| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Internet
Mr. Sheerman:
To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what use he plans to make of the Internet to make Government more open. [5098]
24 Jun 1997 : Column: 456
Mrs. Liddell:
The Treasury's Internet site (http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk) has received various commendations and awards, and has been warmly received by the public. The site offers a wide range of information and documentation, which we are committed to expanding the scope of further. Some of the information already published on the site includes all Treasury news releases, speeches, consultation documents, and Treasury occasional papers. Next week, shortly after the Chancellor finishes his statement, we shall be making the speech and the related Budget documentation available on the site. In the 1996 Budget week the site was accessed almost 400,000 times, up from 250,000 accesses in 1995. We expect even greater levels of interest next week.
Mr. Timms:
To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what responses the Treasury has received in reply to the initiative on misselling of personal pensions announced by the Economic Secretary to the Treasury on 14 May. [5472]
Mrs. Liddell:
On 14 May I spoke to senior representatives of the 24 firms which are together responsible for nearly three-quarters of the cases requiring review under the terms of the guidance issued by the Securities and Investments Board (SIB). I told them of the Government's concern about the delays in completing these case reviews and challenged them to perform to better standards than those expected in the targets set by SIB and the Personal Investment Authority (PIA) for each firm. I also made clear that, in the public interest, I plan to publish regular information about each firm's progress.
I am placing copies of my letters to these firms in the Library of the House. In them I asked for information about their strategies for case reviews and for monthly information about progress with cases. In the letters, I set out my intention to publish the information provided, firm by firm, in the spirit of open government, and in the interests of the investors and the investing public generally. I now have replies from all 24 firms. I am placing copies in the Library of the House and making them available to the press.
Most of these replies suggest a willingness to deliver the targets for completion of case reviews set by the regulators. A number of companies claim to have adopted practices which will hasten the conclusion of case reviews. These include providing additional staff, placing responsibility with a director and outsourcing expertise where there are resource constraints. I regret that some firms place more emphasis on the impediments to progress such as information flows and the scarcity of appropriate expertise. It is important that case reviews are treated as a matter of priority so that investors can be reassured that their pensions are secure.
There are also some indications that firms are adopting, or considering, accelerated case management techniques which will improve the speed of case handling without prejudicing investors' rights. Such methods include waiving consideration of whether sales procedures were strictly at fault; use of automatic formulae to top up certain smaller cases; and potentially guarantees which will ensure that investors will either get reinstatement into occupational schemes or equivalent treatment where that proves impossible. I shall be looking for evidence that
24 Jun 1997 : Column: 457
firms are showing their sincerity and commitment to customer service while moving quickly to adopt such streamlined procedures.
While most of the policy statements sent to me showed a businesslike sense of purpose, I regret that there are two which appear to misunderstand the Government's determination that this matter must be resolved with dispatch. The Sedgwick Group is quite wrong to assert that the Government's initiative on 14 May was in any way under-researched. And I am not convinced by the objections of the board of Legal and General to well merited criticisms of the industry's performance so far.
When I met these firms on 14 May I made clear that, in the public interest, I would review progress each month and publish information monthly about the progress being made by each firm toward delivery of the regulators' targets. Some firms have already demonstrated that the pace of their reviews is quickening. I trust that this trend will accelerate over the months to come. But progress must not be made through shortcuts achieved to the detriment of investors' rights. Any attempt of this nature will quickly be picked up by the quality control process which the regulators will carry out at my request.
When I review the progress made by each of the 24 firms each month, I will consider what further action may be called for if I am not convinced of their good intentions. I wish the first reports to be available to me by 3 July, and each month thereafter. It is now urgent that the pensions industry honours its commitments and puts its house in order. Only in that way can it assure its customers, and indeed the general public, of its ability to look after their interests responsibly.
Mr. Mitchell:
To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list for each year since 1970 (a) the nominal and real rate of interest and (b) the change in the nominal and real rate of exchange based on relative unit values for manufactures based on the second half of 1973 equals 100. [2025]
Mrs. Liddell:
The information requested falls within the responsibility of the Chief Executive of the Office for National Statistics. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.
Letter from Tim Holt to Mr. Austin Mitchell, dated 24 June 1997:
The Chancellor of the Exchequer has asked me to reply as the Director of the Office for National Statistics to your recent question (2025) on the nominal and real rate of interest.
24 Jun 1997 : Column: 458
The nominal rate of interest is an average over the year. The price index used is the rate of change in prices over the year.
All figures were rounded to the nearest 0.25 percentage point.
Mr. Leigh:
To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the mean average number of dependent children for each year since 1971 following the form of table 2.6 of "Living in Britain" for the family type whose head of household is (a) married, (b) cohabiting, (c) a lone mother and (d) a lone father. [4792]
Mrs. Liddell:
The information requested falls within the responsibility of the Chief Executive of the Office for National Statistics. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.
Letter from Tim Holt to Mr. Edward Leigh, dated 24 June 1997:
24 Jun 1997 : Column: 459
Base numbers are in brackets, and correspond to the number of respondents in the survey within each group.
Mrs. Liddell:
The information requested falls within the responsibility of the Chief Executive of the Office for National Statistics. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.
Letter from Tim Holt to Mr. Edward Leigh, dated 24 June 1997:
The attached table shows nominal and real rates of interest for the dates requested. The real rate of interest is the nominal rate of interest deflated by a measure of price change over 12 months. There are many different interest rates and price indices and therefore many ways of calculating real interest rates. However, interest rates move in line and thus overall movements provide an accurate indication of general movements.
The retail banks' base rate was used to represent the interest rate. This is the rate of interest retail banks lend to each other and can be considered the market interest rate for the UK economy. It moves in line with the Bank of England's Minimum Lending Rate (the minimum rate the Bank discounted bills to relieve money market shortages), which represents the cost of borrowing for retail banks from the Bank.
The nominal rate of interest was deflated by the average annual change in the retail prices index excluding mortgage interest payments (RPIX), except between 1970-1976 where the headline retail price index (RPI) was used. RPIX was used in preference to RPI, since i) the nominal interest rate is a priori sensitive to changes in mortgage rates and ii) the real interest rate is compatible with the Government's chosen inflation target measure. Data for RPIX between 1970 and 1976 was not available.
For the second part of the question, refer to Export unit value index for the United Kingdom published in table 2.16 of ONS monthly publication Economic Trends. This data is supplied to us from the Department of Trade and Industry. For methodology for the derivation of the export unit value index, refer to Competitiveness in Manufactures article on page 43 of June 1997 edition of ONS publication Economic Trends. The Department of the Environment can give more detail on international comparisons.
Year Nominal rate of interest percentage per annum Real rate of interest percentage per annum
1970 7.25 1.25
1971 5.50 0.75
1972 6.00 1.00
1973 9.25 1.00
1974 12.25 0.75
1975 10.50 0.50
1976 11.00 0.75
1977 9.50 0.50
1978 9.50 1.00
1979 13.75 1.00
1980 15.50 1.00
1981 14.25 1.25
1982 11.25 1.25
1983 10.00 2.00
1984 10.00 2.25
1985 12.50 2.50
1986 11.00 3.00
1987 9.50 2.50
1988 9.00 2.00
1989 14.50 2.50
1990 14.00 1.75
1991 12.00 1.75
1992 9.25 2.00
1993 5.75 2.00
1994 5.75 2.50
1995 6.50 2.25
1996 6.00 2.00
The Chancellor of the Exchequer has asked me to reply, as Director of the Office for National Statistics, to your recent question about the average number of dependent children.
Mr. Leigh:
To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the age of the youngest dependent child by family type following the form of table 2.9 of "Living in Britain", indicating the percentages of children living in a household headed by a person who is (a) married, (b) cohabiting, (c) a lone mother, (d) a lone father and (e) a lone parent. [4844]
The analysis requested is not currently available from published or unpublished tables produced from the General Household Survey (GHS). Table 2.6 in Living in Britain (SO, 1997) is the only breakdown of mean (average) number of dependent children by family type available for each year since 1971. Unpublished information on the average number of dependent children for lone mother families and lone father families is available for the 1994 and 1995 surveys. The figures are:
Family type 1994 1995
Married/cohabiting couples 1.9 (2,442) 1.9 (2,358)
Lone mothers 1.7 (660) 1.7 (607)
Lone fathers 1.3 (48) 1.5 (51)
All lone parents 1.7 (708) 1.7 (658)
All families with dependent children 1.8 (3,150) 1.8 (3,016)
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |