---

14 Feb 2006 : Column 1839W—continued

Lisbon Agenda

Keith Vaz: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will assess British progress in fulfilling the criteria of the Lisbon Agenda; when he expects the UK to have fulfilled those criteria; and if he will make a statement. [50218]

Mr. Ivan Lewis: At the 2005 Spring European Council, European leaders agreed to re-launch the Lisbon Strategy with a renewed emphasis on Growth and Jobs. Since 2001, average GDP growth has been 2.3 per cent. in the UK compared to just 1.4 per cent. in the euro area. The UK is also one of just three member states that meet all three Lisbon employment targets. And as set out in the Chancellor's Pamphlet Global Europe: Full Employment Europe" (October 2005), the UK has an ongoing economic reform agenda for Europe.

National Insurance

Paul Flynn: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much greater the income of the National Insurance Fund would have been (a) in each year from 2003–04 to 2006–07 and (b) in total for that period if the additional National Health Service allocation under the National Insurance Contributions Act 2002 in respect of employers' contributions had been a percentage of earnings over the secondary threshold on which contributions are payable instead of a percentage of total earnings; and if he will take steps to ensure that funds to the total value of the additional income which would have been so raised is remitted to the Fund. [50288]

Dawn Primarolo: The NHS allocation is calculated in accordance with Section 162 of the Social Security Administration Act 1992. The National Insurance Fund provides funds to pay state retirement pensions and other contributory benefits and is currently in surplus.

There is no question of the National Insurance Fund being left in a position where commitments to pensioners and other benefit claimants cannot be met. However, the information requested is provided in the following table:
 
14 Feb 2006 : Column 1840W
 

Extra Income to the National Insurance Fund if Increased NHS Allocation from NICs Act 2002 Applied to Earnings over Secondary Threshold Only

	£ million
2003–04	940
2004–05	970
2005–06	1,010
2006–07	1,050
Total	3,970

Notes:
1. The figures provided are for Great Britain accruals and are in cash (i.e. not constant prices) terms.
2. The figures provided are estimates from the model used to forecast National Insurance contributions and are consistent with PBR2005 projections.
3. All figures have been rounded to the nearest £10 million.

Mr. Byers: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) how many people who are self-employed and working abroad paid the voluntary class 2 national insurance contribution in each of the last 10 years; [51532]

(2) how many people living abroad have changed their national insurance contributions from class 3 to class 2 in each of the last 10 years. [51533]

Dawn Primarolo: The following table shows how many people paid class 2 or 3 contributions whilst abroad from 1997–98 onwards. Similar information is not available for earlier years. Information on the numbers that are paying class 2 and who are in employment abroad or who have changed from paying class 3 to paying class 2 contributions, is not readily available. Such information could only be provided at a disproportionate cost.

	Number of individuals with voluntary class 2 contributions from abroad	Number of individuals with voluntary class 3 contributions from abroad	All
2003–04	16,000	37,000	53,000
2002–03	13,000	39,000	52,000
2001–02	10,000	36,000	46,000
2000–01	6,000	36,000	42,000
1999–2000	5,000	33,000	38,000
1998–99	4,000	28,000	32,000
1997–98	2,000	21,000	23,000

Population

Mr. Amess: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what his estimate is of the current population of (a) each Essex borough and (b) each ward in Southend West constituency based on (i) the 2001 Census, (ii) electoral rolls and (iii) health service users; and what projections he has made for the next five years. [50479]

Mr. Ivan Lewis: The information requested falls within the responsibility of the National Statistician who has been asked to reply.

Letter from Karen Dunnell, dated 14 February 2006:

As National Statistician, I have been asked to reply to your question regarding the current population of (a) each Essex borough and (b) each ward in Southend West constituency based on (i) the 2001 Census, (ii) electoral rolls, and (iii) health service users; and what projections have been made for the next five years. (50479)

 
14 Feb 2006 : Column 1841W
 

The tables attached provide the information you have requested. Data for Essex local authorities, including the former Essex authorities of Southend-on-Sea and Thurrock, are shown in Table 1 and Table 2. Data for wards in Southend West are shown in table 3.

ONS publishes annual mid-year population estimates. The latest estimates are for mid-2004 and are given in Table 1. These mid-year population estimates are calculated using a robust methodology and are the best estimates of the resident population in an area. They are based on aged-on 2001 Census data adjusted for births, deaths, and net migration. Further information on the methodology can be found at:

www.statistics.gov.uk/StatBase/Product.asp?vlnk=575.

Population projections for each local authority in Essex, for mid-2005 to mid-2010, are also given in Table 1. These projections are based on the mid-2003 population estimates and are the latest population projections available. They assume that trends in fertility, mortality and migration at the time of the mid-2003 population estimate will continue into the future.

Electoral rolls provide counts of the number of people registered to vote. The latest available data, on the local/European electorate and the Parliamentary electorate, for local authorities in Essex can be found in the Table 2. These data are for 1 December 2004. It should be noted that the number of people eligible to vote is not the same as the resident population aged 18 and over. There are numerous reasons for this. For example not everyone who is usually resident is entitled to vote (foreign citizens from outside of the EU and Commonwealth, prisoners, etc. are not eligible), some people do not register to vote and people who have more than one address may register in more than one place. Further, there is inevitably some double counting of the registered electorate as electoral registration officers vary in how quickly they remove people from the registers after they have moved away from an area or after they have died. These factors have a differential impact from area to area.

 
14 Feb 2006 : Column 1842W
 

The number of people registered with a GP, living in each local authority in Essex, in July 2004, can also be found in the Table 2. It should also be noted that patient register counts differ from estimates of the usually resident population for a number of reasons.

Patient registers include people who are in the country for at least three months, whereas population estimates are based on a usual residence definition requiring a stay of 12 months or more. The patient registers exclude individuals who are ineligible to be registered with a GP. People may be on a patient register after having left the country and not deregistered with their GP; similarly people may have moved to another area and not re-registered. Some patients may have more than one NHS number e.g. they may have been issued a temporary number for a short period. Again, these factors have a differential impact from place to place.

Ward data are shown in Table 3; the points set out above also apply to wards. However, there are some further points to note for wards.

The most recent population estimates for wards are for mid-2002. The closest available geography to current electoral wards, for which population estimates are available, is Census Area Statistics (CAS) wards. This geography was created for outputs from the 2001 Census and is based mainly on 2003 electoral wards. The CAS ward level population estimates have been published with the status of experimental statistics". Therefore, the estimates, and figures derived from them, should be treated with some care. The margin of confidence for population estimates is proportionately larger at ward level than at local authority level.

The ONS does not produce projections of population at ward level.

Table 3 contains CAS ward electorate counts for December 2002 and 2004 as well as patient register figures for July 2002 and July 2004. The 2002 figures are given for comparison with population estimates and 2004 are the latest available data.

Finally, the local government electorate is definitionally closer to the population estimates, however these data are not available at ward level. Hence, the Parliamentary electorate is shown.

Table 1: Mid-2004 population estimates and mid-2005 to mid-2010 population projections (2003-based )

Thousand
	Population estimate	Population projections(9)
	Mid-2004	Mid-2005	Mid-2006	Mid-2007	Mid-2008	Mid-2009	Mid-2010
Southend-on-Sea	159.6	161.0	161.4	161.8	162.3	162.8	163.4
Thurrock	145.7	147.6	148.8	150.0	151.1	152.3	153.5
Basildon	166.5	166.9	167.2	167.5	167.8	168.2	168.6
Braintree	136.2	138.7	140.6	142.4	144.1	145.8	147.5
Brentwood	70.2	69.4	69.3	69.2	69.2	69.1	69.1
Castle Point	86.8	87.6	87.9	88.2	88.4	88.7	89.0
Chelmsford	159.8	159.2	159.6	159.9	160.4	160.8	161.2
Colchester	160.7	160.3	161.1	161.9	162.7	163.5	164.3
Epping Forest	121.3	121.8	122.1	122.4	122.7	123.1	123.5
Harlow	77.5	77.9	77.9	78.0	78.1	78.2	78.3
Maldon	60.3	61.5	62.1	62.8	63.5	64.1	64.8
Rochford	79.1	80.0	80.5	81.0	81.5	82.0	82.4
Tendring	141.5	143.7	145.2	146.6	148.1	149.6	151.0
Uttlesford	70.4	70.7	71.0	71.3	71.7	72.0	72.3

⁽⁹⁾ The population projections shown in this table are taken from the 2003-based subnational population projections, the latest set of projections currently available. Therefore they may not be consistent with the 2004 mid year estimate presented in the first column.
Source:
Office for National Statistics

Table 2: Electoral register counts (December 2004) and patient register counts (July 2004)

	Electors(10)	Parliamentary electors(11)	Patient register
Southend-on-Sea	125,485	124,491	176,781
Thurrock	107,264	106,736	148,941
Basildon	127,487	126,889	179,677
Braintree	105,204	104,658	141,950
Brentwood	53,277	52,838	75,669
Castle Point	69,378	69,188	92,654
Chelmsford	126,748	125,948	167,686
Colchester	123,060	121,535	167,076
Epping Forest	92,249	91,429	127,977
Harlow	55,609	55,172	84,296
Maldon	46,111	45,931	63,449
Rochford	63,384	63,212	83,699
Tend ring	109,242	108,839	142,897
Uttlesford	54,873	54,323	74,976
Southend West Constituents	65,523	65,070	91,494

⁽¹⁰⁾ Local government electors are those people who are entitled to vote in local elections and who meet the residence qualification. These include Peers and European citizens but exclude overseas voters.
⁽¹¹⁾ Parliamentary electors are those people who are entitled to vote in parliamentary elections at Westminster and who meet the residence qualification. Those include overseas voters but exclude Peers and European citizens.
Source:
Office for National Statistics.



 
14 Feb 2006 : Column 1843W
 

Table 3: CAS wards in Southend West parliamentary constituency: population estimates, 2001 census, electorate counts, and patient register counts

Ward code	Ward name	Population Estimate Mid-2002	Electorate December 2002	Electorate December 2004	Patient Register July 2002	Patient Register July 2004
00KFMP	Belfairs	8,871	7,315	7,373	9,426	9,568
00KFMQ	Blenheim Park	10,035	7,565	7,684	10,805	10,816
00KFMR	Chalkwell	9,287	7,221	7,368	10,387	10,356
00KFMS	Eastwood Park	9,343	7,555	7,663	9,787	9,929
00KFMU	Leigh	9,004	6,998	7,120	9,727	9,794
00KFMX	Prittlewell(12)	9,575	7,617	7,521	10,267	10,429
00KFMY	St Laurence	9,678	7,468	7,597	10,139	10,154
00KFNE	Westborough	10,214	6,873	7,102	11,014	11,113
00KFNF	West Leigh	8,668	6,886	6,931	9,210	9,335

⁽¹²⁾ This ward also falls within Rochford and Southend East Parliamentary Constituency. Data for the whole ward are shown, as it is not possible to split this data for this ward into the two constituencies.
Notes:
1. The mid-2002 ward population estimates are consistent with the published mid-2002 local authority estimates (September 2004 revisions).
2. Whilst the ward population estimates are produced down to unit level, it is not implied that the estimates are accurate to this level of detail.
3. The electorate counts are taken from the statutory RPF 29 returns.
Source:
Office for National Statistics

Mr. Stewart Jackson: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the accuracy of the most recent population figures provided by the Office for National Statistics for the City of Peterborough. [51394]

Mr. Ivan Lewis: The information requested falls within the responsibility of the National Statistician who has been asked to reply.

Letter from Karen Dunnell, dated 14 February 2006:

As National Statistician, I have been asked to reply to your question about what assessment of the accuracy of the population figures provided by the Office for National Statistics has made in relation to Peterborough. (51394)

Population estimates are calculated using an internationally respected methodology. Further information can be found in the detailed methodology guide 'Making a population estimate in England and Wales'. This is published here: http://www.statistics.gov.uk/StatBase/Product.asp?vlnk=575

It is becoming increasingly difficult to estimate the size of the population because of changes in society, which include increased mobility and different living arrangements. The decennial Census provides a benchmark against which national and sub-national population estimates can be assessed. Substantial work has been done on the difference between mid-year population estimates and the 2001 Census. This work is summarised in the final report of the
 

14 Feb 2006 : Column 1844W
 

2004 Local Authority Population Studies, which can be found here: http://www.statistics.gov.uk/downloads/theme_population/LAStudy_FullReport.pdf

These studies confirmed that the 2001 Census had worked well in most areas, including Peterborough, but there were a few cases where the adjustment for under-enumeration was not able to adjust sufficiently for exceptional circumstances. This work, together with revised international migration estimates, accounted for a large proportion of the initial 1.1 million difference between mid year estimates and the Census; reducing the difference to a little over 0.2 million.

In addition, extensive annual quality assurance is undertaken in order to ensure the accuracy of the annual mid-year estimates. Quality assurance starts with detailed checking of the source data used in the components of change (birth, deaths, etc.). Procedures are then in place to ensure that these data sources are correctly processed when deriving the estimates. The calculated national and sub-national estimates, for all 376 local authorities in England and Wales, are then subject to a further set of quality assurance procedures before they are published. These procedures include reviews of sex ratios and age profiles, comparisons of change over time, and comparisons of fertility and mortality rates. Substantial effort has already been undertaken, in recent years, to improve the quality assurance of population estimates.

ONS is also now investing substantially in a project to Improve Migration and Population Statistics (IMPS). (More information on this project can be found at: www.statistics.gov.uk/IMPS). The key aims of this project are to reduce the size of the difference between the 2011 Census results and the mid-year estimates and to better understand any difference that does remain. As part of
 

14 Feb 2006 : Column 1845W
 

this project, we are developing a data comparator tool to enable us to compare the annual mid-year estimates against a range of administrative sources. This work is ongoing and the results will inform our understanding of the accuracy of the mid-year population estimates. The tool was trialled in the mid-2004 population estimates, which were published in August 2005.

Another strand of the IMPS project is a review of the quality assurance procedures that are currently in place for population estimates. One of the aims of this review is to assess what improvements can be made to existing procedures, and determine whether additional quality assurance is required.

ONS also produces population projections for each local authority area. The methodology used in the production of the subnational population projections is an established and recognised methodology. Subnational population projections undergo extensive quality assurance before publication. In addition, local authorities and health authorities are consulted on the first year of migration assumptions used as the baseline trend for migration.

Population estimates and projections are supplied to the ODPM. I understand that ODPM make checks to ensure that the data as provided by the ONS have been correctly entered into their calculations for allocating Formula Grant to local authorities. Otherwise, they do not make any assessment of accuracy of the data supplied, as this responsibility lies with the ONS.

Mr. Burrowes: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the accuracy of the population figures provided by the Office for National Statistics in relation to Enfield. [50864]

Mr. Ivan Lewis: The information requested falls within the responsibility of the National Statistician who has been asked to reply.

Letter from Karen Dunnell, dated 14 February 2006:

As National Statistician, I have been asked to reply to your question about what assessment of the accuracy of the population figures provided by the Office for National Statistics has made in relation to Enfield. (50864)

Population estimates are calculated using an internationally respected methodology. Further information can be found in the detailed methodology guide 'Making a population estimate in England and Wales'. This is published here: http://www.statistics.gov.uk/StatBase/Productasp?vlnk=575

It is becoming increasingly difficult to estimate the size of the population because of changes in society, which include increased mobility and different living arrangements. The decennial Census provides a benchmark against which national and sub-national population estimates can be assessed. Substantial work has been done on the difference between mid-year population estimates and the 2001 Census. This work is summarised in the final report of the 2004 Local Authority Population Studies, which can be found here:

http://www.statistics.gov.uk/downloads/theme_population/LAStudy_FullReport.pdf

These studies confirmed that the 2001 Census had worked well in most areas, including Enfield, but there were a few cases where the adjustment for under-enumeration was not able to adjust sufficiently for exceptional circumstances. This work, together with revised international migration estimates, accounted for a large proportion of the initial 1.1 million difference between mid year estimates and the Census; reducing the difference to a little over 0.2 million

In addition, extensive annual quality assurance is undertaken in order to ensure the accuracy of the annual mid-year estimates. Quality assurance starts with detailed checking of the source data used in the components of change (birth, deaths, etc.). Procedures are then in place to ensure that these data sources are correctly processed when deriving the estimates. The calculated national and sub-national estimates, for all 376 local authorities in England and Wales, are then subject to a further set of quality assurance procedures before they are published. These procedures include
 

14 Feb 2006 : Column 1846W
 

reviews of sex ratios and age profiles, comparisons of change over time, and comparisons of fertility and mortality rates. Substantial effort has already been undertaken, in recent years, to improve the quality assurance of population estimates.

ONS is also now investing substantially in a project to Improve Migration and Population Statistics (IMPS). (More information on this project can be found at: www.statistics.gov.uk/IMPS ) The key aims of this project are to reduce the size of the difference between the 2011 Census results and the mid-year estimates and to better understand any difference that does remain. As part of this project, we are developing a data comparator tool to enable us to compare the annual mid-year estimates against a range of administrative sources. This work is ongoing and the results will inform our understanding of the accuracy of the mid-year population estimates. The tool was trialled in the mid-2004 population estimates, which were published in August 2005.

Another strand of the IMPS project is a review of the quality assurance procedures that are currently in place for population estimates. One of the aims of this review is to assess what improvements can be made to existing procedures, and determine whether additional quality assurance is required.

ONS also produces population projections for each local authority area. The methodology used in the production of the subnational population projections is an established and recognised methodology. Subnational population projections undergo extensive quality assurance before publication. In addition, local authorities and health authorities are consulted on the first year of migration assumptions used as the baseline trend for migration.

Population estimates and projections are supplied to the ODPM. I understand that ODPM make checks to ensure that the data as provided by the ONS have been correctly entered into their calculations for allocating Formula Grant to local authorities. Otherwise, they do not make any assessment of accuracy of the data supplied, as this responsibility lies with the ONS.

---