| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
27 Feb 2006 : Column 339W—continued
National Insurance
Mr. Keetch: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many people have been waiting for their national insurance contributions to be recorded on the computer system since 2003. [52676]
Dawn Primarolo: We are not aware of any taxpayers who are waiting to have their national insurance contributions to be recorded on the computer system since 2003. Any taxpayers who contact HMRC will have their query dealt with as quickly as possible.
Pensions Mis-selling
Mr. Donaldson: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will take steps to extend the period within which policy holders can lodge a claim for compensation for the mis-selling of endowment policies. [53912]
Mr. Ivan Lewis: This is an operational matter for the FSA, which is independent of Government.
FSA rules, introduced after extensive public consultation, allow time limits for complaints, as they recognise that firms need to be able to limit their liability in terms of stale or frivolous claims.
Mr. Laurence Robertson: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what recent discussions he has had with the Financial Ombudsman Service on steps it can take to speed up the consideration of claims for pension mis-selling; and if he will make a statement. [54002]
Mr. Ivan Lewis:
The Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS) is operationally independent of Government. Ministers and officials meet the FOS on a regular basis to discuss a wide range of issues.
27 Feb 2006 : Column 340W
Mr. Laurence Robertson: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the average time taken was by the Financial Ombudsman Service to determine claims for pensions mis-selling in 2004–05; and if he will make a statement. [54003]
Mr. Ivan Lewis: The Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS) is unable to provide figures for mis-selling cases only, as they record their data for cases received by product type, rather than complaint type. The average time taken by the FOS to resolve all complaints about pension products is 8.5 months.
The time taken by the FOS to resolve cases depends largely on whether the consumer and the firm both agree at an early stage to any recommendation or informal settlement that we may suggest, or whether either the consumer or the firm request the formal process. Factors that can affect the time taken by the FOS to resolve complaints include the complexity of cases, the volume of cases in a particular product area and the time taken by both firms and consumers to respond to inquiries.
Planning Gain Supplement
Mr. Holloway: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the likely impact of the proposed planning gain supplement on (a) levels of house building and (b) house prices in Gravesham. [52076]
John Healey:
As set out in the consultation document published alongside the 2005 pre-Budget report, a planning-gain supplement (PGS) would capture a portion of the increase in land value created by the grant of planning permission to help finance the infrastructure needed to support new development. PGS would be used to ensure that land value uplifts benefit local communities and support efforts to expand housing supply.
27 Feb 2006 : Column 341W
In her review of housing supply, 2004, Kate Barker demonstrated that builders would pass the cost of PGS back to the landowner through lower prices bid for the land.
Mr. Drew: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the likely impact of the proposed planning gain supplement on the granting of planning permission on exception sites in rural areas. [52087]
John Healey: The Government published a consultation document on the proposed planning-gain supplement (PGS) alongside the 2005 pre-Budget report, and is seeking the views of stakeholders.
Chapter 4 of the document sets out further details of the scope of PGS, including minimum thresholds and exemptions.
Population (Chorley)
Mr. Hoyle: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what his estimate is of the population of each ward in Chorley borough council. [52617]
John Healey: The information requested falls within the responsibility of the National Statistician, who has been asked to reply.
Letter from Karen Dunnell, dated 27 February 2006:
As National Statistician, I have been asked to reply to your question regarding estimates of the population of each ward in Chorley Borough Council. (52617)
The most recent population estimates for wards are for mid-2002. The estimates for wards in Chorley are given in the attached table. The closest available geography to current electoral wards, for which population estimates are available, is Census Area Statistics (GAS) 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 towed 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.
Notes:
1. Figures are consistent with the published mid-2002 local authority estimate for Chorley (September 2004 revision).
2. Figures have been rounded to the nearest hundred and may not sum to the published mid-2002 estimate for Chorley.
Source:
Office for National Statistics.
27 Feb 2006 : Column 342W
Population (Tamworth)
Mr. Jenkins: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the accuracy of census figures for (a) Tamworth constituency and (b) Staffordshire in each of the last two censuses; and if he will make a statement. [53446]
John Healey: The information requested falls within the responsibility of the National Statistician who has been asked to reply.
Letter from Karen Dunnell, dated 27 February 2006:
As National Statistician I have been asked to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question asking what assessment has been made of the accuracy of census figures for (a) Tamworth constituency and (b) Staffordshire in each of the last two censuses. (53446)
Following the 2001 Census for England and Wales, the Office for National Statistics (ONS) undertook an extensive programme of work to investigate the reasons for the difference between the 2001 Census and the mid-year population estimates (MYEs) at both national and local authority levels. This program of work included a series of local authority studies carried out in 2004 which were designed to improve the MYEs in the areas that proved hardest to count in the Census. The results of these studies showed that better estimates of the population could be made in 15 areas and an adjustment was made to the MYEs in these areas. For the rest of the country, including the eight local authorities in Staffordshire, it was found that the 2001 Census-based population estimate remains the best estimate of the population. A full report on these Local Authority Studies can be found at: www.statistics.gov.uk/downloads/theme_population/LAStudy_FullReport.pdf
The Census 2001 Quality report for England and Wales provides information about all aspects of quality relating to the 2001 Census. It provides an overview of the quality issues and the studies and analyses that have been carried out to improve the quality of census data. The Quality report is held in the House of Commons Library or can be downloaded from www.statistics.gov.uk/census2001/proj_qr.asp
Additional information pertaining to the quality of results from the 2001 Census for local areas can be found at: www.statistics.gov.uk/census2001/stat_methods_qual.asp
Official assessments of the quality of the 1991 Census were published in the 1991 Census General Report (ISBN 0–11–691616–8) and User Guide 58 (Undercoverage in Great Britain). These were carried out at national level and no assessment of quality was made for individual Local Authorities. The General Report is held in the House of Commons Library and User Guide 58 may be obtained from Census Customer Services: census.customerservices@ons.gov.uk
The 1991 Census Validation Survey assessed the coverage of the Census and the quality of the Census information recorded about those people who were successfully enumerated. The 1991 Census Validation Survey: Quality Report (ISBN 0–11–691688–5) and 1991 Census Validation Survey: Coverage Report (ISBN 0–11–691591–9) are also held in the House of Commons Library.
Mr. Jenkins: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what his estimate is of the current population of each ward in the Tamworth constituency based on (a) the 2001 census, (b) electoral rolls and (c) health service users; and what projections he has made for the next five years. [53447]
27 Feb 2006 : Column 343W
John Healey: The information requested falls within the responsibility of the National Statistician who has been asked to reply.
Letter from Karen Dunnell, dated 27 February 2006:
As National Statistician, I have been asked to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question regarding the estimate of the current population of each ward in the Tamworth constituency based on (a) the 2001 Census, (b) electoral rolls and (c) health service users; and what projections have been made for the next five years. (53447)
The table attached provides the information you have requested. 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 table contains CAS ward electorate counts for December 2002 and 2004. The ward electorate counts are for parliamentary electors, including attainers.
The 2002 electorate counts are given for comparison with the population estimates, the latest available electorate counts are for 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.
Patient register figures for July 2002 and July 2004 are included in the table. The 2002 patient register figures are given for comparison with the population estimates, the latest available patient register counts are for 2004.
It should 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 differentia impact from place to place.
Notes:
1. The mid-2002 ward population estimates are consistent with the published mid-2002 local authority estimates (September 2004 revisions), and have been rounded to the nearest hundred.
2. The electorate counts are taken from the statutory RPF 29 returns.
Source:
Office for National Statistics
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |