To ask the Minister of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills how many reports reviewed as part of the recent Statement of Insolvency Practice 16 performance report did not provide sufficient information to creditors on valuation and marketing. (290055)

The disproportionate cost threshold for providing an answer to a parliamentary question is £750.

The area of the Department responsible for answering a parliamentary question assesses the costs involved, including staff and other resources, and whether this represents disproportionate cost.

To answer this question would involve examining some 202 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.

To ask the Minister of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills how many of the failed reports referred to in the recent Statement of Insolvency Practice 16 performance report related to insolvency practitioners under each of the authorising bodies in the UK. (290056)

The disproportionate cost threshold for providing an answer to a parliamentary question is £750.

The area of the Department responsible for answering a parliamentary question assesses the costs involved, including staff and other resources, and whether this represents disproportionate cost.

To answer this question would involve examining some 202 separate reports. Administration appointments are also often held by more than one insolvency practitioner acting on a joint and several basis.

To determine which insolvency practitioners provided information deemed non-compliant with SIP 16 by reference to their authorising body would therefore require significant staff resources, which would be in excess of the £750 disproportionate cost threshold.

To ask the Minister of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills which insolvency practitioners persistently breached Statement of Insolvency Practice (SIP) 16 as referred to in the recent SIP 16 performance report. (290058)

The Insolvency Service considers that the information you have requested is exempt information under section 40 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA). Section 40 (2) applies where the information sought is not the personal data of the applicant and either of the conditions in subsections 3 or 4 of that section is satisfied.

The Insolvency Service considers that subsection 3 applies, and disclosure of the personal data of the insolvency practitioners reporting to The Insolvency Service under the SIP 16 provisions to you would contravene the first data protection principle. The first data protection principle is defined in part 1 of schedule 1 of the Data Protection Act (DPA) and requires that data be processed fairly and lawfully and only processed if at least one of the conditions in schedule 2 is met.

The disclosure of personal information about the insolvency practitioners to you would amount to data processing as defined by the DPA in contravention of this principle as none of the conditions in schedule 2 apply.

To ask the Minister of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills what steps he has taken to ensure that creditors have been provided with missing information in Statement of Insolvency Practice (SIP) 16 cases where compliance was lacking, as referred to in the recent SIP 16 performance report. (290059)

The issuing of a report under the requirements of SIP 16 is in addition to the requirements of the Insolvency Act 1986 whereby the administrator must issue a full report on his proposals for the administration within eight weeks of his appointment. In the circumstances we have not requested further missing information be published as it should be contained within the administration proposals and sent to creditors. It is always open to creditors to seek further information from the administrator if they wish to do so.

To ask the Minister of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills what steps he plans to take to incorporate the recommendations of the recent Statement of Insolvency Practice (SIP) 16 performance report in SIP 16 guidance. (290084)

The Insolvency Service will work with the Recognised Professional Bodies (which authorise the majority of insolvency practitioners) to strengthen SIP 16 where necessary and issue further guidance to practitioners to ensure that creditors are given a detailed explanation and justification of why a pre-packaged sale was undertaken, so that they can be satisfied that the administrator has acted with due regard for their interests.

To ask the Minister of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills what steps his Department takes to recover funds from disqualified directors after their companies have been declared insolvent; and if he will make a statement. (290404)

If an order for costs is made against a disqualified director as a result of an application by the Secretary of State or official receiver under the Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986, then the Insolvency Service uses contract solicitors to recover those costs or to negotiate an appropriate sum.

To ask the Minister of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills what responsibility his Department has for the (a) investigation and (b) bringing of legal proceedings against directors of insolvent companies in circumstances in which there is evidence of misfeasance during the winding up of the company in question; and if he will make a statement. (290405)

If the company has entered voluntary liquidation, receivership or administration, the responsibility for the investigation and the bringing of legal proceedings for misfeasance, in an asset recovery context, is a matter for the insolvency practitioner. In compulsory winding up cases, it is the responsibility of the official receiver if the official receiver remains liquidator. In practice if there is a misfeasance case to answer, in an asset recovery context, the official receiver will write to the creditors to ask whether they are prepared to fund legal proceedings. If sufficient creditors are prepared to do so, the official receiver will seek the appointment of an insolvency practitioner as liquidator to take the matter forward. Without funding from the creditors it is not possible to take recovery proceedings unless there are already substantial asset realisations in the estate and the creditors have agreed to there monies being used for this purpose.

If misfeasance is alleged as a matter of unfitted conduct in a disqualification context, then in a voluntary liquidation, receivership or administration, the insolvency practitioner has a statutory duty to report the matter to the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State then has discretion to decide whether it sufficiently serious to warrant further investigation and disqualification proceedings being taken in the public interest. In a compulsory liquidation, the official receiver must decide whether it is sufficiently serious to justify submitting a disqualification report to the Secretary of State and if a disqualification report is submitted, the Secretary of State must consider the report and decide whether to authorise disqualification proceedings.

To ask the Minister of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills whether his Department releases to company creditors Insolvency Service reports on the actions of disqualified directors; and if he will make a statement. (290403)

Details of unfit conduct by a disqualified director are made available to creditors and other third parties via the Insolvency Service’s website and via press releases. Official Receivers may also provide an additional report to creditors on the unfit conduct.