review guidance issued to insolvency practitioners. In the course of these meetings and those of sub-groups of the Committee, SIP 16 will have been discussed in general terms.
The Insolvency Service is working closely with the recognised professional bodies to improve insolvency practitioners' compliance with the SIP and to consider whether and how the SIP may be strengthened.
Lorely Burt: To ask the Minister of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills how many draft reports from the investigators of the collapse of MG Rover were provided to the Government for comment before publication of the final report on 11 September 2009. 
Ian Lucas [holding answer 14 October 2009]: The Government were involved in the MG Rover inspection both as supervisor and as a witness. An information barrier was put in place at an early stage to keep the information held by those supervising the inspection separate from Government witnesses and their advisers.
Officials involved in the supervision of the inspection read a draft of each of the chapters of the Inspectors' report as they became available and fed comments back to the Inspectors. The Inspectors continued to work on the drafts and, where they made substantive amendments, officials re-read chapters or sections of chapters. The drafts were read at the offices of the Secretariat to the inspection.
The Government also provided information and gave witness evidence to the inspection. As with other witnesses to the inspection, Government witnesses and their advisers were given an opportunity to comment on provisional criticisms from the Inspectors. Some extracts of the draft report were also provided to the Government witnesses and their advisers where the Inspectors intended to make specific reference to Government evidence.
Mr. Oaten: To ask the Minister of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills what collaborative research and development projects the Technology Strategy Board has funded in each of the last three years; and how much funding has been provided for each project. 
Mr. Oaten: To ask the Minister of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills whether the Technology Strategy Board has developed a practice appraisal and evaluation regime to measure the success of its activities. 
Mr. Lammy: The Technology Strategy Board operates an appraisal and evaluation regime covering the performance of its activities such as the programmes it delivers and the support mechanisms it uses and also at an individual project level.
The mechanisms Technology Strategy Board uses to deliver support such as Collaborative R&D, Knowledge Transfer Networks and Knowledge Transfer Partnerships are evaluated on a regular basis (usually every two years) as part of the evaluation of the products which come under the Support for Business portfolio to ensure that they continue to meet the needs of business and deliver successful results.
Individual projects are monitored on a quarterly basis during the life of the project and a final report is produced at the end of the project demonstrating the outcomes achieved. Since the Technology Strategy Board was established, it has also introduced post project evaluation at one year and five years after the end of the project, particularly to understand the economic impact. Due to the nature of the support provided by the Technology Strategy Board, the true impact of the project is often not known until a period of time after the project has completed.
The Technology Strategy Board is currently undertaking work to further develop a framework to continue to develop and refine its metrics and impact measures to be able to understand at a more detailed level the impact of its activities. It is also working more broadly with NESTA, BIS and ESRC to develop an Innovation Index to measure UK innovation.
To ask the Minister of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills pursuant to the answer of 9 September 2009, Official Report, column 2093W, on the UK Innovation Fund, which budgets within his Department other than the Strategic Investment
Fund he will draw on to accumulate the remaining £25 million for the UK Innovation Fund; and how much he will draw from each budget. 
Mr. Lammy [holding answer 14 October 2009]: As a trading fund the Intellectual Property Office has built up retained earnings of around £55 million. The Department has identified these reserves as a source of the remaining £25 million funding for the UK Innovation Investment Fund. Drawing on these reserves as an equity withdrawal will enable the Department to invest in the fund whilst continuing to meet its other commitments.
Miss McIntosh: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what his most recent estimate is of the number of people diagnosed with dementia; what assessment he has made of likely trends in numbers of dementia diagnoses to 2020; and if he will make a statement. 
Phil Hope: The Department has not made a recent estimate of the likely number of people diagnosed with dementia. However, the Alzheimers Society's Dementia UK report, published in 2007 estimated that there were then 560,000 people in England with dementia and that numbers would rise to over 750,000 by 2020.
Under European Community regulations, posted workers and their dependents from member states of the European economic area and Switzerland are entitled to access state-funded healthcare on production of form E106. State pensioners and their dependents registered on form E121, in accordance with the same regulations, access state-funded healthcare in the same way as someone ordinarily resident in the UK.
Mr. Oaten: To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many helplines his Department operates; and how much his Department has received from the operation of such helplines in each of the last three years. 
David Simpson: To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much his Department spent on overnight accommodation for (a) Ministers and (b) officials while overseas in each of the last three years. 
The list for 2008-09 was published on 16 July 2009. Travel by Ministers and civil servants is undertaken in accordance with the "Ministerial Code" and the "Civil Service Management Code" respectively.
|Next Section||Index||Home Page|